Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1053

188.252.196.122

I believe this is the same IP who reported me at ANI, which was a failure, but that is besides the point. I would like to focus on the personal attacks and harrassement through hounding they made at Talk:Domenico Losurdo, including personal attacks such as accusing other users of allegedly sympathising with Stalinism or alleging that BunnyyHop and I were conspiring against them, even though I had several disagreements with BunnyyHop at Talk:Marxism–Leninism.

The IP wrote "I'm not accusing anyone of being a convinced Stalinist nor do I want to draw others into this discussion, but on the other hand, I can see that you and Bunny hop are cooperating very well, whether consciously or unconsciously", implying there is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry, again without evidence and ignoring I have actually disagreed with the other user on several points elsewhere here. This is not consistent with what they actually wrote, without evidence, namely that "[t]his page is constantly edited and vandalised by users who sympathize Stalinism" and "[t]his is being done by users who are of Stalinist background. For example, the last time the article was edited it was by an user called User:Davide King who under the same name ('David King') promotes Stalinism on Quora and has the picture of Stalin as his profile picture there." They state this as fact.

The IP falsely and quite literally accused me of being a "Stalinist" (so much for "not accusing anyone of being a Stalinist"), without evidence, when I do not really use Quora, I am not even sure I actually created an account, I only log in through Gmail, I did not make any question or answered any and this was based on the similarly of the name ("David King" and "Davide King", even though my username is Davide King; by this perverse logic and unsubstantiated accusation, am I a sockpuppet of User:David King?). Finally, the IP engaged in edit warring and they were reverted by at least four editors, including 4thfile4thrank and C.Fred. I just noticed now they had been already warned at the talk page and even blocked for it, but they continue edit warring and making personal attacks or falseand misleading insinuations.

The "Stalinist" allegations are certainly personal attacks ("Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.") I do not known if hounding me on Quora, even though that is not actually me, is a violation but the "Stalinist" allegations are certainly personal attacks; and to think they have been already warned for edit warring and attacking other editors here, here and here by C.Fred, yet today they continued to edit war with a misleading edit summary and more personal attacks and false accusations such as "I see you're quite familiar with the mechanisms of Wikipedia and how they may be used to neutralise 'unfavorable' facts." Either the IP is given one last warning and stop doing this, or they should be sanctioned. Davide King (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The IP appears to be a SPA whose only interest is in the Domenico Losurdo article, and who is editing that article with a very definite PoV, and apparently against talk page consensus. Combined with the personal attacks described by Davide King about, I think that adds up to a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Asking for a larger rangeblock on Cambridge Canada vandal

Recent activity by the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cambridge Canada vandal shows that he has been shifting to different /64 ranges within a larger group. Can we block the larger group? Perhaps the answer is to block the /52 or /48, for instance Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:6000:0:0:0:0:0/52. Note that the /32 is already subject to a partial block, preventing access to the article Longo's, which is probably not the vandal in question, but someone else in the range. The most recently active /64 is Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:6000:3DA:0:0:0:0/64. Back in 2015 I referred to this guy as the box office bomb vandal, and he reverted to form yesterday with this edit focusing on a bomb film. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

79.100.19.9 – BLP "muslims" category issue

• 79.100.19.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Large-scale addition of unsourced categories defining BLPs as muslims with over 250 edits yesterday and today alone. I warned them during their previous editing spree about a week ago. I think a block and rollbacking their edits is required. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit summaries that are either problematic or absent

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

---

I'm not sure what to do with Jay D. Easy (talk · contribs). They are a relatively seasoned user with plenty experience, yet some aspects of their behavior are troubling. They've been chastised by other editors a few times for nonsensical/insulting/rude edit summaries--see notes on their talk page by User:Tarl N., User:Doug Weller, User:7&6=thirteen, User:DMacks, in May 2019; for a lack of edit summaries by User:Eric in November 2019; for POINTy edit summaries by User:Pdebee in December 2019; for uncivil edit summaries by User:The ed17 in January 2020; for "inappropriate and uncivil accusations" by User:Richard Keatinge in April 2020; absence of edit summaries by User:Peaceray in October 2020, and again in November, also by User:Jetstreamer. Note their dismissive answer and a kind of threat in these responses.

I saw all this because I followed up on two edits yesterday: this and this. In both cases they are reverts of edits by User:PiercingEyes, and I can't see anything obviously wrong with them. I asked them about it yesterday after I reverted one of them, and got no response; the editor was back here, working, but didn't respond or self-revert, so I reverted the second one, and warned the editor. No response. I don't know exactly what I am looking for here; I am not eager to block, but there is a longterm pattern of uncollegiality and disruption here. Edit summaries like this one, that's really not cool, and this revert seems really unjustified to me. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say final warning then block. Multiple patterns of refusal to discuss editorial concerns about their edits that are on-their-face problematic. Even if many/most of the un/poorly-explained ones wind up being okay, it's WP:DE to waste everyone else's time, especially given at least one other editor's note that there are content (not just ES) problems in some of the edits. Make it a clear requirement as a final opportunity to demonstrate collaborative behavior: "every edit must have a non-sarcastic plain-language explanation of the basis change being made." DMacks (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree, with an added stipulation - non-confrontational. It's been over a year, but I still remember my interaction with this editor - I was thoroughly unimpressed. There are editors who can make useful contributions, but for some reason feel a need to antagonize everyone. His dismissive "don't take it personally" was particularly inappropriate. Over the long term, I believe such editors are a net negative to the project. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Be helpful: explain is part of the Wikipedia:Editing policy. Both Twinkle & RedWarn use {{uw-delete1}} through {{uw-delete4im}}, & they both have {{uw-editsummary}} & {{uw-summary2}} available as well.

Although Help:Edit summary describes a leaving a summary as a good practice, it in itself is not a guideline or policy. It is clear in its advice Always provide an edit summary; It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit. Furthermore, in its hatnote, it states It may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting. I think that we also need to look at WP:CONDUCT.

Regarding not leaving edit summaries

• WP:CONSENSUS: deleting or changing broad amounts of material without explanation violates WP:EDITCONSENSUS & calls for the revert portion of WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• WP:Ownership of content not leaving edit summaries indicates an attitude of ownership that entitles one to make changes without explanation.

Regarding behavior towards others

• WP:Harassment: Jay D. Easy's User_talk:Jay D. Easy#Reversion on The Collector (TV_series) comment towards me why would you knowingly commit a bannable offense just to prove a point? Imagine if I hadn't re-reverted your flagrant violation of WP:LINKVIO certainly seemed to be a threat.
• WP:Civility Please see User_talk:Jay D. Easy#What's with your edit summaries? where rather than responding to an editor's request to explain an edit, Jay D. Easy instead attacks the other editor's edit. See also User_talk:Jay D. Easy#Inappropriate and uncivil accusations.

I think the best course of action would be simply for folks to consistently to revert Jay D. Easy's unexplained or misexplained edits with the summary "Unexplained changes. Please discuss on the talk page as part of the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle." & to add standard user warnings to their talk page. I do not think that this would be WP:BRD misuse because any edit that was adequately explained would past muster.

I believe that this would remedy things, as Jay D. Easy would either tire of getting reverted for unexplained or inadequately explained edits & would start providing worthwhile edits. Alternately, Jay D. Easy could be warned repeatedly to the point that a need for a temporay block would become self-evident. If the former is enough to ensure adherence to the Be helpful: explain editing policy, so much the better. If it takes the latter to enforce change, so be it.

Peaceray (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, Peaceray. There is no evidence this editor care about how others act in response to their edits or the long-term survivability of them. And BRD is not a strong standard (compared to other behavioral guidelines and policies); no need for what feels like a passive–aggressive approach as compared to more direct approaches. DMacks (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Since I posted this, Jay D. Easy has made a few dozen edits, moving articles, and saw fit to archive their talk page; it's here. In other words, they are as uncooperative and uncollegial as before. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Apologies, all. I'll start using common edit summaries more frequently from now on. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jay D. Easy: I'd be more comfortable (and I suspect the other people who have piped up as well) with a more specific description of what you believe you have been doing wrong and how you are going to fix it. Going with "common edit summaries" is not what we are looking for. We're looking for an end to disruptive behaviour, and I have yet to see an acknowledgement from you that you even understand what you are doing wrong. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the unclear edit summaries, unnecessarily harsh summaries, and sometimes altogether missing summaries. I admit that I'm frequently inclined to use tw as my catch-all edit summary, and that I take WP:ESL quite literal in that regard. Yet I also recognize that "more specific and useful edit summaries are preferred". I can't and won't try to justify my sometimes-insulting/rude/incivil edit summaries. I recognize these add nothing of value and only detract from what we're all here to do. Please know that I will accept and abide by any disciplinary action, if such is decided upon. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we need to have a clear final warning that if this behavior happens one more time, Jay will be blocked immediately. Why? Because what I wrote last January applies equally as well today as it did eleven months ago:

On the edit summaries, I'm glad to see that you recognize that there's a problem. However, you also recognized and apologized for your edit summaries just one month ago (December 2019) and have faced questions about them last February and May. And those are just the times someone felt compelled to leave a message. Will you commit to using civil and constructive edit summaries moving forward?

Notably, Jay never responded or answered my question. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is that we don't see what Human Resources Departments like to call a "get-well plan". That's a problem. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the defense of abbreviations when a fuller explanation is needed, but willingness to provide lengthier edit summaries when they're purely comments on other editors' competence, as Ed's link from January shows. Jay D Easy, you've been here long enough to know why edit summaries are important and why they shouldn't be abused. You say you recognize that. We need to hear you say you will start using edit summaries productively and stop using them disruptively. —valereee (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I thought he'd taken a break, with essentially no edits since his conversation here. He's back, and in spite of the above conversation, this suggests nothing has changed. I think administrative action is required. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ed, what do you think? I think not responding to questions and continuing disruptive/uncollegial behavior is blockworthy. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Drmies I would agree. This is a long-time editor whose problematic behavior has proceeded through a year and a half of warnings. Jay is clearly not paying attention to them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha Ed, but how do we get an admin to look at this? ;) Drmies (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked one month —valereee (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user on Lena (actress)

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

---

An editor has been changing the date of birth on Lena (actress) to a date that contradicts the source, first 1975 and then 1973 [1] [2] [3] [4]. (The editor also appears to know about WP:3RR, because they have socked from their IP to an account (hence why I haven't taken this to SPI). I haven't broken 3RR (for WP:3RRNO), or I haven't gone to AIV, because this borders on a content dispute, and that's a fine line to tread.

Can I get a 3RR/SOCK block?

Users in question:

• 202.86.119.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Correct987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

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

Thanks, Giraffer ^munch 09:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely. I suspect the IP address will duly get caught in the autoblock. If they resume editing, we can carry on blocking or the pending changes on that page can just be bumped to normal semi-protection. For reference, while I agree that this kind of vandalism is probably not covered by WP:3RRNO, unexplained edits that directly contradict facts based on sources are vandalism. ~ mazca ^talk 21:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Close RfC

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

---

Could an uninvolved administrator or other editor please close RfC - Which of two (2) titles should be chosen to define the scope of the existing article American Revolutionary War? as snow close. TFD (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Ryk72 ^talk 11:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OR & WP:FICTREF and reverting constructive edits repeatedly

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 user Wareon is repeatedly reverting my constructive edits on Shambuka page. Please see [5][6]. The source cited clearly says that story of Shambuka (and Uttarakhand in general) is viewed as a later interpolation by most scholars. But whenever I try to mention this point in the same way as mentioned in the source, he repeatedly reverts my contribution and changes it to "Shambuka is an interpolation in Ramayana" to make it sound like a fact rather than opinion of most scholars. There are lines in the same source which makes it clear that even the source is not 100% clear about it being an interpolation but I won't go into details of it as main point here is that Wareon by trying to present it as a fact, when source mentions it as an opinion of most scholars, is violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:FICTREF policies of wikipedia. I repeatedly tried to explain him the same point on his and mine talk page (please see [7][8]) but he is not willing to understand it and instead is repeatedly accusing me of disruptive editing. The claim made by him is that opinion of most scholars can be presented as a fact on wikipedia but he hasn't supported his claim by giving reference of any wikipedia policy. Jasksingh (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Jasksingh, I don't see that you've attempted to discuss this at the article talk. Please do that rather than simply warning each other on user talk. —valereee (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Closing this as a clear content dispute. If talk page discussion and/or WP:DR doesn't work, continue to escalate then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

78.149.102.203

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

---

Resolved

 – IP blocked

78.149.102.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who's already had a week-long block for edits so beyond the pale at Christchurch mosque shootings I can't even see the edit or summary, seems to be asking for a further block. FDW777 (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The mask slipped [9] [10] (now revdel'd]. Blocked for a month with no talkpage access. Acroterion (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Acroterion, for cleaning that up. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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

112.213.208.0/22 and WP:NOTWEBHOST

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.

---

• 112.213.208.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I take serious concern over the way this anonymous user decides they want to use their own user Talk pages. I first noticed this shady behavior after an attempted overwrite of the 2035 redirect. The user has also used (and tried to use) Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Australia as a forum. But the User talk page editing since their last rangeblock is what I take the most concern of here, and seriously falls under WP:NOTWEBHOST territory. Whatever decision is to be made regarding this user is fine, but if a block is warranted, may I recommend disabling Talk page access to avoid this behavior? Jalen Folf (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the report, JalenFolf. Blocked for 6 months, since the user's last rangeblock was for 3 months. I did check the "cannot edit own talkpage" box, which is not something I have ever done with a rangeblock before. I hope it works. Bishonen | tålk 20:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC).

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

Gypsy Taub

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.

---

• Gypsy Taub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sa57arc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I do not know what is going on here but these comments [11] along with the edit warring with Wallyfromdilbert in the article[12] and others[13] suggest that Sa57arc should be topic banned or blocked and several of his contributions rev-deleted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I revision-deleted the talk page comments, and the block is probably due, but this is now midnight in my timezone, and I do not have time to determine whether the user also had disruptive activities elsewhere, so I will leave this to another admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Taub is a controversial figure. Her BLP has gone through a lot of improvement lately to be more NPOV. Note also the new essay WP:STP. I also was unaware of WP:BLPPUBLIC. I have put in a request on the corresponding talk page that we quantify what "a multitude" of WP:RS really means. I am looking for easy conflict resolution.--Sa57arc (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• I also have additional concerns with Sa57arc's edits at that page, and I am linking to several diffs of unsourced information that still seem seriously problematic, such as [14] [15] [16] [17]. Please also note that this editor has an apparent COI with Sam Sloan, and there is a discussion at WP:COIN#Sam Sloan. Given this comment left by Sa57arc on my talk page (and edit summaries such as this), I think Sa57arc may also have a COI with Taub. After commenting on my talk page, they started editing the Taub article and adding significant unsourced and potentially defamatory content to Taub's article, as well as insisting on adding poorly sourced allegations of criminal conduct. The editor subsequently made changes to the Gothamist article (repeatedly removing the word "blog" from it) and the WP:BLP policy [18] as part of their effort to get the criminal allegations into the Taub article. Given some of the personal disputes that seem to be furthered in articles such as Sexual Freedom League by Sam Sloan and other IPs or banned accounts with similar editing activity to that account, I think this may also be an extension of some personal grudge. The editor seems to be becoming increasingly disruptive and I am concerned with WP:NOTHERE as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an editor who added "Drug abuser" to the "Occupation" field of a BLP infobox and posted a lengthy rant on a BLP talk page that is packed with BLP violations, sarcasm and innuendo all intended to defame Gypsy Taub. The talk page comments were so egregious and inflammatory that they had to be revision deleted. This is really quite stunning misconduct by Sa57arc. Taub is a controversial figure but our BLP policy applies to her precisely as much as it does to every other living person. I think that Sa57arc needs to be blocked indefinitely, unless or until they acknowledge their grave policy violations and offer ironclad assurances that nothing even remotely like this will ever occur again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support indef/CBAN on the basis of the edits identified by Cullen328. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• I don't have time at present to look through this user's contributions, but see history of Wikipedia:See talk page, recently created by the user, which I've just deleted as a thinly-veiled attack on a former user. If they have made little positive contributions, or have a history of bad edits, I would support an indef block. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef. Sa57arc has been causing problems at WP:BLP and WT:BLP too. He seemed to think the change he tried to edit-war into the policy would help him with his Gypsy Taub edits. The edits that Cullen refers to are shocking. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef - Just added this attempt to support their side of the dispute to WP:V. - MrOllie (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support block - any editor who would attempt to edit a policy page to support a source they want to use is somebody we do not want editing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef/CBAN — per Cullen and MrOllie, for repeated, extremely serious violations of policy. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone suggested that I participate in this discussion. OK fine. Tell me what I am supposed to say to get out of trouble and I will say it.--Sa57arc (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Sa57arc, please read this entire thread and all of the relevant policies and guidelines. Respond as a neutral editor rather than as a biased POV pusher here to demean a living person. Explain your revdeleted talk page screed. Convince your fellow editors that you now deeply understand BLP policy, and will never, ever, ever conduct yourself that way again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

My attempts to discuss the NPOV facts about Taub got deleted. I have no serious objections to that deletion of my work efforts. That is old news and there is no point in rehashing it. If you want to waste your precious time about something that I no longer care about, then that is your problem, not mine. If it bothers you then grow up and stop looking at it. Try doing something authentically productive.--Sa57arc (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Defending the subjects of BLPs against attempts to defame is my job as a Wikipedia administrator. So, there is no way under the sun that I will stop watching Gypsy Taub to protect that article from your efforts to vilify her. I would be derelict in my duty if I ignored your policy violations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not "what [you] need to say". It's what you need to DO, and your comment makes it very clear you don't understand just how deeply you dug here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Surprise, globally lock by the office.[19] PackMecEng (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Does "Globally banned user: #142" in that report mean that Sa57arc is the 142nd globally banned user (a figure that seems low to me), or that they are connected (as a sock, presumably) to a previously banned user, designated as "#142"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• My assumption was sock, 142 does sound really low. For example here they are on 21,321. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a sock of a banned editor. I think they use numbers for "DENY" reasons but not sure. Antandrus (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation

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.

---

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

Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The submitter of this draft is edit-warring with the reviewers and is removing tags, and is disrupting the review process.

The current version of Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation has been rejected three times, and the rejection tags have been removed three times by User:IanWiniarski. Rejected first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Asteroid_Mining_Corporation&type=revision&diff=992795146&oldid=992791861&diffmode=source Removed rejection: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Asteroid_Mining_Corporation&type=revision&diff=992684751&oldid=992635448&diffmode=source Rejected second time and tagged for G11: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Asteroid_Mining_Corporation&type=revision&diff=992785332&oldid=992784757&diffmode=source Removed rejection and G11: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Asteroid_Mining_Corporation&type=revision&diff=992786176&oldid=992785332&diffmode=source Rejected third time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Asteroid_Mining_Corporation&type=revision&diff=992791795&oldid=992791771&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Asteroid_Mining_Corporation&type=revision&diff=992795146&oldid=992791861&diffmode=source

At this point the validity of the rejection is of secondary importance. The disruption of the repeated removal of the rejection tags, and the removal of a G11 tag, which is explicitly forbidden, are of greater concern. Request a partial block of the submitter from the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, this is the third version of this particular draft that User:IanWiniarski has created within the past week or so. The previous two versions were deleted. Curbon7 (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I have found another previously rejected version at Draft:AMC 01. Curbon7 (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Indeffed. They removed the speedy tag again after a final warning, and a look over their history makes it very clear they are WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

The 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 know the report above has been archived, but you've missed a few more copies of the draft. According to the user log this user created 6 alternate accounts/sock puppets, Iwiniarski1 (talk · contribs), Iwiniarski2 (talk · contribs), Iwiniarski3 (talk · contribs), Iwiniarski4 (talk · contribs), Iwiniarski5 (talk · contribs), Iwiniarski35 (talk · contribs). The Iwiniarski5 account was used to create six more copies of the draft, Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation,, Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation,,, Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation /, Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation //, Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation /// and Draft:Asteroid Mining Corporation ., plus a couple others already deleted. Could someone clean up the remaining pages and deal with the alt accounts as appropriate? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these - looks like it's been worked over. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User continually adds fake info to dozens of R&B 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.

---

For months, User:Tease Pillar has gotten away with dozens of edits that added fake chart positions and certifications to R&B-centric articles, primarily songs and albums by Keyshia Cole, Keke Palmer, etc. For example, on The Way It Is (Keyshia Cole album), they keep trying to use this edited source [20] as opposed to the official source, to back up that the album reached #76 in Belgium. But as you can see, the real chart reveals that the album is not supposed to be there. N Ons Geluk by Frans Bauer is #76. The source the user used was edited and is not official. Upon closer examination, I have determined that this user has done this in dozens upon dozens of articles (see [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and many, MANY more). This user continually insists that they will change their behavior, only to revert back to old habits almost immediately. This user has had enough warnings and something needs to be done. Carbrera (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC).

Tease Pillar said on my talk page they would stop adding bad chart information[34] and they said they were going to start repairing the damage.[35] This was early on December 4. Following that, Tease Pillar repeatedly pushed fake chart positions into The Way It Is (Keyshia Cole album), supported by falsified and photoshopped "scans" of chart statistics.[36] Note the URLs from scribd.com/document/ which are faked scans uploaded recently by "Theo Fenty", and the URL from an online discussion forum: ukmix.org/forum/chart-discussion which doesn't actually support Tease Pillar's number of 1,929,000 sales, but instead somebody named kash27 asserts without reference that the sales figure is 1,400,000.[37] Tease Pillar edit-warred these fake chart positions and sale figures back into the article, so clearly they are not about to live up to their promise to clean up the problem they caused. I believe we must indeff the person and start undoing all their nonsense ourselves. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. The behavior reminds me of MrWriter245. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Aromanian Website.

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, as a new inexperienced user here I am receiving discrimination from an Aromanian Nationalist, namely the user MacedoRoman. I just wanted to add further content here, contribute to this big and important project of Wikipedia but I am still prevented by this user for the simple cause of an aromanian website (Arumun.com) filled with Romanian Propaganda. It is constantly being deleted. Many websites containing Greek Propaganda exist in the External links section of Aromanians but I did not see any problem with that. The user is clearly a racist and not objective. An objective person must be neutral and add useful sources from all sides in order to be as close to reality as possible. Wikipedia has no room for active Propaganda and neutrality is a must. Furthermore, personal attacks and severe harassment was noted along with extreme racism.I was talking as politely as I could, but to no avail. The user Super Dromaeosaurus helped me to try and resolve the conflict. We deleted both the Pro-Romanian and Pro-Greek websites from the External links of the Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanians).

Improperly copied text from User_talk:MacedoRoman#Aromanian_Website.; hard to tell what is inserted into the original; no attribution, hard to tell who's words are whose. --Bison X (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

MacedoRoman and Bolt Escargot, I've removed both pro-Greek and pro-Romanian websites. This should fix this whole issue. Super Ψ Dro 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC) However harassment, personal attacks and nationalism continued. WP:NATIONALIST 1) You can say what you want! Its my right to be racist! Its my choice! This is democracy! I will delete it again! MacedoRoman (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 2)Hahahaha now i am scared! Maybe i am racist, but i am patriot, not like you!. Maybe i am racist, but i know what i am, not like you!!! I am aromanian! MacedoRoman (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 3)We are fighting to keep aromanians clean, to do domething for them, and you with some others are trying to destroy it! Shame on you and on other aromanians lime you! You are traitors! MacedoRoman (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 4) The Aromanians are Aromanians, and not greeks and romanians! MacedoRoman (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC) (His opinion generalized and enforced upon me. I disagree.) 5) We have our own indetity! We are not greeks and not romanians! We dont have country, but this does not mean that we are romanians or greeks!MacedoRoman (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC) (Again, his opinion, not mine. I believe that we have and it is Romania.) 6) As i can see, your works are mostly in the "Aromanian area", that makes me belive that your interes is not to do something for the Wikipedia, but just to change thinks in the "Aromanian zone"! I think you dont give a fuck for Wikipedia! MacedoRoman (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC) (Again, Nationalism is obvious.There is no Aromanian Zone) WP:NOTANARCHY 1)I can say what i want! I live in a democratic country! I am also a democrat like you.MacedoRoman (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC) (Double Standards = I am also a democrat like you. The Argument is invalid.) 2)Inappropriate Language Stop stop! You are an ignorat! Why the article is writen with romanian letters? This is not a propoganda for you? Fucking romanian propoganda we dont need!Also fucking greek propoganda!MacedoRoman (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 3)As i can see, your works are mostly in the "Aromanian area", that makes me belive that your interes is not to do something for the Wikipedia, but just to change thinks in the "Aromanian zone"! I think you dont give a fuck for Wikipedia!MacedoRoman (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC) 4)In 100 articles only one article in aromanian?! You should not see to much articles in Wikipedia! Wikipedia is bullshit!' Everyone can write articles in Wikipedia! MacedoRoman (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC) (extremely offensive language. Furthermore, articles are written by serious editors and verified before approval otherwise they are deleted) 5) Too Many Exclamation Marks used. I was constantly offended and the arguments were childish. The user was warned by Super Dromaeosaurus and he defied the warning. (Super Dromaeosaurus Thank you for deleting both propoganda websites! MacedoRoman (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC) No problem, but calm down or you will end up reported by someone and blocked. I don't care if you have different views from other editors, but people talk in Wikipedia politely and without disrespecting each other. And don't use "!" either, it is equivalent to yelling and that is defiant. Super Ψ Dro 21:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)) I requested a formal apology and I would pretend that nothing happened. I did not receive the apology I requested. (Firstly, I agree with you on that. Aromanians should have joined Romania and most conflicts between us would cease to exist.That is my personal opinion and you should respect it. Secondly, No, you are not a Democrat. You are constantly offending me and showing racism. I request a formal apology otherwise I will still report you. I am as polite and as civilized as I can. Apologize to me and it will be as if nothing happened. Bolt Escargot (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC) I don't apologize!You can make what you want! I am not scaret form one report!MacedoRoman (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC))

To conclude, I want this person to stop doing that and end the conflict.I request an official warning and then if he does not change, blocking (if possible). Yours sincerely, A concerned user. :) Bolt EscargotBolt Escargot (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Bolt Escargot:This is a confusingly formatted report. Please list the personal attacks using WP:DIFFS to guarantee a just and proper response. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
• You MUST notify the other party in a dispute. It's on top of this page and not optional. I have done so for you because this is ugly and needs to stop immediately. Your hands aren't exactly clean here either.

Both users should be warned at a minimum about Edit Warring and civility. Based on edit history, it seems neither user is here for any reason beyond Nationalist interest in the page. Slywriter (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see that either user has ever bothered to post to the talk page. Bolt Escargot and MacedoRoman, both of you stop attacking on each others' talk, go to the article talk, and discuss without making personal attacks. Both accounts partial'd from Aromanians for edit-warring. —valereee (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Continuous disruption and unsourced editing by Yasser Mohamed Karawya

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! Yasser Mohamed Karawya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of making unsourced changes as can be seen by the warnings on their Talk page and the two blocks they have received. All the while they have consistently failed to respond to anything with a record of zero edits to Talk pages since they started editing in September 2019. And they are still it at: [38]. How to proceed? Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 09:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the user. This will require them to appeal their block to an administrator before they can resume editing. They'll have to explain their actions and why the behavior hasn't improved, and convince the reviewing admin that the behavior wont continue. I think this is the logical next step given the history of their behavior, the numerous warnings they've received, and the two previous blocks have have shown no resulting improvement. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Oshwah. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Continuing edit warring and poor behaviour

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

---

175.103.25.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See existing comments on talk page, contributions history where other editors have had to repeatedly either revert or fix their edits, and in particular recent changes to Vashi Bridge, edit summary comments, etc. (The behaviour is actually identical to at least one previous IP also ending in 138 some months ago, but I don't know how to find out if there's a connection.) Just a waste of everyone's time. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 month. See also the edit filter log. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Hermann Göring

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.

---

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

A few disruptive sockpuppets. Rather than report each at AIV--which is dormant right now--perhaps we can get page protection and multiple blocks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Malcolmxl5 has done those things, so all is well for the moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruption and personal attacks by Biomax20

• Biomax20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Queer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biomax20 appears to have an axe to grind on Talk:Queer.

If YOU dont like MY opposition to the ridiculous changes to meaning, may i recommend you go do something else with your life? ... Excuse me? What are you supposed to be? Gestapo? Do you own this public forum? This is not a personal dislike, this is opposition. I will not be silenced.

 

Also see the user's talk page and [39]. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

LI added a legitimate comment on the talk section ( which i am under the impression is a public talk area ) to discuss a certain subject, Then this EvergreenFir guy comes along, slaps me with a warning saying " Please stop the pov/pointy edits.", then goes to the public talk area and says: "please stop using this as a forum to express your dislike for the subject.". excuse me?

You @EvergreenFir: are welcome to go read actual / factual definition and 'Original' meaning of the word queer in any dictionary and encyclopedia,

rather than this new enforced edits by members of wikipedia such as yourself that dictate things like "please stop using this as a forum to express your dislike for the subject." ? What is this? Fascist Germany? Yes this is not the first or last person i get into a confrontation with. Primarily because some information is just plain wrong, and there legitimately seems to be a real effort by some people to enforce a particular view. Biomax20 (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, this is the confrontational reply you got after you gave me a ' Discretionary Sanction Notification with comment "Please stop the pov/pointy edits." ... how about, please stop dictating how people should think? Biomax20 (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As long as the information in the article is supported by citations from reliable sources, then it really doesn't much matter whether you agree with it or not. If you can find other reliable sources which agree with your PoV on this, then they can be added to the article as a counterpoint, as long as they aren't WP:FRINGE. Your bluster on talk pages isn't going to get you what you want, it's only likely to get you sanctioned in some way in the long run, so your energy would be better spent in find those citations you need. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Well said, There was no cited sources, and i added "Citation needed" to a specific article, but @EvergreenFir: there got triggered on another article where i removed the word "Disparaging", and initiated a edit war. And issued warnings because its apparently both articles regarding LGBT are populated by Dictator editors. Biomax20 (talk) 00:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's funny that you added CN into the lead and called a statement "non factual" (despite being supported by references later in the article), but then are calling people dictators because you expect everyone to ignore the WP:MAINSTREAM consensus around the word "queer." Wikipedia doesn't care that you don't agree with the talk page rules and reality doesn't care about whatever grievances you have with these topics. —{Canucklehead} 01:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to observe that declaring someone else to be "triggered" has never, in my experience, advanced a reasoned conversation in any way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to, based on my own humbling interactions with them, solemnly and respectfully declare EvergreenFir and conifers in general "too cool" to be triggered, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: but Triggered Trees would be a fun band name. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it appears that the user does have a strong POV which may make it hard for them to recognise what is and isn't emotionally laden or neutral. Characterising this edit to Homosexual agenda as "Disruptive emotionally charged editing. Non factual. Non encyclopedic." is a little over the top for an edit that a) restored a neutral descriptive term that has been in the article for a long time, b) removed an inappropriate "citation needed" tag in the lede, for information that is well-sourced in the body, and c) removed an unsourced assertion, also from the lede. Biomax20, you are free to think whatever you like, but that does not mean that it's OK to use Wikipedia as a discussion forum; furthermore, you may be interested to read up a bit on semantic shift – words do change their meanings, you know. (Presumably you don't use the word "meat" to refer to all kinds of food?) --bonadea contributions talk 11:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall Sir Pterry had a few words to say on semantic shift. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Very difficult to see Biomax20 as a net positive. It’s not just related to this topic, see also their ranting here. —JBL (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with that analysis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @JayBeeEll and Beyond My Ken: Yep, most of Biomax200's interactions on talk pages has been yelling at editors or ranting at imaginary editors, almost always assuming bad faith. There are enough personal attacks in the most recent incident alone (calling editors Gestapo or Dictator editors) to warrant an incivility block. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, WP:COI, WP:SELFSOURCE

• Moolaramovijayathe (talk · contribs)

User edit warred at Raghavendra Tirtha, then hopped over to Raghavendra stotra and added the same content there. Given that the citing is to WorldCat and doesn't clarify pages, it makes sense to confirm that the content is not copied. These edit summaries suggest self-citing [40]; [41]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This user is deleting my comments on a Talk page, and possibly spamming.

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.

---

• Jargo Nautilus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jargo Nautilus has been deleting my comments (twice) on a Talk page. And he is flooding the Talk page, with personal attacks, making it very hard to talk. He has made at least 36 edits on that Talk page since the first deletion (about 15 hours ago). I think he is spamming, or vandalising the Talk page experience.
This is the first time he deleted my comment. The reason he gave in the edit summary was Removed defamation and reference to my user account without hyperlink.
Does seem to refuse to listen to different point of views and have a real discussion mean defamation??? I was just stating my view avoiding to use any bad word. He was constantly personal attacking the video maker mentioned in the Talk page (a felon, a fugitive and a fraud --see here), but not really discussing the issue he brought up.
Even if my words were too harsh for him, I don't think he has the right to delete my comment.
Then I found his action of deletion, and I put evidence of his crime (in this link, you can see evidence he was deleting other users comments too, in the section Someone is deleting others' replies and messing up this Talk page) in a new section on that Talk page.
But later, that whole section was deleted by him. This is the second deletion.

I haven't made any article changes recently. All the deletions I mentioned happend in the Talk page. I hope his vandalism can be stopped. --In wkpd (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I only deleted comments that referenced me personally without a hyperlink, or comments that were replies to my own comments which I had deleted. The initial set of comments that I deleted were already collapsed within a "soap" template, so they weren't visible in the first place. I deleted that section of comments since I was the one who started the section. In fact, on that note, I will mention that I actually started the section as an independent section with an independent header, though another user, without my permission, moved the section into a subheading under another heading. I never intended for the section to be a subheading under a different header. There has been a double standard regarding other new sections that other new users have launched. I'm not sure why the decision was made to move my section specifically under the other header. In any case, the original intention of my section was tainted when it was moved under the other heading. The discussion was also clearly going nowhere, so I terminated it early on. In fact, there were not many comments in the section, when compared to the numerous other sections that have been launched roughly at the same time. Meanwhile, regarding the deletion of comments that reference my username without a hyperlink, the reason for doing this was that I wasn't actually able to see the comments in my notifications. When users hyperlink your own username, you typically get "pinged". I was not pinged when In wkpd started talking about me behind my back. When I came across the offending comment, I deleted it, though I also left a comment alongside the edit stating my reason for the removal of the offending comment. Furthermore, as other users on the page have stated, we should avoid talking about other users and should discuss the topics at hand. So, I think I did the right thing in this regard since I chose not to carry on with the irrelevant discussion about myself. After this occurred, In wkpd posted an entirely new section where he again started discussing my username, though this time, he did actually ping me. I ended up deleting this section but then transferred it to my own user page, in order to continue the discussion outside of Talk:Taiwan, since other editors have requested that we do not discuss topics that are irrelevant to the primary discussion that has been going on. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Secondly, I do admit that I have been making a lot of edits, though I would not necessarily call it spam. I have a habit of writing a lot of brief comments in quick succession, i.e., like a thread. This is just a bad habit of mine, however, it's also caused by the fact that my internet connection is not so good, so I worry about whether my edits will be saved if I sit there writing for more than twenty minutes. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thirdly, yes, I was "personally attacking" the videomaker, true. However, given that he was being used as an author of a source on the page, and, in fact, the one that sparked this entire 15,000-word discussion, I have been trying to discuss the veracity of both the source and of the author himself. Here, I have actually found a pretty good reaction video to Nathan Rich's video. Maybe you guys here don't care, but I personally thought it was relatively comprehensive. It's nearly half-an-hour long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvcCQPhbBmM Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I could probably make a couple of points, but I will leave it at this for now. I don't wish harm unto anybody. I'm just trying to break down the facts here. I'm also trying to get to the bottom of this Nathan Rich guy. As far as I can tell, he's a propagandist of some kind, or a "grifter". I don't know much about his background, though I have encountered him quite a while ago, so he's not exactly someone new to me. On the other hand, it seems that he might be new to In wkpd? I really don't know. Anyway, my point is, don't just trust the things people say at face value... You've got to actually investigate these things. Try to think objectively and independently and critically. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, these "personal attacks" that In wkpd is referring to were mostly targeted towards Nathan Rich. I honestly don't have the energy to personally attack any of the users (Nathan Rich is not a user but rather an author who was cited in a source). I've had disagreements with several of the users though I would not call these "attacks". Generally speaking, I've been relatively civil, and I've been providing quite a lot of analysis of the topic that we've been discussing -- we've been discussing Taiwan's political status, as well as some other topics that are related to this. None of this analysis is backed up by sources, though, with that being said, no one else has really been backing up their analyses by sources either, for the most part. And it's already been established that Nathan Rich's YouTube video does not constitute a reliable source. So, overall, when In wkpd says "Jargo Nautilus has been making a lot of personal attacks", it should be clarified that these attacks have been generally targeted towards someone who is not actually a user on the talk page. As such, these attacks do not really qualify as "ad hominems" or whatever you'd like to call them. They're directed towards the author of a source that was cited. I've been accusing the author of having nefarious motivations and a criminal record. I'm not sure if this goes against policy or what, but I think it is important that we don't give extremists a platform? Honestly, correct me if I'm wrong here; maybe you're allowed to post sources that were published by extremists? I know that a Wikipedia page about "The Donald" (Donald Trump's alt-right fanbase) exists. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, so, the comment that In wkpd was referring to, regarding the lack of a hyperlink, was this one: "They might be trying to protect Wikipedia in the free world from the invasion of the "unfree world". Well, that was kind of a joke. Frankly speaking, they might really be thinking this is a common sense, and mainland Chinese's common sense doesn't count, because their media don't have free of speech. That's just one of my speculation, it's better to let them explain themselves. But OTOH, I think their action might already be abusing Wikipedia as a tool to spread their idea, a really common idea in WP though, see Systemic bias # The "average Wikipedian". Not 100% sure though, I'm still learning. There're also users like Jargo Nautilus who started the section Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a felon, a fugitive and a fraud?, and seem to refuse to listen to different point of views and have a real discussion." Essentially, there was more to the comment than just "refuses to listen to other POVs". He was accusing me of being some kind of delusional freedom fighter. Also, he was accusing me of believing that mainland Chinese people's opinions don't matter. FYI, I myself am ethnic-Chinese, although I was born in Australia. -snip- What I'm trying to say here is that I'm not some guy who believes mainland Chinese people's opinions don't matter. In fact, I am opposed to the Chinese government, which I view as totalitarian, though this primarily stems from my political affiliation with the Anarcho-Communist movement, and doesn't have anything to do with racism of some kind. I do not believe that the Chinese government represents the majority of Chinese people. Instead, it represents a minority of oligarchs within China who are only interested in attaining power for themselves. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, it's 3:26 AM where I live, currently. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"not really discussing the issue he brought up" - What exactly do you (In wkpd) mean by this? You do realise that I've written two entire essays explaining my view of the Taiwanese political situation? Additionally, I've been replying to almost every message that has been addressed to me or is a reply to one of my previous comments. I've been conversing with several people at the same time, which is part of the reason why I've made so many edits. However, it must be said that this debate has been stretched thin across multiple sections. I've been trying to keep the discussion pinned down to a single place. Also, I cited an article from Taiwan News explaining exactly how Nathan Rich qualifies as a "felon". https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3941420 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, Batman. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I was recieveing ping after ping of "Jargo Nautilus has edited WP:ANI." (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 16:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is your text small? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

After your wall of text it was necessary to conserve space in every way possible. EEng 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm going to try and get some sleep now. In all honesty, I've got no idea why In wkpd cares about this issue so much. It literally has nothing to do with him, as I've explained. He himself says that he only recently just started reading up on the political status of Taiwan and the relations between Taiwan, China and America. He's also launched far more attacks -- and vicious ones too -- against me than I have against him. Like, honestly dude (In wkpd), I don't care about you. It's not a crime that I don't care. It's just a fact. I've got a lot of stuff going on right now and you're not very high up on my list of priorities. Anyway, peace. I'm going to sleep. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Jargo Nautilus, without reading too much into the content of the conflict, your removal of other people's comments on a talk page is against talk page guidelines, especially if they've been already replied to. You can ask other users to strike out their comments, but you are not allowed to remove them yourself. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, makes sense. But what about comments that have been collapsed in a soap template? Also, the guy who did that didn't really give a super good reason (if any?) for doing so. Also, what do the rules say about moving sections of conversations around the talk page and placing them under other headings? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI, the "soap" accusation against me could easily apply to any of the other editors there. It's a mess... I've been trying to shut down the conversation from the beginning to no avail. That's why I've been questioning the legitimacy of the original source that was cited, which sparked this entire conversation. I will admit that I've gone off the rails at times, though this has generally been a response to others doing the same. In wkpd himself wrote like three or four essays within the space of a day. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This ANI filing is a complaint by User:In wkpd about removal of their comments on Talk:Taiwan by User:Jargo Nautilus. An example is in this diff. I suggest that Jargo is risking a block if they do this again. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To clarify what happened here, I moved the messages over to my own talk page so that we could continue the conversation there instead. I left a brief message explaining what happened. Though, admittedly, I might have failed to ping In wkpd. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&diff=next&oldid=991116073

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJargo_Nautilus&type=revision&diff=991116125&oldid=991040271

Here's another relevant edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATaiwan&type=revision&diff=991037758&oldid=991036355 This guy thinks I'm far-right, lmao. I'm an anarchist. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo, . Your constant posting, posting, posting, longer and longer, is making it impossible for administrators to be able to sort through it and help you, and the fact you're posting what results in a truly massive wall of text - I have a fairly large monitor, and it almost completely fills the screen - especially without allowing the other party to respond is bludgeoning. You really should have posted a much more consise explanation of your position in the first place; as it is now, go and have a cup of tea and wait for discussion to proceed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Nautilus" is my given name, "Jargo" is my surname. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, focusing on issues like these will not due you any good, please defend yourself in a clean and precise manner if you want to prevent being blocked. I would suggest taking a wiki-break from editing while reading up on some of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to lock the page Talk:Taiwan temporarily? The entire talk page is an absolute mess, with random people coming in from all over the place trying to make radical changes to the long-held consensuses of the article. These discussions were initially sparked by a YouTube video that was made about Taiwan by an American YouTuber based in China that went relatively viral; in the video, he suggested that Taiwan's status be changed from "country" to "part of China". As a result of this video, one user vandalised the page. Another user reverted this. Then, discussions were opened up about the political status of Taiwan, and this derailed when In wkpd decided to cite the aforementioned video in order to "start a conversation". A second user came along and opened up a new section specifically discussing this YouTube video and the points made within it. I made early attempts to bring the entire conversation to a halt, though my objections were ignored. I then made an entire section dedicated to criticising the YouTuber who made the video, and this section ended up being censored through a "soap" and "notforum" template. It must be said, though, that this entire time, I did not make edits to the article itself, and my activities were limited to the talk page. Overall, this entire situation is extremely messy and I think it should be scrutinised more closely. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, the talk page seems fine. Every talkpage is open for anyone to comment on an issue or to raise an issue. However, this is not the issue at hand and I will not be commenting on this further. Please focus on how you can improve your behavior on Wikipedia. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - I did not appreciate other users referencing my user account in order to make an example out of me. What can I do in the future in order to deal with this problem, which is clearly aggressive behaviour? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, while I didn't read your rebuttal, you can cite WP:AGF. However, I find this unlikely, you do not WP:OWN talkpages or mainspace pages. Please be weary of this. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797Alright, that makes sense. In any case, I do think the comment left by In wkpd amounted to an ad hominem attack, though perhaps not so specifically against me since he merely made a general statement "People here refuse to listen to the opinions of others...", and then cited me as the one specific example of "people". The next time something like this happens, perhaps to a more severe degree, I will take it to the ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, do you understand what you need to do to improve? I am asking this so we can close this very long discussion. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 19:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - I'm going to study hard and lie low. The only way to fight the system is to beat it at its own game. Thanks for the useful conversation. Sorry for dragging it out so long. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - I am also going to take up meditation again. This stuff majorly stresses me out. No idea how you guys can do it on a daily basis. Props to you all. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, Okay, now I am worried about you saying "beat it at its own game." Could you please elaborate on what you mean about this? (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 19:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797 - Basically, I'm not exactly an idiot, but I'm really hot-headed and do/say a lot of stupid spur-of-the-moment things. That's where the meditation comes in. This entire situation was basically just bait, which I fell for relatively easily. Also, other users on the talk page had malicious intentions, though they were a lot more cunning with how they conducted themselves. I'm not saying I intend to break the rules. Rather, I intend to outsmart my opponents. Which is why I need to study. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, EdJohnston is completely correct. What you did here is unacceptable, and copying it to your talk page or whatever just makes it worse (since no attribution is given). This also is not acceptable. Your walls of text are awful, your diversions irritating ("This guy thinks I'm far-right, lmao. I'm an anarchist."--we don't care). I have reverted your most recent contributions to that talk page, because they contain insults and personal attacks and add nothing to any discussion on the topic. So here is my warning: if you make another personal attack on that talk page, remove someone else's comment, or post material that does not directly pertain to a discussion on article improvement, I'll gladly block you from the article and its talk page. And in general, it seems to me that you are already on very thin ice here; any further infractions or examples of incivility are likely to lead to a block. And in the spirit of this edit (or this rather ironic correction), I don't care if you say "yes sir" or "yes ma'am", but I strongly urge you to be economical, whatever you want to say. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I hope this us in the right place. Jargo Nautilus, I think other editors should be thought of as "collaborators", not "opponents". 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You've put this comment in a slightly weird spot. I will say, I'm generally open to the idea of collaboration with other users. The only issue that I am unwilling to reach compromises on is the question of Taiwan's political status. Regarding most other issues, I usually have more varied views towards them. This may not be of note to you, though I personally think it's worth mentioning -- I actually discovered my Taiwanese ancestry directly as a result of reading the "Taiwan" article on Wikipedia. I grew up as a member of the Taiwanese diaspora in Australia, though I did not know about my heritage until a few years ago. -- My reason for opposing the notion that Taiwan is "part of the People's Republic of China" is that I believe, based on my own life experiences, that the Chinese government has been actively funding a campaign for at least the past twenty or so years to completely wipe Taiwan off of the map. If China succeeds at this goal, then there will probably be countless other members of the Taiwanese diaspora like myself who will lose their connections to their heritage. I won't allow the Chinese government to erase my heritage and my identity. -- Regards, Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean no attribution was given? In the edit history? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, please familiarise yourself with copying within Wikipedia, where [a]t minimum, this means providing an edit summary at the destination page.

I moved the messages over to my own talk page so that we could continue the conversation there instead. That's not how it works on here. You can reproduce the text from other editors elsewhere, but you can't remove it per talk page guidelines again (unless you have their permission). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I did leave a message afterwards as an edit, though I forgot to write a comment in the edit summary. I said that I had migrated the conversation over to my user page. In any case, I won't do it again. Thanks for clarifying this information. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

To be clear: leaving a message afterwards is not sufficient. Unless it's your own user talk page, do not remove or refactor content other editors have placed on talk pages. Period. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bushranger Noted. Under what conditions can I add a "notforum" template over comments that are off-topic? Do I need to be an admin in order to do this? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In all seriousness, if you have to ask then you don't have enough experience to be doing that. EEng 00:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I know how to do it... I just wasn't sure whether I had permission to. Another user placed my comments into a "notforum" template, which is why I deleted the entire segment of comments encased within the template. The reason cited for putting my comments in a "notforum" template was "far-right nonsense", a claim which wasn't supported by any evidence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday, I asked JN to read WP:NOTFORUM here, but it is evident there is no abatement of the disruption on the non-Nathan Rich talk page material. As Drmies suggested as an option, I would rather JN be at once partially blocked from both Taiwan and Talk:Taiwan for some time. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There were multiple discussions going on that could fall under the definition of "notforum". And what do you mean by "abatement"? Also, I request that I don't be blocked. I don't plan on adding any additional comments, though I may want to remove or edit some of my pre-existing comments. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Abatement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, there are limitations on removing/editing even your own comments if they've been replied to. You can find guidance at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. You shouldn't remove a comment that has received a reply, and you should edit in specific ways -- for instance, striking through what you want to remove, underlining what you're adding. —valereee (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Noted. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I wanna take a break from Wikipedia for a couple of days, but I have to make sure this discussion is not closed. Is there anything I need to do? In wkpd (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd I just want to point out that this entire dispute started with an ad hominem attack which you directed against me. You said I "might be trying to protect Wikipedia in the free world from the invasion of the "unfree world"" among other things. You specifically referenced my user account (despite the fact that multiple other editors had been defending the status quo of the Taiwan article, not just me), so I regard that as an ad hominem attack against me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are you here again? I'm not talking to you. Saying the same thing over and over again is very annoying and will not make you more convincing. Now I see you're quite concerned about that "unfree" sentence. There's completely no problem with what I have said. The only person that is making personal attacks is you, and you have been constantly doing so. I'll soon make a rather comprehensive reply, today or tomorrow, covering your concerns about this issue, so wait for that, OK? And please don't give me any reply until then. Please don't distract me. --In wkpd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an arbitration case that is literally about me. Why shouldn't I be here?Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus: Because I wasn't talking to you or saying anything about you.

You had already made your points, and should wait for the others (me) to make a reply. Not being here when the conversation is not about you will not do you any harm, but will help keeping the layout clear and reduce disturbance to administrators, as you should've noticed here. This is not a forum or a live chat. Think about the option of not replying.

As to my coming reply, it's been taking a lot of time. But you'll see it soon. Thanks in advance for your patience. And please note that I'm not here to push you to any punishment. I genuinely hope you can behave well. --In wkpd (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd Your Wikipedia account is five years old but you only started editing last week in order to debate Taiwan's political status. Call me crazy, but that comes off as just rather bizarre, to me. In any case, if you want to debate that topic, you are simply wrong to suggest that Taiwan is currently part of the People's Republic of China (which, by the way, is something that you actually said in the talk page). However, you are correct in that Taiwan is not, strictly speaking, a country, although it strongly resembles one. In any case, I've actually known about Nathan Rich for quite some time... At least a year, I'd say. I've always known him to be a pro-CCP propagandist, though this is the first time I've heard him talk about Taiwan. Sure, he's made some sort-of-decent points (though, I did find a rebuttal video that was quite comprehensive). However, his motives are nefarious... He doesn't actually care about the issue of Taiwan's political status personally. He's an internet celebrity. He's just doing this for money... Endangering the lives of millions of people... for money. Regards -- Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm. --In wkpd (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

FYI, I'm an anarchist, so I'm neither pro-China nor pro-West. My views are anti-authoritarianism across the spectrum. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd, there's nothing you really can do. If someone thinks it's ready for closing, it'll be closed. Your availability isn't part of the equation, I'm afraid. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Winding up as the rare double WP:GRENADEing perhaps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If I get it right, WP:GRENADE means I have not made a decent reply since I first posted here? Well, that's because Jargo Nautilus has made so many unnecessarily long replies, and if I reply to her, I can only make 1 reply each time, and I'm genuinely afraid that she will start making more again. So I didn't think it was a good idea. --In wkpd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I was thinking, it's good for everyone to take a break for some time. But, OK, I'll make a formal reply today or tomorrow. But it won't cover everything she has mentioned, which I think is unnecessary. Let me know if you think there's anything specific I should reply to. --In wkpd (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd, I get that you're very new to Wikipedia, and I suspect you realize you've made a mistake. ANI is a terrible place for new editors, I'm afraid. If you're asking me for advice, what I'd advise is a mea culpa: "I'm sorry, I didn't know what I was getting myself into here. Can I back out of this, with apologies for wasting everyone's time?" No blaming anyone else, just an apology and a request to be excused. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I believe I've done nothing wrong. I'm just preparing a reply with more evidence to show JN's harmful behaviours. Not just deleting comments. She's making communication very difficult. --In wkpd (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

"Nothing wrong". The first thing you did wrong was to bring up the YouTube video made by Nathan Rich. As an unreliable source, the video should have been completely disregarded as soon as it was initially posted on the talk page. The discussions about the video or inspired by the video should not have carried on for so long. Multiple other Wikipedians, not just myself, actually pointed out that the video was not a reliable source quite early on. You are in the wrong for bringing up an unreliable source, ignoring the complaints of other Wikipedians who pointed out that it was unreliable and then forcing the conversations surrounding the unreliable source to continue for several days. When I made complaints about the creator of the YouTube video, Nathan Rich, you and another Wikipedian censored my comments, describing the comment as "far-right nonsense", without providing any evidence of this allegation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Pinging User:Horse Eye's Back. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on this comment, Special:Diff/992275687 I believe at a minimum a topic ban for anything related to Taiwan, broadly construed, is neccessary. Their statement indicates they are unwilling to compromise on any issues related to Taiwan and feel they are here to right great wrongs. Slywriter (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Do you mean Jargo Nautilus is one of those who feel they are here to right great wrongs? I hope I didn't get you wrong. --In wkpd (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@In Wkpd: here's two pieces of free advice:

1. Just because you start a thread does not mean you need to reply to every single comment. The Diff is clear on whom I am speaking of. Though I suspect it has been lost in your Wall of Text (hats do nothing for mobile users)
2. Which brings me to Holy Wall of Text below this. When complaining that someone is not concise, you should try doubly hard to be concise. Present the Diffs. I assure you the community and admins know how to click through and do not need extensive quotes and excessive commentary.

Slywriter (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Slywriter: I know that. But your speech seems to call people like me to be "here to right great wrongs", since I suggested that we change the current phrasing "Taiwan is a country" to something else. Anyway, if you don't want to make it clear, I have to speak for myself. A different opinion doesn't mean being unwilling to compromise. Instead, avoiding real discussions between different opinions does. It seems to me that Jargo Nautilus, who has probably made the most edits and typed the most text on that talk page, is one of those who are unwilling to compromise.

And I do apologize for my wall of text below. I forgot to add a new section. I think it's better now.

You got to understand, I can't just present the diffs just to show how she's not being concise. That way she'll just continue to do what she's doing, because AFAIK, she won't get punished just because not being concise. For the same reason, she'll just continue being uncivil. I think I might have to make a coherent article to show everyone, not just the Admins, what kind of behaviours she's had. And hopefully that will make her change her behaviours.

I understand nobody wants to read walls of text. But this is the most concise I can be.

Locking pages will certainly avoid conflicts. But why not have people be more civilized? It that a difficult task for WP? Is it difficult to have Wikipedians just be civil, and listen to others and reply on-point, and respect the rules? --In wkpd (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Replying to JN & Summary of her harmful behaviours

Firstly, some words to Jargo Nautilus

Firstly, some words to @Jargo Nautilus: Referring to you as "he" doesn't mean I'm assuming your gender (thanks to Drmies for pointing it out), it just means I'm using old-fashioned English, where "he" can represent one whose gender is not clear (example). And what do you mean by "bopomofo"? I'm not even sure whether you were trying to insult me, since I don't have a rich vocabulary of swear words. Most of your replies above are nonsense. I did not reply you because I was terrified by your rudeness (making walls of text).

I would say that that means pinyin, but I'm not even sure. h 02:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleting comments

Jargo Nautilus has been modifying and deleting my comments (1, 2, 3), which is the reason I came to the AN/I. It seems she's been ignoring the guideline (Talk page guidelines # Editing others' comments).

But since Jargo Nautilus has been repeatedly (here and here) mentioning one of my comments (... "unfree world" ...) in this thread, and started to accuse me of conducting ad hominem attacks against her, I will give a reply to this issue.

For anyone who is interested, read inside the Collapse Template. In short, she might have mistaken my words.

More Details

My comment was literally responding to a third user Irtapil, under the section he had made asking why do people want to present a one sided story?. I don't know why she couldn't see the hyperlink and was quoting slightly out of context. My comment consisted of 2 paragraphs. The first paragraph which was deleted by her can be broken down into 3 parts. Part 1: A Joke @Irtapil: Their motivation? Well, this is a website everyone can edit. I don't know their motivation, and I don't think I need to know. Why do you need to know their motivation? Assume good faith (WP:GF). They might be trying to protect Wikipedia in the free world from the invasion of the "unfree world". Well, that was kind of a joke. I said I just told a joke. No idea why you would think I was saying "they" are a joke, thus defaming. The tone of the words is joking, if not taken out of context. The following part starting with "Frankly speaking", also suggests the preceding speech is not serious. If I were to defame anyone, why wouldn't I omit the last sentence (Well, that was kind of a joke.) and the preceding words (@Irtapil: Their motivation? ... Assume good faith (WP:GF).), and just make it look like a serious reply? If you did really have mistaken it. Your action is still questionable. Why didn't you leave Part 2 and Part 3 undeleted? It's very obvious that you just wanted to alter my comment because you didn't like it. Part 2: Frankly speaking... Frankly speaking, they might really be thinking this is a common sense, and mainland Chinese's common sense doesn't count, because their media don't have free of speech. That's just one of my speculation, it's better to let them explain themselves. But OTOH, I think their action might already be abusing Wikipedia as a tool to spread their idea, a really common idea in WP though, see Systemic bias # The "average Wikipedian". Not 100% sure though, I'm still learning. I think nothing is wrong about this part. Part 3: Mentioning Jargo Nautilus and other users There're also users like Jargo Nautilus who started the section Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a felon, a fugitive and a fraud?, and seem to refuse to listen to different point of views and have a real discussion. Nothing wrong again. And you're right Jargo Nautilus, I did mention other users. But I didn't say they're "freedom fighter" But most of their unpleasant replies can be ignored.

My whole comment was quite balanced, the 1st paragraph explaining to Irtapil's question and backing up what he had felt, and the 2nd one advocating "no need to talk about the motivation". But you completely changed my speech by deleting the 1st paragraph, making it look like I was opposing his idea. This is disgusting.
And look at that section now, half of the content is filled with your off-topic wall of text!
You said you will delete comments not pinging you in the edit summary?! You just create rules yourself, but not follow the rules? Ridiculous!
Editing others' comments directly is forbidden by the guideline.

Abusing the chat system

I have to point out Jargo Nautilus' harmful behaviours in the talk page as well as in this thread.

1. Bludgeoning, replying too much and too frequently, not letting others have time to reply. When another user points out a problem in her lengthy speech, she just pretends to discuss by making another lengthy speech.
2. Way too frequent queue jumping. She's been putting her reply at the top of the chat too often for no good reason. I think she has crossed the line.

Bludgeoning

Thanks to The Bushranger for mentioning bludgeoning. Yes, that's what I was trying to say by "possibly spamming", and that's also what I meant by "not really discussing". She was not listening to other people's points, but only making her own claims repeatedly. Even if what she said had been all facts, it was still not a discussion, because she was not responding to others' arguments. Her behaviour would potentially violate WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TALK#USE (Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject, Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article.).

What she is supposed to do, imo, is to engage in discussions about how to improve the article, and try to make her points there, providing concise and convincing arguments with reliable sources. I believe that will take no more than a few sentences if she's replying to another user.
But what she's doing instead, is throwing tons of arguments, which may be true facts, but are irrelevant to what others are discussing, and will heavily mess up the talk page.
I don't know whether she is incapable of understanding what people are talking about, or just deliberately messing around.

Example 1: A whole section that shouldn't have existed

A good example would be this whole section (Something else that is important to point out) she made on the talk page starting with Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC.. This whole section should not have existed! It was about the history of sovereignty and the de facto political status of Taiwan, and whether Taiwan has been legally owned by ROC. But people were discussing the inconsistency between WP articles, the de jure status of Taiwan, and NPOV! See? That's how she's not discussing. Whether Taiwan has been legally owned by ROC might be related to the topic of the de jure status of Taiwan, but why didn't she join the related discussion instead of making a whole new section with a ton of text?

Example 2: 5k characters in 43 minutes, interacting with nobody else

She's been making replies too frequently. As I said in this thread, she has made at least 36 edits in 15 hours on that Talk page since the first deletion. Here is another example. In a period of 43 minutes (23:01 to 23:44), she's added 4600+ characers (excluding spaces) (or 5.4k+ characters including spaces), making 8 successive paragraphs without anyone else talking to her in between! And those 8 paragraphs arguing "Taiwan is not part of PRC" were off-topic. My point was, we shouldn't simply say "Taiwan is a country" as the first sentence. The thing she was talking about (whether Taiwan is a part of PRC) was just mentioned in my proposal, which did not emphasize on that issue, and explicitly claimed that they could change some of the wordings. If she didn't like the example, she could provide her version. The first thing was to make consensus on the talk page that we should not simply say "Taiwan is a country" as the first sentence. There's no reason to make so many paragraphs discussing a small thing, making it off-topic.

Example 3: Pretending to discuss by giving just another pointless lengthy speech

A good example would be the following conversation that you can find here. As we can tell from Matt Smith's reactions, Jargo Nautilus was not really replying, but rather pretending to be well-founded with walls of text, which disrupts the talk page. Taiwan and the ROC are not the same. The same thing would not have different histories (History of Taiwan vs History of the Republic of China). Currently, "Taiwan" is just an expedient common name of the ROC; end of story. They are actually two different entities. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Jargo Nautilus' wall of text The Republic of China was a different entity pre-1949 when compared to post-1949. On Wikipedia, this is actually the current consensus since there's clearly an article titled "Republic of China (1912–1949)". Taiwan (Republic of China) and the People's Republic of China were both successor states of the Republic of China (1912–1949); the country having effectively been split into two post-1949. The original Republic of China government fled in exile to Taiwan and took over the administration of that territory, though that doesn't necessarily indicate that Taiwan (Republic of China) is a direct continuation of the Republic of China (1912–1949). Nominally, it is, but realistically, it isn't, and it hasn't been for decades. The boundary between the Republic of China and the modern Taiwanese republic (that is nominally still called the "Republic of China") is very vague, though one could consider the country to have changed regimes in 1996 when the first direct presidential election was held (often, it is considered to have changed a few years earlier, back in 1987, when Martial Law was lifted by the dictator Chiang Ching-kuo). EDIT: Actually, the descriptor "original Republic of China government" is somewhat misleading. One cannot deny that Chiang Kai-shek's KMT-led ROC regime on Taiwan came under heavy scrutiny, especially from former politicians of the ROC who remained in PRC-ruled mainland China, with regard to exactly how "legitimate" it was, and whether it represented the country of China as a whole, or was merely a "clique" of a failed dictator more interested in preserving his own power than serving the people. EDIT2: Here's the first sentence of that article that I linked: "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as China is a historical sovereign state in East Asia that was based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan." EDIT3: Here's an older version of that first sentence, since I noticed that it had been recently changed: "The Republic of China (ROC) was a sovereign state based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC) Yes, the ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949. But Taiwan and the ROC are still two different entities, and that's why each has its own history. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Jargo Nautilus' wall of text There's some truth to your point here, but there are different definitions as to what "Taiwan" is. Taiwan is a single island, it's an archipelago (the main island plus minor surrounding islands) and it's a country. Those are the three main definitions of Taiwan here on Wikipedia. So, true, Taiwan the island is not the same thing as Taiwan the country... But Taiwan the country... is a country. "Taiwan" is an alternative name for the Republic of China. By that logic, Taiwan is the same thing as the Republic of China. Even if "Taiwan" is not the official name of the country which is known as the Republic of China, it's still a very commonly used name for the country, and even government officials and administrative bodies within Taiwan refer to the country with that name (alongside the official name). For Christ's sake, the Republic of China passport has "TAIWAN" smack bang in the middle of it. So, your argument is not that Taiwan and the Republic of China are different things... Instead, you are arguing that the already well-established practice of referring to the Republic of China as "Taiwan" was wrong from the beginning, should have never gained traction and should be done away with immediately. Unfortunately, there's a fat chance of that ever happening, since the majority of people around the world know the Republic of China as "Taiwan" these days. When people do come across the name "Republic of China", they often mistake this for the official name of mainland China's government; even Donald Trump made this mistake, I recall. So yeah... The Republic of China is Taiwan simply because that's what international society as a whole believes. So, you're not gonna win this argument. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Says the guy who failed to make clear his definition of "Taiwan" before making the "one and the same" assertion. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Abused queue jumping

Jargo Nautilus has been constantly putting her reply on the top (multiple indentations) with no good reason.
Examples: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.

Quoting from a related discussion I can find, this kind of behaviour should be done out of an honest good-faith desire to maintain clarity in a complex discussion involving many replies, but not out of a desire to get their voice at the top of the pile.
In my opinion, she's doing it to too much.

Constantly being uncivil

Evidence of being uncivil

1: that man is an absolute joke
2: Now, I know you're just salty because you lost your China job over some PowerPoint that you threw together in half an hour.
3: I honestly have no clue what this guy's schtick is..., It's seriously confusing, concerning and comical.
4: Also, did that bopomofo In wkpd just assume my gender? What makes him think I'm male?
5: Begone, communist shill!
6: Is everyone missing the fact that Nathan Rich is a criminal, a fugitive and a fraud?
7: Nathan Rich is a felon.

Assuming bad faith, groundlessly

1: So many people here are just trying to strongarm some kind of agenda without listening to the facts.
2: However, many of the Wikipedians here who are pushing the notion that Taiwan isn't a country are doing so in bad faith...
3: ...In wkpd's Wikipedia activity so far has been rather suspicious., ...why is he trying so hard to hide his motivations?, ...not be an issue for him to divulge his intentions and the people whom he works for?
4: I have a feeling that Nathan's goonies are brigading this talk page right now.

Disruptively refactored my speech

In the last 24 hours, she has refactored 2 of my comments. But it seems she's just doing that at her own will, against me. She's not respecting Wikipedia:Refactoring, and she doesn't know what WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM mean, while she's putting them on the title of the Collapse Template.

The 1st one, disruptive refactoring with no respect to Wikipedia:Refactoring

Diff.
She's reducing the clarity and readability of that page, which violates Wikipedia:Refactoring.
And it seems JN has no idea what WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM mean, or maybe she was just too focused on removing things she doesn't like.

The 2nd one, kind of OK, but...

Diff.
This refactoring is kind of OK, because I myself have been planning to collapse that blue box. When I made that edit, I didn't know how to use a Collapse Template yet. If I did, I probably would have collapsed it.
Still, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM were unsuitable. And her edit summary was More nonsense. What makes you so special that you can make, essentially, an entire infobox to spout your nonsensical claims?.
I don't know why she would find useful information nonsense. Her edit summary, instead, is nonsense, belittling my efforts, and misrepresenting my intent.
I made that info box to let them know more about the history of that talk page, so that they would not fall into the same discussions that had happened before.
And I actually got a thank from user Davidbena after making that blue box.

@EdJohnston and Drmies:
There's more than just deleting comments. In general, I think she just doesn't respect the rules.
I'm looking for a solution here. Can I collapse her wall of text? Or do I report somewhere when I see her doing the same thing again?
She's been constantly not listening, not respectful (to the rules and other people), and uncivil.
She's repeating the same thing over and over and over again, messing around everywhere.
I'm very frustrated by her. And it's wasted me a lot of time.
I think her behaviour should be closely monitored from now on, until she has learned to respect the policies/guidelines.
Don't know if it's possible, but limiting her amount of edits seems to be a good solution.
I've tried talking to her, incuding earlier today in this thread, but it seems she just won't listen.

@HeartGlow30797, Tenryuu, CaradhrasAiguo, EEng, and Valereee:
Maybe you want to be notified of this progress.
--In wkpd (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

It's nearly impossible to reply to this because I can only edit in source mode rather than in visual mode. I'm going to copy this over to a sandbox, reply there, and then copy-paste my responses over to here. In the meantime, toodle-oo. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Jargo Nautilus stop inserting your replies into In wkpd's text. That is basic talk page usage. How have you not learned that in two years and 2300 edits? —valereee (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• In wkpd, I can almost promise this is not going to end well for you. No one wants to read walls of text. If this as concise as you can be, you need to go practice that. —valereee (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It was too difficult to reply to each comment in one go. I did this entire thing in one single edit. I'm not sure how to reply to this comment in one go. I already mentioned that previously when I said It's nearly impossible to reply to this. My apologies if this page now looks like a mess. I'll see if I can improve my reply. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It was nearly impossible to reply to your walls of text (above in this thread) too. So don't reply in walls of text. And don't forget that you started it.

This section of my reply is well-organized and on-point (just to describe your harmful behaviour). While yours above were not. --In wkpd (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Examples of vandalism to Taiwan inspired by Nathan Rich's recent YouTube video

Is it relevant to point out that the Taiwan Wikipedia article has been vandalised multiple times ever since the discussions surrounding the YouTube video recently uploaded by Nathan Rich began? These instances of vandalism have pretty much all been in favour of Nathan Rich's views... Surely, the guy whose followers are vandalising the article on a regular basis is the malign actor? Horse Eye's Back and other users have been regularly reverting these instances of vandalism throughout this entire ordeal. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Examples (note: these are all reverts, not the actual instances of vandalism themselves):

1. Dif. 1
2. Dif. 2
3. Dif. 3
4. Dif. 4
5. Dif. 5
6. Dif. 6
7. Dif. 7

Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid this section is off-topic. Judging from the timeline, it's obvious that those "vandalism" events were caused by the video. Why do you think this is something unusual? A lot of people (including me) just hadn't been aware of this article, until we watched that video. And some of us who knew/cared little of Wikipedia's policies, just logged on their accounts, and did what they thought was correct (directly modifying the article). And that became the "vandalism" you're talking about. I was more cautious about editing directly, so I joined the talk page instead. --In wkpd (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply by Jargo Nautilus

Reply w.r.t. Replying to JN & Summary of her harmful behaviours
The term "bopomofo" refers to a system of transliteration for Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan/ROC. I am not familiar with its workings, though I've heard the term thrown around a lot. It sounds quite... interesting. It sounds offensive even though it's not offensive in meaning. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleting comments

Reply w.r.t. Deleting comments

Regarding the first one, I removed it because you were singling me out for no good reason. Regarding the second one, I found it quite rude how someone who literally just rocked up to Wikipedia one week ago was telling me to behave [my]self. Regarding the third one, I actually migrated the comments over to my talk page, and I did leave a brief message in a comment immediately afterwards explaining this, though I failed to leave a comment in the edit summary. JN 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) True, I did single out this phrase. However, I will say, I was actually annoyed by your behaviour for a number of reasons, not just this. This was just an example, not my entire argument. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Your idea of a joke is my idea of rudeness. My idea of a joke is your idea of rudeness. I mean, come on dude. You can't have double standards like that. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I'm a native English speaker. I obviously know that you weren't saying that I am a joke. However, I was rather annoyed at your comment in general. The part about that was kind of a joke wasn't really that annoying specifically. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) The term "frankly (speaking)" is synonymous with "honestly (speaking)" or "seriously (speaking)". The term "frankly (speaking)" does not at all indicate that you are joking around. In fact, it quite literally indicates the opposite. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Appending the footnote "it's just a joke" at the end of an otherwise fairly serious reply... doesn't inspire confidence that it's actually a joke. More so, it looks like you wrote a serious reply and then taped on "it's just a joke" at the very end. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) It's quite (Nathan) rich of you to throw around phrases like "assume good faith" when you yourself literally just showed up to Wikipedia only just one week ago in order to push a singular POV on a singular Wikipedia article. In fact, another user, Slatersteven, has called you out on your own talk page (User talk:In wkpd#SPA) accusing you of being a "single-purpose account (user)". JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) In terms of why I deleted the entire comment, I guess I was just lazy? I mean, all of your "points" were grouped up together in one paragraph. In any case, I deleted the entire comment because I found your singling out of me to be uncalled for. You could have singled out literally anyone else. In any case, the way that you addressed me wasn't in order to engage in discussion with me, but rather to make an example out of me. You had no intention of engaging in civil discussion when you wrote that comment. If, as you say, it was a joke... Don't you think you would have been better off not joking around, and instead actually engaging in serious discussion? JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) The part I found offensive was they might be thinking... mainland Chinese's common sense doesn't count. The way you and multiple other editors have addressed me in recent days has been quite... antagonistic? What makes you think I'm not mainland Chinese myself? My father is from mainland China. I have many family members in mainland China. The last time I visited mainland China was in December 2018. From your comment, it sounded like you were accusing me of being some kind of white knight. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Again, it's quite hypocritical of you to say that I seem to refuse to listen to different points of views and have real discussion. For your information, I can tell you now that I've disagreed with this particular user, Matt Smith, on several occasions (not just over the past few days, in fact, but over the past two years). And yet, I've also been able to come to agreements with this user on several occasions as well. The reason for this is that Matt Smith is not a single-purpose account user... This user has a range of different views and interests. On the other hand, you've been directly disagreeing with almost every single point I have ever raised. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Right, and the word "disgusting" certainly doesn't have any offensive (or potentially even racist) connotations. Okay then. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Also, did Irtapil ever even reply to your comment? As far as I can tell, that user gave up on this discussion days ago. They most likely didn't even realise that you had replied to them. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Wall of text? Yes. Off-topic? Not really. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I mean, it's pretty much just common sense. Isn't there a rule on Wikipedia called "no personal attacks"? I'm pretty sure just blatantly singling me out for no good reason, without even directly pinging me, is an example of a personal attack? Correct me if I'm wrong, buddy. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) True, it's against the rules to edit other people's comments. However, it's also against the rules to launch personal attacks. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I still think I had good reasons to be upset by your behaviour. Also, if anyone was making off-topic comments, you're a prime example. Other users, including Horse Eye's Back, specifically called you out for this earlier in the discussions. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Abusing the chat system

Reply w.r.t. Abusing the chat system

And, on the other hand, you have a history of setting up podiums for yourself, whereupon you deliver lengthy essays that nobody asked for. You've also uploaded a questionable image to Wikimedia Commons in order to support your twisted views. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) What do you mean by this? I typically put my comments in an indent, in front of the most recent comment, in order to clearly distinguish the comments apart. I guess this can be seen as "queue jumping", but it's not really my intention. It's better to reply this way rather than to reply at the end of other peoples' comments, since it looks like I'm replying to them instead of to you. This is just an organisational thing... it doesn't have anything to do with preferential treatment of comments. Honestly, I'm surprised you even thought this was a misdemeanour on my part. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Bludgeoning

Reply w.r.t. Bludgeoning

I've made at least twenty different points, by now. I wouldn't say it's just making [my] own claims repeatedly. True, I do write lengthy comments, and a lot of comments. However, my comments do have some substance to them, if you'd bother to actually read them. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I have listened to your points, but most of them are highly hypocritical. Also, bear in mind that I usually don't see the need to reply to a person if I agree with their points. When people reply to one another in a thread whilst completely agreeing with one another's points, that is a practice that is colloquially known as "circle jerking" (an echo chamber). If I already agree with you, then there's no point in making any further comments. Sorry dude, but I'm not a person who kisses feet or licks boots. If I haven't addressed one of your points... congratulations, because that probably means I agree with you on that point. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Says the person who came Chargin' Targin' into this discussion brandishing a Nathan Rich YouTube video that literally just parrots the Chinese Communist Party line... (in fact, you yourself admitted that Nathan Rich has a policy of being non-critical of the Chinese government 100% of the time). JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) It's quite interesting how you claim to be impartial in these discussions, with no agenda (in fact, according to you, there's no need to talk about the motivation). However, at the same time, you seem hellbent on trying to discredit me, defame me, and deplatform me. Quite interesting, indeed. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) "No personal attacks". JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I'm correct. Taiwan has never ruled by the PRC. I honestly don't know what point you're making here, but this point is extremely relevant to the discussions. I will ping Matt Smith, Horse Eye's Back and Benlisquare. Let's see what they think about this particular point that I raised. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Also, this section is a subheading, so it's not really a whole new section. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I actually interacted with Horse Eye's Back for a significant portion of those comments. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) It's not off-topic to argue that Taiwan is not part of the PRC... when the idea that Taiwan is part of the PRC was something that you yourself literally were pushing in a previous comment. You said that we should describe Taiwan as legally a part of China (the PRC). JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Honestly dude, that's some low-hanging fruit. That discussion didn't involve you, and it had nothing to do with the current "Nathan Rich saga". In any case, Matt Smith and I have seemingly come to some agreements recently, and from time to time anyway, we have agreed on things in the past. My way of conversing with people is a bit unorthodox, but I'm not exactly a brick wall. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I honestly do not have anything against Matt Smith. We've engaged in some fruitful discussions in the past. Matt Smith is generally a good Wikipedian. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, Matt Smith is not exactly on your side, so don't go thinking that they'll come rushing to your defence at every opportunity they get. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Abused queue jumping

Reply w.r.t. Abused queue jumping

Facepalm. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) That's literally what I'm doing, dude. The reason for doing this was that other people had already replied to these messages. It actually is for clarity. This is something that I do on a regular basis. I even do it to my own comments. For example, here. I added a comment in front of my own volley of comments, with an indent. The purpose of this was to distinguish it from my other comments. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I honestly didn't even realise that people would view this as a problem, but, okay then. You're really struggling to find ways to incriminate me, dude. This is a non-issue, as far as I'm aware. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Constantly being uncivil

Evidence of being uncivil

Reply w.r.t. Evidence of being uncivil

Not untrue. Pinging Horse Eye's Back. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Come on dude, you've got to admit that this is funny (and rather witty, if I do say so myself). I even showed it to an internet friend of mine and she was like "lmao your comments on there are fire, get his ass". JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) What's your point here, exactly? I literally don't know what your schtick is. An explanation would be much appreciated. Also, I'm a poet. I love alliteration. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Bopomofo actually isn't a curse word, despite sounding sort of like one. I could have called you a "banana" or a "peanut" instead. Just a filler word, dude. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) This was also a joke, dude. My political views actually sort of lean towards communism? I'm not anti-communist, exactly. I'm just anti-Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP aren't even real communists... they're more like fascists or, at the very least, ultranationalists. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I actually cited a real article from Taiwan News that outlines Nathan Rich's criminal record. These accusations aren't exactly groundless. Far from it, in fact. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Again, I cited a real Taiwan News article that directly accuses Nathan Rich of being a felon. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith, groundlessly

Reply w.r.t. Assuming bad faith, groundlessly

Not groundlessly. I literally saw Nathan Rich's video almost as soon as it was released, and I just knew that the Taiwan Wikipedia article was going to be brigaded within a matter of days or even hours. That's why, when I saw your initial comment here, I was completely unsurprised, albeit still very irritated. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Explain how I'm wrong here? Why else would someone be pushing the notion that Taiwan isn't a country? If someone is saying that Taiwan is not a country because it's instead a part of the People's Republic of China (which is what you actually said, by the way), then I consider that statement to be one made in bad faith. My point that I was making is that I actually don't think Taiwan is a country. However, I believe that Taiwan is also not part of the People's Republic of China at the same time. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Your activity is unusual, to say the least. It would be helpful for you to divulge your motivations. There's no harm in asking... You don't have anything to hide, right? JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) This one's quite funny actually, since I said "goonies" instead of "goons". In any case, I don't see anything particularly wrong with this statement. Nathan Rich is a known troll. He's infamous not just among the Taiwanese English-speaking community but among American social democrats and anarchists in general. Many Americans see Nathan Rich as a guy who purely relies on his "whiteness" in order to appeal to a Chinese audience. He's seen as a guy who "understands China", even though he has no academic background on anything related to China whatsoever, as far as I can tell. He's literally just a businessman who parrots the Chinese Communist Party line in order to make money. I mean, props to him for finding a niche market to exploit... Truly the work of a shrewd capitalist. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptively refactored my speech

Reply w.r.t. Disruptively refactored my speech

It's a soapbox because you're parroting literal Chinese Communist Party propaganda and you've created your own "podium" to do so. Honestly, it's extremely hypocritical how you've called me out for making my own new sections (such as the one about Nathan Rich, or the one about the PRC's historical claim to Taiwan), whereas you've made several such sections yourself. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Your big blue "infobox" was very irritating. Why don't you just comment normally like everyone else is doing? In any case, nobody even bothered to respond to any of the points you raised, probably because it was making their eyes bleed. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Literally. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Right, I don't care. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I can't be bothered to reply to this properly. Just read the rest of my comments. I've been sitting here for three hours typing nonstop. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I mean, fair's fair, since I collapsed your own walls of texts. Go ahead, dude. I honestly don't care at this point. Go eat potatoes, or something. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Oh, I've been listening, alright. I've been listening for three hours straight, at this point. Though, "listening" is not synonymous with "agreeing". JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Not really. I've made a lot of different points. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Glad I could be of service. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I've been editing Wikipedia for a couple of years now. No one has really gone to such lengths to incriminate me as you have. This is despite the fact that many of the users I've previously interacted with were well-experienced, such as Matt Smith and Horse Eye's Back. On the other hand, you only started using Wikipedia last week. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) You know you're way out of line here, right? JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC) You've tried by trying your absolute hardest to defame, denounce and deride me. JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Matt Smith, Horse Eye's Back, Slatersteven, Benlisquare, and Zoozaz1: JN Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• You two deserve each other. EEng 14:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • My preferred reaction would just be to abandon this discussion. Unfortunately, In wkpd is constantly trying to revive this discussion which clearly already died days ago. Anyway, you can read my lengthy reply at your own discretion. I've just now presented a much briefer rebuttal in the section above. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You wanted to abandon this discussion? Did you forget accusing me of making ad hominem attack against you? The whole thing started from your disrespect to the rules. Just don't do anything if you're not sure you have the right to do so. And never make up rights yourself, like "delete comments not pinging you". --In wkpd (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Also, try to be civil. Trying to prove your point by slandering others (be it a Wikipedian or not) will only reveal your lack of justification.

      And try to respect others. Since you don't like reading walls of text, why do you make a lot of them?

      Think through your speech before making it, rather than making walls of text one after another. Can you imagine how messy the talk page would be if everyone is making walls of text like you? What makes you think you're so special? That everyone has to tolerate you? --In wkpd (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  • @EEng: Sorry for pinging you. --In wkpd (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks for pinging me to let me know that. I actually don't mind being pinged. But I do prefer ANI threads in which one side is clearly at fault e.g. writes huge walls of text that drive everyone crazy. For a while there, it seemed like that was JN, and you seemed normal. But then you went and spoiled it, so that now it seems like you two are on a shared mission to rob the community of its collective sanity. EEng 21:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why was I dragged into this?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Slywriter by Jargo Nautilus

Disclaimer. As far as I'm aware, nobody has said that I can't make a new section to reply to Slywriter's comment below.

Oppose for Jango as comments here clearly indicate Jango believes they must defend Taiwan against the CCP... Can you edit Taiwan related articles fairly and according to reliable sources without allowing your personal feelings on Taiwan and the CCPguide your editing and discussions with other editors?

Firstly, I'd like to point out that just because I have political views (by the way, everyone does), that doesn't mean I can't be impartial in my Wikipedia edits.

Secondly, in order to understand my motivations, which I've previously stated that I'm willing to disclose, some information is important to know. As I've informed Horse Eye's Back elsewhere, I actually directly discovered my Taiwanese ancestry as a result of reading the Taiwan Wikipedia article in 2017. Having a significant portion of my identity completely absent for most of my life so far has been deeply traumatic for me, especially considering the exact (very tragic) nature of my connections to Taiwan. My primary goal is not to advocate for Taiwan in any nefarious sense -- to "defend Taiwan against the CCP" -- but rather to promote the culture and history of Taiwan so that other members of the Taiwanese diaspora will not lose their connections to Taiwan as I myself did (obviously, it is optimal if this can be achieved through the usage of reliable sources).

I actually watched Nathan Rich's entire video about the Taiwan Wikipedia article a short while before all of these discussions began opening up on the talk page. In my opinion, based on the things that Rich said in the video, his intention is not merely to promote China's territorial claim to Taiwan (note: I'm actually not completely opposed to the idea that Taiwan should be part of China, though I am completely opposed to the idea that Taiwan is currently part of China; these are actually two separate concepts), but rather to completely wipe Taiwan off the map. He believes that the opinions of 23 million people living on the island of Taiwan are irrelevant. In my opinion, the Taiwanese have the fundamental human right of self-determination. If they choose to "reunify" with China, then, so be it. However, whatever happens, the Taiwanese people must be allowed to determine their own fate.

Overall, my views on Taiwan are that articles about the country/state/region/territory should primarily be focused on history and culture. Wikipedia is meant to be a tool of learning, not a playground for dictators. I personally learnt a great deal about my own heritage, and, by extension, my own identity, by reading various articles on Wikipedia (especially Taiwan-related ones, but others as well). I've also conducted research elsewhere (Wikipedia is not a reliable source). People who are coming onto Wikipedia for the sole purpose of rewriting the Taiwan Wikipedia article to read Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China are malign actors who clearly are not at all interested in improving the usability, reliability and accessibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedic website.

As a final word, I would like to thank the diligent Taiwan Wikipedia community for writing numerous informative articles about this mysterious island that does not exist. I've managed to learn a lot more about myself by reading these various Taiwan-related articles. Regards, Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

See this section: Examples of vandalism to Taiwan inspired by Nathan Rich's recent YouTube video Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed result JA/inwkpd

JN and In wkpd, I'll ask that you continue to use the above sections and leave this one for other editors.

1. Propose a strong warning to In wkpd for possibly being WP:NOTHERE, not sure how an editor who has made a very tiny number of edits ended up here after a short back-and-forth at talk. You're going to need to prove you're here to build an encyclopedia.—valereee (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
2. Propose a warning to Jargo Nautilus to stop reformatting and removing other people's article talk posts just because they don't like them. That is not how it's done, and again you are no newb and should realize that. —valereee (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
3. Propose warning both editors that these walls of text are disruptive editing, here or on any talk page. —valereee (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1, 2, & 3 as proposer. —valereee (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Understood. I accept the proposed terms of the hearing. I'm going to read up more on Wikipedia rules, as I've said. I've already compiled a couple of useful Wikipedia guide articles. And I've fixed up my user page a little. Regards, Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    Jargo Nautilus, but apparently you didn't read the first sentence. —valereee (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

    • I just noticed it (I initially misread it and thought you meant something else). Sorry. My point still stands, though. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for Jango as comments here clearly indicate Jango believes they must defend Taiwan against the CCP. So unless Jango can answer this yes or no question in the affirmative, I believe they need to steer clear of Taiwan related articles:

Can you edit Taiwan related articles fairly and according to reliable sources without allowing your personal feelings on Taiwan and the CCPguide your editing and discussions with other editors? (Withdrawn to avoid further interactions by either editor in this section, per opening sentence.)

On in_wkpd, the editor's conduct here is concerning and potentially tendentious but AGF and Don't bite say to give them some time to prove this isn't indicative of their future editing. (Though their refactoring of my comments and detailed analysis of Jango does make me wonder how new they truly are) Slywriter (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2 & 3, Oppose 1: The evidence of JN's talk page disruption at Talk:Taiwan has already been presented; though In wkpd has not presented their case well, it is farfetched to claim that that episode by itself is exhibiting WP:NOTHERE. In addition to the talk page re-factoring, JN should also be warned on WP:NOTFORUM: this edit above to this thread is an interminable avalanche of WP:RGW (the most egregious being parroting CCP arguments) and the continued mentions of Nathan Rich's personal life inexcusable. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support 2, oppose 3, neutral on 1. Setting aside my personal feelings about the CCP, Jargo Nautilus' removal of comments breaches WP:TPO and she'd be getting off lightly with a slap on the wrist.
  While I believe that less is definitely more and that walls of text discourage people from engaging further (as the WP:ELEM threads on here a few weeks back have demonstrated), I think the consequence of having fewer participants join in the discussion is enough, and understand the thought of how providing insufficient details could lead to unwanted administrator action.
  I remain neutral in regards to In wkpd potentially being WP:NOTHERE; there's not much NOTHERE activity for me to make that determination; they very quickly found this noticeboard, though I'll assume it is from lurking on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and 3 with the caveat that we have a checkuser give In wkpd a once-over, like my fellow editors I have reservations about any account that is born a fully formed editor as if from Zeus’s head. They’re also made a few misrepresentations of their own editing history which is cause for concern. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 2, oppose 3 Because In wkpd is relatively new here, the warning could be moderate rather than strong. And this is Jargo Nautilus's first time catching attention for removing comments, so the warning could be moderate, too. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Matt Smith: Jargo Nautilus's second time, not first time. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Deus ex machina

Comment (update) JN has been blocked (and talk page access revoked) for outing; unless they can appeal via UTRS, Nos. 2 and 3 are moot. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

We really need a rule requiring that ANI participants do all their blockworthy stuff at the start of the case so we can block them right away and save everyone a lot of trouble. EEng 01:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: FYI, here's the story. I was kind of angry when I found everything was deleted and it seemed no one would notice what she had done. I was very confident that JN violated the guideline (WP:TPG) twice in a row, and there must be some place to deal with guideline violation. So I looked for noticeboards, and the Administrators noticeboards are just at the beginning. Then I clicked in and read the description. I did believe the situation was urgent, chronic and intractable (considering other behaviours JN had in the talk page).

@Valereee, does that explain some of your concerns about me being WP:NOTHERE? Can you be more specific? I see a lot of entries in WP:NOTHERE. And what does strong warning mean? Is it just a template with no effect? --In wkpd (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd, Is it just a template with no effect? Well, that depends on how you look at it. Does a warning cause any immediate forced limitation to your ability to edit? No. But it may mean the next time you show evidence of being WP:NOTHERE, someone will just block you indefinitely. So is it something you can safely dismiss as of no importance? No.

Re: specific concerns. With a total of like five previous edits, you came into Talk:Taiwan, posted 8 times over 5 days, then dragged someone to ANI. This is an unusual pattern and one we often see with users who are WP:NOTHERE. Someone deleting your posts a few times over a few days doesn't qualify as urgent, chronic, or intractable. You're right that they shouldn't have done it. But that talk has a ton of traffic. There were like 70 posts just the day you opened this discussion, with lots of experienced users there to help. You filed this within hours of objecting there to the removals. —valereee (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee:

Thank you! Thank you for the clarification. And forgive me, because I'll have to make a long reply to clarify your miunderstandings.

Not so important things

With a total of like five previous edits, you came into Talk:Taiwan, Yeah, and that was years ago when I registered the account. Not sure what you're trying to say, but as I stated very clearly in my first edit in Talk:Taiwan, I came to Wikipedia because of that video discussing inconsistency between WP articles. posted 8 times over 5 days What's wrong with that? Do you have any idea how frequently JN has been makng edits? During that same period of time (23 to 27 Nov), JN made 61 edits. What do you say about that? then dragged someone to ANI. But hat person was violating the guidelines and had been constantly making disruptive edits in the talk page. This is an unusual pattern and one we often see with users who are WP:NOTHERE. Sure it's unusual, becuase it's that video that dragged me here. And there was a user (JN) with unusual behaviours involved. And it's about an unusual topic, Taiwan's identity, which is very controversial. JN is more likely to be WP:NOTHERE. Someone deleting your posts a few times over a few days doesn't qualify as urgent, chronic, or intractable. As a new comer to WP, the only things I knew were that talk page (Talk:Taiwan), and the fact that there are some guidelines and policies upholding the order of WP. I just didn't know of the routines and was very sure JN violated the guideline. Urgent: I thought it was urgent because my speech was deleted twice in a row. I felt like anything I post would possibly be deleted by JN, unless her action of crime is stopped immediately. Yes, I could've first talked to JN on her talk page, but I didn't know that routine. I will do it correctly the next time. But this time, it was just because I was unfamiliar with the routines. There's nothing to do with WP:NOTHERE. And I was very sure JN's behaviours were disruptive to the talk page. I believed reporting her would benefit WP. Chronic: Her disruptive edits in the talk page had been chronic, as you have seen. This was described as "possibly spamming" in the title of this thread. Intractable: I had tried to deal with that, by putting the evidence on Talk:Taiwan, hoping some experienced user would deal with it or tell me what to do. But JN completely removed it. I think that was enough. And her walls of text were intractable too. She was constantly posting walls of text.

6. There were like 70 posts just the day you opened this discussion

No, there were 39 posts, in 24 hours after my first post on Talk:Taiwan (23 Nov). If you're talking about 27 Nov, yes, there were 69 edits in that day. But after my 2 posts at 22:02 and 22:05, there were 26 edits on that day, and 25 of them were made by JN! So who was the problem??? JN or me???

Apparently you didn't read my starting post in this thread: He has made at least 36 edits on that Talk page since the first deletion (about 15 hours ago).

7. You filed this within hours of objecting there to the removals.

I do admit that it was not perfect on my part, as I hadn't read WP:RUCD or ANI advice (which I found today accidentally). And I'll definitely follow the advice/instructions in those articles if I ever run into the same thing again. But my action was no different than calling the police immediately upon sight of a crime, considering the guidelines/policies are the law here in WP.

Wikipedians are here to build an encyclopedia, i.e., a neutral, reliable public reference work on notable topics. Users whose behavior suggests they are here for some other purpose risk being blocked or banned.
— Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia

So you mean I came here for some other purpose? What am I gonna achieve here? Would you bother to take a look at my proposal in the talk page? My proposal was to bring different POVs into the first sentence of the article, to make it more neutral. If that's not WP is about, what is? A one sided story (as backed up by Irtapil)?

If you really care about WP:NOTHERE, JN is one you should beware of. As you should see, she has a cheap skill of making walls of text very quickly, that will frustrate almost anyone. And if you look at the "A one sided story" section now, JN was probably the one who frustrated Irtapil out of Talk:Taiwan.

Is it my turn now? --In wkpd (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

In wkpd, your proposal won't be discussed here; content discussion is done on the talk page. ANI is for urgent issues and chronic/intractable behavior issues. This noticeboard serves the editors of 6 million articles for such issues. —valereee (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't mean to discuss that here. Just to make sure you've read that, thus help you judge (Review behavior as a whole). --In wkpd (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Motion to close

The editor in question has been blocked and I am moving to close this long and lengthy discussion. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 04:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Not until a resolution has been reached wrt the other user (In wkpd). Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I think we need someone to close this monster per the proposed results section. The rest is IMO probably optional. —valereee (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Valereee, for the life of me, I don't see what practical proposals in regard to the "other editor" can come out of this. So, if you don't mind, I am going to close this, with the note that they are indeed disruptive, editors are welcome to open up a new thread. Thanks for your administrative actions, and your comments here. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Gabriel The Epic Gaming Champion1234

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.

---

• Gabriel The Epic Gaming Champion1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been warned multiple times for disruptive editing, mainly at amusement park articles where they are inserting unsourced claims or modifying existing information like ride names and replacing them with incorrect names. The behavior is intentional and doesn't appear to be accidental, especially given that they are ignoring edit summaries and talk page notices. I can collect diffs if needed, but you can pretty much look at any of their edits. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Gabriel has only made 52 edits so far, none to discussion pages. They do seem to be making unsourced changes (e.g. changing dates, changing names, without changing sources). I looked at their last five edits and they failed verification (and were already reverted). They've been templated multiple times by GoneIn60, as well as triggering ClueBot a couple times. In these situations an attention-getting block is not uncommon.

On the other hand, no one has tried to talk to Gabriel on their talk page other than via a template messages. I note that template messages that don't have diffs or any personalized note with them are extremely vague (the stock templates are all horribly written) and a new user might not know what to make of them. A regular talk page message really should be the first step, before templates, before ANIs, and before blocks. Also, "The behavior is intentional" is unfounded; none of us know what Gabriel's intent is. They could just be a newbie who doesn't have WP:V down yet.

So in sum, Gabriel's unsourced edits are problematic, but I don't think they've been properly approached about it yet. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have reached out to them, in a fairly simplistic manner. I have invited them to come and talk with me. I have no idea if the editor is a 60 year old with a PHD and an interest in theme parks, or is a 14 year old. Tricky. Simon Adler (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a fair assessment, and perhaps I should expound on the claim that the disruption seems "intentional". First, let's look at these consecutive edits one at a time:

• diff1
• diff2

That's odd behavior, but it's still early. Shortly after getting reverted, this follows:

• diff3

Vortex was a highly-publicized, heavily-marketed ride. There should be no shortage of sources in this regard, and it even has its own article full of sources only a click away. Now the editor's intentions are becoming questionable, but it's still too soon to draw any conclusions. Then a month later, some random year changes are tried, and these in particular are interesting:

• diff4
• diff5

Notice how Rotor's closing year was changed from 1981 to 1982, and then later from 1981 to 1980. Could that have been an honest mistake or the lack of WP:V awareness? Perhaps it's a reasonable possibility in a vacuum, but when taken into account with a larger sample, the likelihood of either becomes increasingly doubtful. Motivations and intentions aside, I'm not sure a personalized approach will have any effect, but if it will satisfy concerns of being thorough, we can certainly try that next if that's the recommendation here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Just saw Simon's post above. Appreciate you taking the time to reach out. Good luck! --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Update

Doesn't appear that an attempt to reach out on their talk page made a difference. Clear vandalism and disruption here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Simon Adler for reaching out to the editor and GoneIn60 for keeping an eye on it. Looks like we'll need admin intervention after all. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 48h, they should be able at least to notice they are blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all! Appreciate the swift response. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Updated update

@Ymblanter:Right off of their block they added that Big Ben was going digital [42]. Suggest indef until they start responding at least. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Pkeets

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 believe that Pkeets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is either in need of some serious guidance regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or an American Politics 2 topic ban for WP:NOTHERE reasons (alert). (Note please: I am not asking for a WP:NOTHERE sanction, they have been around longer than I have, but multiple editors are agreeing their behavior in the American Politics area is over the line and showing deep disregard for wikipedia policies.)

Problematic/WP:POVPUSH behavior:

1. Accused PhilKnight of having "a biased viewpoint" (17:46, 25 November 2020) after being warned by SnoogansSnoogans for edit warring on Nahshon Garrett‎ (User talk:Pkeets#Edit-warring on Nahshon Garrett, warning at 14:46, 25 November 2020). Similarly, they placed a retaliatory "warning" on SnoogansSnoogans's talk page (17:48, 25 November 2020).
2. 20 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#Servers seized by the US military?: "POV is showing" apparently in response to this edit. Followed by making commentary about something Powell apparently said on a Glenn Beck segment.
3. 20 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#"Some sources have described Powell as a 'model of a high achieving lawyer' while other sources have called her a conspiracy theorist": accused editors of "[belittling] her accomplishments because she's taken on Trump's legal fight", accused GorillaWarfare of an "edit war" for reverting in the WP:BRD cycle, accused both GW and AleatoryPonderings of editing the article "to be a reflection of short-term battles going on in the media", repeatedly engaged in WP:POVPUSH on the idea that somehow Wikipedia should represent Powell's claims as plausible despite all WP:RS coverage otherwise.
4. 24 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#RfC: Describing Powell as conspiracy theorist?: lack of understanding of WP:RS policy along with "There's apparent clarification on Powell's role from the Trump Team today, but it's not being covered by main stream media, so I guess it doesn't exist, right?", and accused editors of "an effort to make her look less accomplished and more like a crackpot."
5. 23–24 November 2020, Talk:Sidney Powell#This article seems biased and short on who Sidney Powell is.: repeated accusation of "an effort to make her look less accomplished and more like a crackpot", and some comments about "Look what that does to Wikipedia's credibility" after being pointed to the guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
6. 26 November 2020, on Voter Integrity Fund: accusing others of conspiring to prevent them from "establishing links" to de-orphan the article, and trying to direct individuals to "check the history" for supposed "preliminary findings" of the group ([43])
7. 26 November 2020, regarding Voter Integrity Fund at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voter Integrity Fund, accused other editors of "suppressing" the group's supposed "findings". ([44])
8. 25 November 2020, attempted to create a section on GoFundMe [45] for the purposes of listing right-wing grievances, specifically only listing the organization's removals of campaigns for "Voter Integrity Fund" and the perpetrator of the Kenosha unrest shooting.
9. 15 November 2020, repeatedly pushing the talking point at various articles that Biden was somehow not President-elect despite WP:RS concurrence that he was/is; claiming that describing Biden as such is a violation of NPOV (examples, there are far more in contribution history): [46] [47] [48] [49]
10. 22–23 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Primary vs. secondary sources, lack of understanding of primary vs secondary sources, and Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing. Making unfounded claims about the origins of the report to try to portray it as a secondary source. Commenting, "You don't want readers to know it's easily hackable?"
11. 23 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Article references biased alt left news sources rather than scientific sources. The claims in the articles are scientifically absurd, apparently trying to recruit a SPA with an unrelated complaint to support their argument, with the comment "Please join the discussion in the section above where editors are blocking a paragraph on how the Dominion systems are vulnerable to hacking." [50]
12. 24 November 2020, at Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Disappearing paragraphs on reliability, accusing editors of "disappearing" material, again misrepresenting sources (up to and including trying to use a paper that was analysis of an entirely different company), again conflating primary/secondary sources and independent/self-published sources. To quote GorillaWarfare: "I am concerned with this ongoing behavior: both the attempts to use shoddy sourcing to influence readers into believing Dominion is "easily hackable" (per your admission on this talk page), and now increasingly making accusations against editors who are trying to enforce quality sourcing that they are "blocking a paragraph on how the Dominion systems are vulnerable to hacking" and "disappearing paragraphs"."

They are also the creators of the pages Sidney Powell and Voter Integrity Fund, both of which are problematic. The creation of Sidney Powell had precisely five sources [51]: two to her personal website, one to her business website "federalappeals.com" (which is attributed in the copyright notice to "Sidney Powell P.c."), one to her blog page at observer.com, and one to an IMDB biography page. None of these sources managed to establish notability at that time and none were WP:RS.

Just before creating Sidney Powell, they promoted Voter Integrity Fund conspiracy theories [52][53].

Their creation of Voter Integrity Fund [54] also appears to fall into the problem behavior. Their text did not match well with the sources; they took only the quotes positive towards the project (despite the overall sources' tones being highly skeptical), and sourced some information to dubious pages such as a small bio on the "Leadership Institute" website. Edits since by Pkeets have been reverted for falsely representing sources [55] [56], for bad sourcing and copyright violation concerns [57]. They have also tried to slide in a link to the group's self-promoting videos on Youtube [58]. The page is currently up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voter Integrity Fund) and the only supporters of keeping it are Pkeets and a throwaway account that was created solely to vote there (Stevenola).

The primary purpose of Pkeets's editing appears to be precisely two things: promotion of conspiracy theories regarding voting in the 2020 election, and by extension Sidney Powell and the "Voter Integrity Fund", two main promoters of those conspiracy theories. I leave it up to the administrators and community how to proceed. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, @Doug Weller: and others who indicate that this should have been filed at WP:AE. I filed it here after asking advice from GorillaWarfare on where the proper place to file it was. If I have made a mistake or misunderstood her advice, please do not take it out on her.

I agree with your assessment especially after realizing my own mistake in misreading the length of their contribution history, which is why I asked for them to receive some serious guidance regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources as the first thing, and even extended the first paragraph of my own post to make it 100% clear that I was not asking for anything related to WP:NOTHERE. I feel I have to directly and fully reject the characterizations or aspersions cast by others in this thread that I am somehow being vindictive about this. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• The editor Pkeets is using Wikipedia articles to promote conspiracy theories about fraud in the 2020 election, as well as voter fraud in general (see the editor's history on the PILF[59] earlier in the year). The editor does this by (i) removing reliably sourced content that reflects poorly on groups and individuals who make unsubstantiated and false fraud claims, and (ii) stating poorly substantiated conspiracy theories in Wikipedia's voice or by attributing them to these individuals without any kind of qualifier that the claims are disputed (see for example how the unsubstantiated claims of a pro-Trump group of randoms get characterized as research/investigation "findings"[60][61]). The editor engages in some edit-warring[62][63] but not any clear-cut 3RR violations as far as I can tell. The editor also engages in behavior that borders on canvassing, such as seeking help from WikiProject Conservatism[64] and contacting likeminded users[65]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Pkeets. Noting that I am WP:INVOLVED for the purposes of this complaint, so this should not be taken as an uninvolved admin comment. I have been a party to several of the discussions listed above.
  I share IHateAccounts' concerns with this editor. I was actually quite surprised to find that Pkeets has been a prolific editor for quite some time (though with a bit of a hiatus from October 2016–June 2020), because their blatant POV-pushing and poor use of sources struck me as the behavior of a newer editor. It could be that they got somewhat rusty with policy over that hiatus, though not that much has changed and they were never really fully inactive.
  Anyway, that tangent aside, it does not seem that they can set aside their personal beliefs on what happened in the 2020 election in order to edit productively in this topic area. Their contributions are disruptive and time-consuming for other editors to deal with. Adding to what Snooganssnoogans said above about their attempts to canvass at WikiProject Conservatism, that linked discussion is not the only attempt Pkeets has made there. The last three sections at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism were started by them, and significantly misrepresent the disputes. Several editors challenged Pkeets' changes to Public Interest Legal Foundation because they were unsourced, included claims not in the provided sources, and/or used poor-quality or primary sources; Pkeets described this as "Apparently there is resistance to any kind of editing to extend it or improve the POV" ([66]). The issue with sourcing at Dominion Voting Systems, described by IHA above, was portrayed by Pkeets there as "unreasonable demands for sources" and included further misrepresentations of the sources ([67]). Finally, in their section there on Sidney Powell, Pkeets again says Powell was "being framed as a crackpot conspiracy theorist" ([68]).
  I think at least an AP topic ban would be appropriate. I have not yet looked too much into their editing in other topic areas to know if these issues persist there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I still fail to see why a white paper report from the State of California on their assessment of the system is not a good quality source. I supplied an online definition of "white paper" as a secondary source. Why is the State of CA unreliable? Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This ANI discussion is to address the behavioral concerns, not rehash the discussions that have already been held about primary/secondary sources. If you want to continue that line of discussion, Talk:Dominion Voting Systems#Primary vs. secondary sources is still open, or feel free to request additional eyes at WP:RSN. However I think I've explained quite clearly there why this is a primary source, and your repeated attempts to describe it in different ways as a secondary source seem to suggest you either don't know the origins of the report, or are trying to convince editors the report is something it's not so they will believe it's secondary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• From what I can tell this is a common issue with IHateAccounts. After seeing how active they are on user talk pages trying to get people they disagree with sanctioned I decided to take a closer look at their contribution history and what I found is a disturbing trend of bludgeoning, attacks, and way to much time on user talk pages discussing other users. All this after being warned[69][70] about such things and even blocked[71] for it they continue their apparent crusade as demonstrated above.
  • Bludgeoning - Mostly at Talk:Parler & Talk:Proud_Boys from what I can tell in the short time they have been editing those talk pages they have shot up to well within top 10 editors overall.[72][73]
  • Attacks on other users, general battel ground behavior, and just adding to a toxic editing environment. These were taken just over the past two weeks.[74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88]
  • Finally they are spending way to much time on user talk pages either trying to get people sanctioned or just stirring up drama. It is also a good illustration of issues they have with various users that they then seem to follow around just to argue with.[89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102]
• This really needs to end now. PackMecEng (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  I will keep this brief to avoid encouraging editors to derail this thread with complaints about IHateAccounts, but I have disagreed with PackMecEng's characterization of IHA's behavior once already: User talk:GorillaWarfare#Re: Bus stop. I'm not even sure how PackMecEng found themselves at my talk page to leave that comment, but I don't understand their criticism of IHA's (frankly wise) choice as a newer editor to consult with more experienced editors about issues in a fraught topic area; that is behavior that I believe should be encouraged, if anything. Furthermore, they fail to mention that the concerns IHA had with Bus stop turned out to be quite founded, resulting in a recent AP2 topic ban for Bus stop (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler) which was upheld after an appeal (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Bus_stop). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  When it keeps happening it goes from wise to harassments and problematic as I have shown above. I do not know why you would want to encourage such toxic behavior in such a controversial topic area. It is frankly disturbing and baffling from an admin and an arb. PackMecEng (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am well aware that, as a right-wing editor, PackMecEng dislikes me (especially since I am nonbinary). They even have taken to blaming me for the fact that some of their friends have been sanctioned, which I consider incorrect. In their series above they make gross misrepresentations; for instance, when I commented to Drmies regarding Geno4445, it is because their SOLE edit on Wikipedia - EVER - is this [103] in which they ramble on about the very conspiracy theories promoted by Powell and end with "For if this corruption is not purged, then the United States stands to be subjected to such people like Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro" at Sidney Powell. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. It is a prime example of the editing issues I demonstrated above. I appreciate the (especially since I am nonbinary) part since I have no way of knowing, never talked about it and could not care less about it. WP:ASPERSIONS like that are a big problem. PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: You provide a wall of diffs for the initial accusation up at the top of the thread, but none for this one? If you don't have any, this is an incredibly inflammatory comment, and a blatant personal attack. jp×g 23:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I for one would like to thank IHateAccounts for saving me the trouble of reading the diffs to determine if PME's analysis was accurate. Q.E.D. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Similar commentary seems to have continued on GorillaWarfare's talkpage about this AN/I thread: I'm walking away. I knew there was a likelihood posting this would lead to multiple right-wing editors coming in to scream, but I think what I need is a hot soak with a lush bomb.[104]. About that battleground attitude... --Pudeo (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Warned IHA once again on their talk for making personal attacks. IHA, I really don't care what you think about PME, but keep it to yourself. —valereee (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• NOTHERE? That's just shameful. Here we have the OP, a month old account that already had to be blocked for personal attacks and harassment, and Pkeets who has been editing more than a decade and who has created almost 1,000 articles with a clean block log. I beg to differ who here is not to build an encyclopedia. People have opinions about American politics and that shows in content disputes, but obsessing over them like this is not healthy. Pkeets is likely to "lose" the AfD, is that not enough? --Pudeo (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:AP2 applies to everyone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • IIRC, IHA has been around a whole heck of a lot longer as an IP, and was encouraged to create an account by several well-respected editors, some who have commented here. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
    • It's hard to say. Sometimes they are referred to as new other times not. Seems situation dependent. PackMecEng (talk) 04:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• This thread starts off with Note please: I am not asking for a WP:NOTHERE sanction -- so it sounds to me like the desired outcome is a TBAN (not sure why this wasn't brought up at AE if that was the case). In that case, the disputes this thread were spawned from are the primary issue at hand. While I don't really love to get political with my editing, and I think it's important to avoid derailing an AN/I thread, I think it would be impossible to discuss the dispute in question without mentioning OP's conduct. For example, on the talk page of the article this thread is about, they have been heavily involved in multiple disputes, in a distinctly WP:BATTLEGROUND way: using the page as a forum to insult the subject, hatting and removing entire sections after disagreeing in a BITEy way with the comments in them, describing posts they disagree with as "rants", et cetera. They've even gone on other users' talk pages and described Pkeets (the editor this thread is a complaint about) with recursive scare-quotes as being "on the "but affidavits" and "but 'the media'" kick yet again". All of that is literally just in connection with this one article; not to get off-topic with other stuff here, but it seems to me that IHA experiences broad difficulty participating civilly in discussions about WP:AP2 subjects. I have held back on making a post like this for a while (I don't have an enduring interest in getting mad about politics on Wikipedia), but in a very short time period this editor has started (or brought extreme acrimony to) a large number of vicious disputes, and I think it might be necessary to take some action in that regard. jp×g 00:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Long-term editor or not, IMO GorillaWarfare's post above already provides sufficiently convincing edivence of tendentious editing by Pkeets to justify an AP topic ban for Pkeets. Of course, ANI is an extremely poor venue for obtaining consensus for topic bans related to conentious POV laden areas. These discussions usually get quickly sidetracked by the participation of editors from both sides of the dispute who often have significant POV and conduct issues of their own. I don't have much hope that this thread will fare much better in this regard. A much better course of action here would have been to file a request at WP:AE asking for an AP2 topic ban to be enacted under the discretionary sanctions in effect. Pkeets was formally notified about those discretionary sanctions back on September 24[105]. Quite possibly the OP deserves the same kind of a topic ban. I just wish people used AE for these purposes instead of producing train-wreck interminable ANI threads. Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Seems to me to be a straightforward case with more than enough diffs to support TBANing both editors from AP2. What AP2 needs is fewer battleground editors, and it doesn't matter which "wing" they're from. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

  Support tban for pkeets in case that wasn't clear from my earlier comment. Anyone who is still arguing that Biden is not the president-elect should not be editing AP2. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

If i may correct your spelling, Levivich, "What Wikipedia needs is fewer battleground editors". Otherwise, amen and hallelujah to your comment; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 08:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support AP2 ban for Pkeets, I'd need to see more about IHateAccounts. @IHateAccounts: this really should be at WP:AE. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any topic ban longer than 3 months. Reviewing Pkeets's contribs prior to November, they seem to be an excellent contributor. Looking at some of the diffs in the OP, Pkeets's recent conduct doesn't seem as bad as the framing would suggest. Some of their edits may have battle ground qualities, but no "worse" than many of the left leaning editors in the AP2 arena ('Worse' is in air quotes as I wonder if one of JFK's fave quotes currently applies to AP2. ) That said, Pkeets does seem to have been pushing a PoV concerning Trump's election fraud line that is contradicted by the vast majority of WP:RS. Even if they want to retain those beliefs privately, they should recognise that advancing said view is a lost cause on Wikipedia. If they can't do that, a short topic ban might be an efficient way to stop further disruption. Lastly, I applaud IHateAccounts for taking this to ANI rather than going straight to AE. Good to give Pkeets a chance to moderate their editing after some community comment, without necessarily having a sanction. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Support t-ban for both IHA and Pkeets - "a narrow topic ban on matters relating to the 2020 US Election, perhaps time-limited until 21 January" for Pkeets per Black Kite, and a 30 day AP2 t-ban for IHA to cool their heels since their block did not remedy the problem. ^{added 18:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)} - aren't we supposed to graduate remedies for disruption. Since this is his (Pkeets) first, why not just a week ? Some of the accusations and proposed remedies are seriously undeserved. This is not a consistently problematic editor. Atsme 💬 📧 13:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support a time-limited AP2 topic ban for at least Pkeets. Haven't waded through the other diffs yet so am neutral for IHateAccounts at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• This really belongs at AE. However, from a quick look at the provided diffs this does appear to be an editor in previously excellent standing who has fallen down the election conspiracy-theory rabbit-hole, with the result that they are coming up against Wikipedia policies which they are clearly aware of. The behaviour at Voter Integrity Fund as regarding misrepresentation of sourcing is pretty poor, as is attempting to either introduced conspiracy theory material (or remove the fact that things have been described as conspiracy theories). I would support a narrow topic ban on matters relating to the 2020 US Election, perhaps time-limited until 21 January. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban on IHA and yet another strong warning to stop with the personal attacks. Accusing PME of being motivated by personal hatefulness is beyond the pale. Why are we putting up with the relentless ABF from this editor? Support also a short AP2 tban for Pkeets, maybe things'll return to normal for them in a couple of months, but for IHA from everything I've seen this is the norm. —valereee (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, your iVote may accidentally be counted as an S for Pkeets in lieu of IHA, considering a boomerang has not yet been called, and may inadvertently be overlooked. Atsme 💬 📧 15:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Like my bad ping to Valereee. *sigh* Atsme 💬 📧 15:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support AP2 topic ban for Pkeets, at least 3 months or longer. Oppose anything more than a warning for IHA at this point. POV pushing and tendentious editing propagating fringe views like Sidney Powell conspiracy theories represents a much greater danger here, and we should absolutely not allow Wikipedia to be used in this way. In relation to IHA, I have not seen more that overzelousness, incivility and some personal attacks. Certainly worthy of a warning, but it's not the same as misuse if sources and pushing a fringe POV agenda. Nsk92 (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nsk92: IHA has been warned multiple times before as well as blocked for it. Even their mentor GW commented about their actions in this very thread that they need to provide diffs or remove their aspersions above.[106] PackMecEng (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban for Pkeets for 3 months. Agree completely with Nsk92. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 ban for IHA. In the short time IHA has had a named account their behavior has been nothing but confrontational/battleground. They have accused multiple editors of trolling/being trolls. They have refactored/deleted talk page threads (sometimes legitimately but as often questionably after others have replied). Since they were editing as an IP it's hard to say what their behavior was when it was hard to track them as a single editor (though I have found at least one instance of accusing another editor of trolling) I can provide diffs when I have more time. Springee (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Pkeets Supporting baseless conspiracy theories shows WP:CIR issues for the topic area. Is IHA really any worse than Valjean, as far as conduct goes? It's clear IHA needs to tone the rhetoric down, but I'm not sure that's worth a topic ban on its own unless this continues. I think IHA's claim comes from a reddit user with the name "PKMEC" calling IHA a "tranny" on various wikipedia related subreddits. I don't think the account is likely by PacMec, and is by an anonymous troll look to stir up trouble. I think that IHA should apologise to PacMec. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic bans for both We have a terrible habit here of overlooking bad behaviour because we agree with the editors POV. This needs to stop and IHA's response to PackMecEng would lead to a sanction if it came from an editor with a different POV. A topic ban for Pkeets is a no brainer. AIRcorn (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support AP2 topic ban for both editors I suggest that the topic bans expire on January 21, 2021, with an explicit warning to both editors that future infractions will result in very long blocks. Endorse the comment by Levivich, "What AP2 needs is fewer battleground editors, and it doesn't matter which "wing" they're from." We need to be less forgiving of political battleground editing, no matter the editor's political persuasion. That being said, passionate advocacy of summarizing reliable sources is inherently less problematic than passionate advocacy for including content from unreliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic bans for both for 90 days to get us beyond the inauguration and any fallout that may happen immediately after.--MONGO (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic bans for both editors It helps everyone stay civil when we make it clear that there are no special exceptions to behavioral expectations. It's hardly surprising that political subjects raise hackles and occasionally invite WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior; strict, time-limited topic bans would be a measured and appropriate response to that reality. I'm sure Pkeets and IHA can find other subject areas where it's easier for them to contribute constructively in the meantime. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 00:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• I am slightly involved, in that I !voted at the AfD and noted Pkeets' strong advocacy - such as including in the article detailed biographies of two non-notable (no Wiki article) people involved with the organization, and objecting when they were removed. I conclude from the discussion here that Pkeets is a productive editor who has temporarily lost sight of WP:NEUTRALITY due to the emotions of the moment. I think it would be best if they either were temporarily blocked from editing articles related to the 2020 election, or voluntarily agreed to refrain, until after the inauguration. I see that Pkeets has not so far commented here, and I would like to hear from them before an outcome is decided; maybe they will voluntarily agree to a restriction. As for IHateAccounts, I have no opinion. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been gone for Thanksgiving and came back to find this going on. Will it do any good if I state that I think all the above accusations are incredibly biased? If fact, they reflect back on the behavior of the supporting editors. If anyone is interested, I'm a Democrat and a moderate. The problem is likely that I've been a Wikipedia editor for fifteen years and I recall when neutral POV was important in the articles. See quote from Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger last week declaring that Wikipedia is now “badly biased” and “no longer has an effective neutrality policy.” Not only that, but editors who attempt to provide some kind of professionalism and balance in the articles are banned--am I to understand this correctly? Pkeets (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sanger is no longer a voice of reason regarding Wikipedia, NPOV, and RS. He now pushes conspiracy theories and uses many abominable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Has he been banned? Is that why he's complaining? Pkeets (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No, he's not banned. He hasn't been actively involved in Wikipedia since... 2002 I want to say? He has tried to build several WP competitors (Digital Universe Encyclopedia, Citizendium, Infobitt, Everipedia, and most recently the "Encyclosphere") and now seems to also be on the right-wing conspiracy theorist circuit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've replied to some of the accusations above. Most of what has gone on is the standard BS that happens in Wikipedia when a group of people want to own a topic, and set barriers to entry for any outside editors. In other words, I expect it's the issue of controlling a narrative that's the basic problem. I'm also somewhat appalled at the support these complaints have received without apparent study of the actions involved and, basically, against the interests of Wikipedia as a broad and reliable source of information. Notice that some large online sites may be about to lose their Section 230 status for censorship of alternate viewpoints. Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have "barriers to entry?" Yes, we do have them. They are called RS, and source reliability is judged by accuracy, not by any particular bias, be it left or right. As is always the case with politically relevant facts (IOW not all facts), there are those sources which agree with them, and those sources which do not. This is a factor in what's known as "disinformation laundering.": "The U.S. media ecosystem features several spheres that partially overlap and constantly interact with each other....The mainstream media... The conspiratorial media... and Disclosers."

Currently, with few exceptions, the right-wing media has become so extreme that it is the described "conspiratorial media," with some extreme left-wing sources also in that group. At some other point in history, the roles might be reversed. It all depends on which narratives, true or false, are favorable to those in power. With Trump and the GOP, they have clearly chosen disinformation and conspiracy theories to stoke Trump's base, and he often gets those narratives from sources like Fox News, Daily Caller, Breitbart, RT, Sputnik, and Russian intelligence efforts to plant propaganda and fake news, which he then repeats.

The point? Yes, Wikipedia does have "barriers to entry," and we should be thankful for them, not criticize and undermine them. -- Valjean (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Declaring that some large online sites may be about to lose their Section 230 status for censorship of alternate viewpoints makes it difficult to discuss anything with you in good faith, because you are operating in some alternate universe where this is true - when it is not. This idea exists only in the fever dreams of desperately-in-denial Trumpists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You are hardly the only editor in this discussion to have edited Wikipedia for a long time. If anything, it makes your difficulties with sourcing more unacceptable, given you should certainly know the RS policy by now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Aren't you the guy who thinks scientific study articles published in peer reviewed journals are "primary sources" and therefore unacceptable? And white paper reports are unsuitable? Instead, you want these references replaced by articles from popular media? Pkeets (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not a guy, and the report you are describing is neither a scientific study nor is it published in a peer reviewed journal. I see you have not stopped misrepresenting sources, a concern I described in detail in my comment (23:02, 28 November 2020) at the top of this section. If you're asking if I am the person who has told you that Wikipedia articles need to follow the policy on original research, which contains the section WP:PRIMARY, yes, that is me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I have moved Pkeets' replies to IHA's original report out from where they've inserted them into IHA's comment, which is impossible to read and breaks their numbering. I've numbered them below so that it's clear where Pkeets was replying. Pkeets, feel free to reformat as you like, but please don't edit into other users' comments like this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

2. What do you think about deletion a whole section of an article because someone's personal experience as reported on Fox is "Too supportive of voter fraud"? If it happened, it happened. Pkeets (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC

3. How is this an example of misbehavior? I've called you out for only looking at the sources you want to use. Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

8. Are you sure you're talking about the correct editor? How far left are you that moderate, centrist views are now called "right-wing?" Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

9. The position is well defined by the sources in the article. Please check the definition of "president elect" again. Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

11. The State of California assessment of the system is not a biased alt-left source. Neither is CNN. Are you unsure whether I'm "alt left" or "right wing?" Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

12. Again, the State of California assessment is not a shoddy source. Nothing I used as a source on this article failed to include Dominion. Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How many sources does the article have now? Can you say she's not prominent and not deserving of an article? Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You're quite welcome to provide your own opinion on these articles, or not. I don't see that anyone has hesitated to frame Powell as a conspiracy theorist. Pkeets (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Only quickly replying to these points, since most of your objections have already been discussed at length, but two things: Regarding your response to point 11, please click into the link. IHateAccounts has linked to a section titled "Article references biased alt left news sources rather than scientific sources. The claims in the articles are scientifically absurd", but they were not the one who created the section, nor were they the one using "alt-left" as a descriptor. That was courtesy of VanishingMediator. As for your question "Can you say she's not prominent and not deserving of an article?", I don't think anyone has suggested that–if they had, we'd be at WP:AfD, not ANI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Pkeets: I think that Pkeets' willingness to spread conspiracy theory material is concerning. More importantly, their continued defensiveness on every single point indicates that they're not willing to step back and accept feedback from other editors. "Will it do any good if I state that I think all the above accusations are incredibly biased?" Not really; it would be better to reflect on what people have been telling you, and how much our coverage should reflect mainstream reliable sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It remains to be seen whether these are conspiracy theories. So the solution to disagreements is not really consensus, but to ban centrist editors that think you should go by definitions and show both sides of an issue? This is a fairly common turf battle on Wikipedia, which is deservedly getting a bad reputation for toxic environment and suppression of information. Everyone here needs to look at their own behavior. Pkeets (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The solution to disagreements is to go to first principles, and look at what reliable sources are saying. If you reject reliable sources and all you have is a desire to show "both sides" without sources to back it up, then you're just not doing this right. You can use the word "toxic" if you want, but it's a basic principle of Wikipedia, and you don't seem to be interested in following it. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, now we have heard from Pkeets. I was waiting for that. What we have heard is not encouraging. I see no acknowledgement that their edits have been POV - rather a doubling-down on their "right" to edit from a partisan perspective. This makes me more inclined to support a short term topic ban from American politics. My hope that they might voluntarily agree to taking a vacation from the topic was clearly misplaced. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Pkeets per Toughpigs. --JBL (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support AP2 Ban for both IHA and Pkeets - American Politics is such a tough place to edit, made infinitely more difficult/stressful/not-worth-my-time-or-sanity by editors who consistently engage in hyper-confrontational and aggressive POV-pushing behavior. Quoting Levivich again, "What AP2 needs is fewer battleground editors, and it doesn't matter which "wing" they're from." Plus endorsing Cullen's follow up "We need to be less forgiving of political battleground editing, no matter the editor's political persuasion." I would like to see admins follow through and take bold moves to sanction blatant battleground behavior to create a calmer, more collaborative environment. Some hope, I know, but this would be a good start. RandomGnome (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding IHA (Alternate proposal)

I am not usually willing to do this, but I suppose this seems like an exceptional case. I would actually be completely willing to co-WP:ADOPT IHateAccounts. It seems they have had a negative experience recently, yet I see a lot of potential with this editor here. Wikipedia is stressful, and we sometimes say and do things we later come to regret. I see IHA's problem as not being able to WP:AGF in this topic field, but my sense is that is something they could improve on given enough time. Though, in the meantime, an apology to Pac is very much in order.
Would this be something all the parties (except Pkeets) would be willing to agree to? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Very noble of you, MJL. Just curious...are you aware that Gorilla Warfare, a proficient arb/admin, is their mentor now? Also keep in mind that we're not discussing a new editor in IAH, as they have been editing for quite some time as an IP, thus the new user name/registration, thanks to GW's persuasion. Perhaps a bit of cool down period will provide both editors some time for introspection, and for IAH to feel less emboldened or inclined to run to an admin for the slightest disagreement on a TP, and hopefully will become a bit more sensitive to the opinions/feelings of other editors whose POV simply don't align with their own. I recognize the problem because, in the past, I've had the occassional bout of overzealousness in the highly controversial AP topic area. Pretty much all of us have been there, but I'm very pleased to see that progress is being made because more admins are seeing that it takes 2 to Tango, and that realization alone will work wonders in helping to erradicate a big part of the problem. I applaud them for their excellent work in that area, and for taking on the risk of being pigeonholed with a particular political party because they didn't take one side over the other. Atsme 💬 📧 11:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, IHA and I have no sort of "official" mentor/mentee relationship like adopt-a-user, which is what it sounds like MJL is proposing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

GW, I adopted a highway once, but encountered some bumps along the way. Valereee, that's a very kind offer. Have you considered running for ArbCom? j/s Atsme 💬 📧 18:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

MJL, if IHA will agree to this, I'll strike my !vote. —valereee (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Well not the mentoring that is a good idea, but the use of mentoring as a way to get around a topic ban. A couple of months away from a hot button area they have trouble editing calmly is still beneficial to encyclopaedia. Mentor them in other areas or when/if they come back to this area. Otherwise it still smacks of allowing bad behaviour to occur because we support a particular POV. A topic ban of a few months is not a death kneel for an editor if they prove productive elsewhere. AIRcorn (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Well, I was hoping to be able to work with IHA in this topic area to find some constructive ways for them to be able to contribute to it. Can't really do that if they have a topic ban. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Then its not really a mentorship, but a way to help them edit in a topic area they have been shown to have a battleground attitude to. This is not a bad thing, but also not a reason to overlook their problematic behaviour. There are plenty of articles out there, many of which are much more important and in need of editors than the mess which is AP2. If they are serious about reforming then they should have no problems returning after a short break. Then you can help them in this topic area if the mentorship offer is only for AP2. AIRcorn (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Few people know this, but MJL was raised by the Qowat Milat, a sect of fierce Romulan warrior nuns known for absolute candor and binding themselves to lost causes. I'd support M mentoring anyone, but what I unfortunately don't see is a willing mentee. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Mentee. Please, Levivich, I thought you were better than this. EEng 06:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

You always were an optimist. Levivich ^harass/_hound 07:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else needs to be aware, I responded to MJL on my talk page and plan to discuss with them. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: After speaking with MJL today they have made it clear their understanding of your position on nonbinary pronouns and existence. For my misunderstanding and the text I have struck, I offer you an apology. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Also @MJL:, my apologies, I read the linked discussion you asked me to read and then got my brain turned round on your pronouns. I've corrected that in the previous comment. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that, thank you. If you are willing to work with MJL, then I have no issues what so ever. AP2 can be a tough area to jump into, I did the same thing when I first started. I hope to see you around. PackMecEng (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support mentorship for IHA as opposed to a TB. IHA clearly has the energy & intelligence to be a great editor. Better AGF would be a big help to them. It would be a shame to disrupt MJL's plan to work on that; they might not have time for mentorship 3 months down the line. It's rarely easy to help someone passionate about politics to see the good in the other side, yet there's few nobler undertakings. Joe "bipartisan" Biden's plans to do this are seen as pre-requisites to successful solutions to the other great issues of the age like Climate. Reducing polarisation isn't something Biden and his crew can achieve on their own, it needs many individual grass roots initiatives such as MJL's. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I was initially unsure of this plan but IHA's apology to PME pushed me off the fence into the "give it a chance" camp. I think that a promising start and hope that this works out for IHA the way it did for MJL. Springee (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I first encountered IHA while engaging in some editing at Madison Cawthorn, which I eventually left because it got caught in the bitter and petty "modern American politics Wikipedia-media edit-warring complex" (MAPWEC for short) and returned to more greener pastures. There were some intense content disputes on the talk page and as much as I found IHA's opponents' arguments to be lackluster or POV-ridden, I also got the impression that they should also not be editing modern American politics articles due to POV concerns. I think some mentoring would do them good, but AirCorn makes an invaluable point that we shouldn't be using that process to shelter editors from topic bans. In my opinion, IHA needs to disengage from modern American politics, whether voluntary or by community sanction, and focus on other stuff under mentorship. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Call for closure

This discussion has been open for 9 days and I suspect both halves of it are ready for closure by somebody uninvolved. BTW I notice that Pkeets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not edited at all since December 3, possibly waiting for the outcome of this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• I guess I just want to note something for the record before this gets closed. IHA has done a lot of things wrong, but none of the things they have done ever seemed to me to be that outlandish for a newbie. Like we all at one point or another did not really understand what was and is acceptable conduct here. However, if this is some indication for what IHA is going to have to learn to deal with (on top of offwiki harassment), I just don't know what to say.
  IHA is capable of identifying hereto unknown problematic conduct from other users such as in this case (#Pkeets) or by tipping me off to this sockmaster. I also tested IHA to see how they would react to my featured list candidate (which features a well known and highly controversial American political group), and they seemed to handle it more than well by providing insightful comments to it.
  IHA is a well-meaning contributor with some obvious problematic tendencies, but I do want it noted I am not happy about recent attacks like the one I linked above. No one deserves to be treated like that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  The personal attack issue is now at #User:Johnsmith2116 personal attacks. The AFD should be WP:SK1'd before it gets WP:SNOW closed. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Although I am not involved, I would like to comment. Shouldn't it then be sub-sectioned here, or this section be sub-sectioned there. Otherwise people on ANI will be going back and forth between archive and ANI if they need to look back here, if anything relating to this particular part of the incident somehow comes back up in that issue. Placing it as a sub-section would make things easier. (Non-administrator comment)Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: Nah, it's fine.
@Levivich: That report was much appreciated. Regarding the AFD, it's ineligible now since XOR'easter has made a vote to merge there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Rgalo10

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.

---

Rgalo10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Threatens to call me to the police just for nominating their photo on Wikimedia Commons due to a non-free advert. Also called me a thief in one of their edit summaries. I think a block is warranted here for not getting the point. pandakekok9 (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Rgalo is also known for personal attacks and typing nonsense on other user's talk pages (Example 1 Example 2 Example 3). Since Rgalo10 was previously blocked for personal attacks, I think they deserve a longer block this time. ETI 15TrSF (Chat Box) 05:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinite. Legal threat. Not that credible really I suppose. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Competence is required to edit Wikipedia, but not to make a legal threat. Just read a good newspaper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

They seem to be making an unblock request. I don't need notifying if they are going to be unblocked but I see they also mentioned that another editor was "so dead". CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether they are trolling or just simply mistook the WP:EBUR as examples of "good" unblock requests. pandakekok9 (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Purely as a note, I've declined the unblock requests (something like 20 open or so, which I've blanked as they weren't providing appreciable differences). A better request might be acceptable, but I shall leave that to an alternate reviewing admin Nosebagbear (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on their user page, I'm sure they're just a troll. "Hi everyone I am Rgalo10 I'm a genius smart guy helping making complete sentences and others help me to and I know how to edit by fixing the words or some old sentence to a new sentence to updated sources for wikipedia's." Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Johnsmith2116 personal attacks

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

---

Johnsmith2116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Blocked 5 Jul 2020 by Bishonen for 48hrs for "egregious personal attacks in edit summaries on own page, directed at a user who approached them civilly". [107]
• Blocked 11 Sep 2020 by Salvio giuliano for 5 days for "edit warring and making personal attacks/casting aspersions". Unblock request declined by Ohnoitsjamie. [108]
• On 8 Dec 2020, made this personal attack.

Without making any specific proposal, I suggest this is a chronic problem meriting further admin attention. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Levivich, that's very clear. Indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC).

  Thanks, Bish (and Salvio and jamie) for mopping up the incivility so quickly! Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

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

No FansV5

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.

---

• No FansV5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point on User talk:Dylsss and User talk:Twassman adding invalid block notices and speedy deletion tags [109] [110] and attempting to decline other AfC drafts [111]. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I reported to WP:AIV very shortly after you did — I've removed that. Thank you for the report! Also note removal of speedy deletion tags from self-created page [A] [B] [C] [D]. (Non-administrator comment)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Twassman (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked as pretty clearly WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposal to take action against User:GPinkerton

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.

---

Vandalism: According to admin consensus here and relevant talk page discussion here, User:GPinkerton doesn't understand what vandalism means. An admin thought they should be indefinitely blocked from editing until they show understanding and retract their remarks.

Edit warring

1. In 6 March 2020, they edit warred on Bulgaria during World War II: [112], [113], [114].
   • They were warned by the other party here (among other warnings).
2. In 9 May 2020, they edit warred on Basilica: [115], [116], [117].
   • They were warned by the other party here.
   • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as no violation (of 3RR in particular). A warning was issued to respect BRD. See here.
3. In 15-16 May 2020, they edit warred on Catholicity: [118], [119], [120] (manually).
   • They were warned by the other party here.
4. In 28 June 2020, they were blocked for 48h for edit-warring on Vashti: [121], [122], [123] (manual), [124].
   • See the relevant report at WP:AN3 here.
   • They appealed the block twice, being declined once and accepted the other.
5. In 24 July 2020, they edit warred on Hagia Sophia: [125], [126].
   • They were warned by the other party here and later by an admin here.
   • It was raised at WP:AN3 and closed as content dispute. The closing admin thought it qualifies for a block, if not confounded by other parties involved.
6. In 28 July 2020, they edit warred on Mehmed the Conqueror: [127], [128].
   • They were informally warned by a third party here.
7. In 26 September 2020, they edit warred on Constantine the Great and Christianity over which English spelling variety should be used: [129], [130].
   • They were informally warned by an admin here.
8. In 19 November 2020, they were blocked again, this time for 24h, for edit warring on Murder of Samuel Paty: [131], [132], [133], [134].
   • The blocking admin sought consensus for the block in light of an appeal by GPinkerton. Consensus was granted unanimously.
9. In 21 November 2020, they edit warred again on Murder of Samuel Paty: [135] and [136] (manual).

Ad hominem and harassment

1. In The Holocaust in Bulgaria, they said: Can you read?
2. At 17:40, 12 May 2020, they were warned of harassment and WP:OUTING for disclosing another user's real name.
3. In Talk:Hagia Sophia, they said: a clear mark of someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
4. During a discussion with me in Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty, they said: Is English your first language?
   • See my reply.
5. In their own talk page, they addressed me and other editors who disagreed with them as a lobby and then as vandals who are involved in groupthink and me in particular as an anti-blasphemy ringleader who is weaseling [scattered, among other insults, throughout their prolonged comment] (just because I discussed on Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty that Charlie Hebdo Cartoons were [sic] controversial and that their publication can be attributed as a motive for the terrorist, for which I filed 2 RfC).
   • I tried to point out their uncivility here. They deleted my remarks, in opposition to WP:DELTALK.

Nonadherence to BRD: GPinkerton has a long-lasting habit of not stopping editing to start discussion, in opposition to WP:BRD. Here are some example disputes:

1. In Bulgaria during World War II, as shown above. The other party started discussion here.
2. In The Holocaust in Bulgaria, a voluminous dispute as shown here. The other party started discussion here.
3. In Basilica, as shown above. The other party started discussion here.
4. In Catholicity, as shown above. A third party started discussion here.
5. In Vashti, which led to the block shown above. The other party started discussion here.
6. In Hagia Sophia, as shown above. The other party started discussion here and here and an external admin did here.
7. In Murder of Samuel Paty, which led to the block shown above. The other party first started discussion here and then yours truly did here.
   • Having been unblocked, despite the 2 RfC already ongoing, GPinkerton maintained editing, in some cases contestably (see these automatic and manual reverts). Only some strange-sounding OR was given in edit summaries (clarification is a type of amendment?). Discussions were never started on the page by GPinkerton.

Canvassing

1. At 19:02 12 May 2020, they were warned of canvassing.
   • While admitting the canvassing they did, it turned out they didn't know what that is: thought the policy of not rephrasing RfC content while notifying of them is a bizzare stricture.
2. At 09:32, 19 November 2020, they accused me of canvassing another editor for a discussion.
   • The discussion about which they expressed their concerns was started more than a day after the diff they used as evidence.
   • The diff used as evidence was an RfC template used as-is to notify a contributor previously involved in discussion of a whole other section different than what they expressed concerns about, which wasn't even an RfC.
   • The purportedly canvassed contributor first edited the article at 21:35, 19 October 2020, while my first edit was at 20:13, 23 October 2020.
   • all of which meaning that either GPinkerton probably still doesn't understand what canvassing is or is using such arbitrary charge disruptively.

Proposal and final comment: Although I admittedly lack the necessary experience to argue for what the most appropriate action is, it'd still be plausible for me to propose either a serious warning or a (topic) ban for GPinkerton. For the time being, I'd specifically stress on a one-page ban for Murder of Samuel Paty. They have been blocked for edit warring there two days ago, but still went back to disruptive editing today. As of now, GPinkerton has heavily engaged in 4 discussions on the page, yet zero of which was started by them. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

No, this editor is just cultivating an ideologically motivated battleground mentality in the hope of foisting their anti blasphemy campaign to censor Wikipedia in general and the Murder of Samuel Paty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular, where an ill-concieved RfC is not reinforcing Khidr's agenda of equivocation. This vendetta against me is just bad tempered sour grapes. GPinkerton (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It is also telling to note that in all the misdemeanours alleged so vindictively the topics all involved editors who consider themselves Wikilawyers repressing the Almighty gratis (or on one instance the National Honour in the Second World War). So it's peculiar to affirm that because neutrality and historical reality often angers those with a crusading bent or a persecution complex, that the whole project should cave into the religious special interest group and proud Balkans republics who consider it a article of the national faith that their (Axis-allied) country never laid a finger on its Jewish people. This desire to express sympathy for the killer of Samuel Paty is and apportion blame to the victim is, I submit, yet another example of exactly this style of vindictive POV pushing which I have oftentimes resisted. GPinkerton (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Editors should also be aware that despite the claim above, I was blocked for little over 3 hours, not 48. The editor is clearly trying to intrude their self-declared belief into the article, and is upset that other editors do not agree, and is apparently also upset that opposition to his views was not removed permanently. This report consists of nothing but evidence of grievance on his part. GPinkerton (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, you just came off a block and have been blocked twice now in recent months for edit warring, and quite a few experienced editors at WP:AN (including me) have expressed concern about your misunderstanding of how vandalism is defined on Wikipedia. Can you please address these concerns and make a firm commitment to abandon edit warring and false accusations of vandalism? Opposing nationalist POV pushing is well and good, but you must use the proper tools when doing so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Gladly. Still, it should be fairly obvious that this report is motivated by the OP's desire to be rid of dissenting voices and his dissatisfaction with the progress of his RfC, and not by anything I have done that has not already been discussed aplenty long ago. I have also only taken up contributing much to editing this March or so. I've seen users that have been blocked annually or more for fifteen years running (or thereabouts) ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

If you don't understand what was wrong with what you just said, I'm afraid you're too inexperienced to be editing here (WP:CIR). --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, please expand on "gladly". I am very concerned that you chose to point out that other editors have been blocked more than you. If the implication is that it is acceptable for an editor to be blocked once a year, then let me disabuse you of that notion. It is unacceptable. Most productive editors have never been blocked, and I need you to explain your current understanding of edit warring and vandalism, in light of your recent blocks and the feedback on vandalism you received at AN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I only mention that particular editor because I thought he might turn up to add his uninvited remarks. Below, you can see he did. I was blocked for engaging in an edit war begun by Debresser, who was himself blocked (nth time). Ever since, he has stalked and harassed my every turn, dragging his contrived grievances like a ball and chain and rattling it whenever he thinks someone will be inclined to listen to his hypocrisy. I urge action. The OP here appears to be pursuing the same warpath, likewise driven on by the flame of pious wrath having been crossed in a content dispute. To answer your question, yes I do get it, and yes I recognize that that my edits before were not reverting vandalism, only ill-sourced NPOV violations to be deleted by someone else. And no, I was no suggesting I thought it was a acceptable, though I think the idea pursued below is a rich seam of hypocrisy whose merits and motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves 🤣. GPinkerton (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, please be aware that any editor can comment on this noticeboard and nobody needs an invitation. Nobody can possibly force you to edit war. Comments like this do not help your cause, and neither do emojis. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm only pointing out that these editors' attacks on me are all hypocritical and motivated by a desire to win their own battles (in every case they're complaining about, consensus has turned against the affronted editors) and not by concern for Wikipedia policy or for improving the encyclopaedia. I have never suggested that I was forced to edit war. This report is all a stale set of grievances being used as a tactic win a content dispute against consensus. There is nothing new here. GPinkerton (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, the "attack and denounce the OP" tactic is not a good look for you. This discussion is about your behavior. Start a different thread with convincing diffs about the OP if you wish. Try self-reflection and a firm and explicit commit to avoid edit warring and false accusations of vandalism instead. That is far more likely to lead to a good outcome for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 I am the OP really, this is just a pile on section (see above, and the most recent archive page). I have already explicitly committed to avoid edit warring and false accusations of vandalism, and I do so again. GPinkerton (talk) 07:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Permanent block

Gpinkerton has been involved in conflicts almost every month of the last year:

1. User_talk:GPinkerton#March_2020
2. User_talk:GPinkerton#April_2020
3. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020
4. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_2
5. User_talk:GPinkerton#May_2020_3
6. User_talk:GPinkerton#June_2020
7. User_talk:GPinkerton#July_2020
8. User_talk:GPinkerton#ANI-notice (August)
9. User_talk:GPinkerton#ANI_2 (September)

He has been on WP:AN3 a lot too:

1. AN3 Archive 408
2. AN3 Archive 411
3. AN3 Archive 413

And another 4 reports he openend (1,2,3,4), which also clearly shows how bad he gets along with people.

He has been on WP:ANI too:

1. ANI Archive 1047
2. ANI Archive 1044

And another 3 reports he opened (1, 2, 3).

And now this report. And all of that for the last year of a little over 2 years of editing on Wikipedia. Please do the right thing and indefinitely block this user. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Speak of the devil and he shall appear, as they say. Funny, I just had you in mind when I was thinking of the longest block log from the most committed edit warrior I'd ever seen, and your previous relentless attempts to take vengeance against me for slandering you favourite biblical characters with neutral scholarship. Do you think this will be your lucky day? Your unwanted contributions has been noted as such on occasions before this one. Honestly, I think there are excellent grounds to permanently block Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). GPinkerton (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Debresser is a problem editor who should have been banned years ago. Doesn't change the fact that he's correct in this case. 207.38.146.86 (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are correct GPinkerton, then Debresser should be blocked as well, not instead of you. So all you did was give another example of incivility. El Millo (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Random passerby comment - X: "Y should be banned!" followed by Y: "No, X should be banned!" to begin a discussion is likely not going to lead to a good end. Interaction-ban and topic-ban them both, IMO. Zaathras (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I ran into this editor a while ago by chance, since we do not usually edit the same topics. The experience was highly unpleasant and left me with the clear impression that this person is not ready for community editing. Have not ran into them since, but their talkpage was still on my watchlist because of that incident. Debresser (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

See? Couldn't resist going out of his way to pursue a vendetta he has engineered for himself to pursue. And yes, banning Debresser is a fine suggestion. GPinkerton (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser has listed ANI reports I made about vandalism which resulted in proper action against others, and is trying to claim this as grounds for his continued campaign to insert biblical literalism into Wikipedia being allowed to continue while my contributions are barred. This is really very silly and ironical. GPinkerton (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton has shown that he either does not understand Wikipedia policies or he has chosen not to follow them, he also has a history of making disparaging comments about other users. Both could be overlooked if he had shown the willingness to change but that it not the case. Hardyplants (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per personal unpleasant experience with this editor and proven, long-term battleground mentality, resulting in the conclusion that this editor is not ready for community editing. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support for perma blocking GPinkerton from Wikipeida. The user has recently wreaked havoc at the Syrian kurdistan article introducing a large amount of nationalistic pov edits. The user refuses to engage in a cooperative manner at the talkpage.[137][138] There is no end in sight to this users disruptive behavior.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Editors should again note the POV pushing causing the issues here is in large part the responsibility of the editors above, who are quite desperate that their respective bias be reflected in Wikivoice. This has already been discussed to death by the tendentiousness of these editors. Spreeme Delciousness is avowedly determined to suppress NPOV in relation to the Kurds, and has explained their crusade a number of times. GPinkerton (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Do you mean "siteban"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support The user lacks the necessary civility to be able to cooperate and compromise. He resorts to insults and attacks and have a battleground mentality. I for once could not restrain myself and treated him as he treats others, then suggested that he show respect in order to get it back, for which he replied with: I have no need of what you imagine to be respect from yourself. This user is impossible to argue with, as for him, any editor that oppose him is full of nonesense and the only accepted arguments are his own. See these diffs where he calls every argument he does not like "non-sense", or reject it without any willingness to understand other parties' arguments: 1, 2, 3, here he outright reject to discuss despite being urged to!- In short, this editor, with his rude childish behaviour and battleground mentality is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Just read his replies to other users here in the compliant, and it will give you a clear image of how he goes around here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This is another editor whose edits have only been to pursue the bizarre conspiracy theory that Syrian Kurdistan does not exist or should not be referred to as such in the encyclopaedia. It is hardly surprising that this editor, whom I have reported for tendentious editing, would seek to have me removed. GPinkerton (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have taken a look at the evidence presented and although there are certainly some behavioral problems and some CIR issues, I see nothing that would justify an indef block or a site ban at this point. Much of the case consists of heated content disputes which is not, by itself, actionable. Things like "Can you read?" in an edit summary qualify as mild incivility but certainly not harassment. Some other diffs indicate more substantial episodic incivility but not harassment. Of the three ANI threads opens regarding GPinkerton, one [139] was quickly closed as "No violation". The third [140] was closed as "Content dispute, no action". The second, filed by Debresser on June 27, 2020, [141] was closed as 48 hour blocks for both parties. IMO, Debresser's participation in this thread and his presenting of evidence above has already poisoned the well in this discussion. His own behaviour appears to be at least as problematic in these disputes and his block record is much much longer, plus there is a pile of Arbcom restrictions on top of that. If there are any indef blocks to be handed out as a result of this thread, I think it would have to be to both of them, but I don't believe that's a good idea. ANI is a poor venue for handlinging entrenched POV disputes of this kind, they belong at ARBCOM and that's where the parties should be dirtected. We might consider a two-way interaction ban between GPinkerton and Debresser. Some of the other participants in this discussion so far appear to be deeply involved in the said content disputes themselves, and to have POV agendas of their own. E.g. the first thing one sees at the talk page of Supreme Deliciousness is them strengously arguing that West Jerusalem is not located in Israel, User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2020/October#West Jerusalem. Enough said. Nsk92 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC).

Looking a little closer at some of the diffs provided by the OP under 'Edit warring', diff number 1 [142] for Bulgaria during World War II appears to be an effort by GPinkerton to clean up language that had been white-washing the level of complicity of the WWII Bulgarian government in the persecution of Bulrarian Jews at the behest of the Nazis. While edit warring is never a good idea, I have much less sympathy for anything that has even a slightest whiff of Holocaust denial. Seeing these diffs being used as exhibit A in this report reduces the credibility of the report in my eyes quite a bit. As I said above, if the parties really want to pursue this matter further, they should file an Arbcom case and duke it out there. Nsk92 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI that article, Bulgaria during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), before move I performed, had the title Military history of Bulgaria during World War II, which was used a vehicle for exactly what Nsk92 suggests. GPinkerton (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) The page The Holocaust in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), until I rewrote nearly all of it and initiated a move discussion with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, gloried under the extraordinary title Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews. Between the two pages, there was no mention of Bulgaria's involvement beyond "the Nazis made the tsar do it". GPinkerton (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nsk92: Just for the record, the sequence of events given above is a plain timeline, meaning that the order of their display shall imply no priority for their significance. To think of the first event as exhibit A in spite of the dates being shown is less a consequence of logic, I'm afraid, than empathy. I'd still appreciate that for the sensitive nature of the topic, but I don't think such emotional bias should ordain admins judgments of adherence to policy. Long story short, I believe we should make sure we aren't withstanding dangerous POV pushing with POV pushing of yet another sort. Guardians of content in a specific area can wreak havoc on other topics. As is well-known, Wikipedia is meant to contain all human knowledge. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• • It should be noted Supreme Deliciousness was at ArbCom 10 years ago, being given a topic ban for national/ethnic disruption to the encyclopaedia's coverage of middle east. Presumably, they have been at it the whole duration of the Syrian Civil War. GPinkerton (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose as per Nsk92. My only experience so far of GPinkerton has been around Syria articles, where they have been smiting the nationalists hip and thigh (and deservedly so). GPinkerton is a breath of fresh air who has a commendable impatience with those who would subvert this encyclopedia for their own ends. As for the rest, I get the strong impression that GPinkerton is more sinned against than sinning. Konli17 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha. Funny how user Konli17 can accuse others of being nationalists. Look at their user page! This user (Konli17) currently has FOUR WP:ANEW cases against them: here, here, here andhere, edit-warring alongside GPinkerton. This is a great timely reminder to admins to look into Konli17's edit-warring behavior and close these cases. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment User: Assem Khidhr edit warred on Murder of Samuel Paty. (the schoolteacher beheaded for teaching his classes the classes on free expression a history of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as required by the national curriculum. He repeatedly sought to change the text to his preferred version, here, here again, and here again. I was blocked for 24 hours ... GPinkerton (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support This user has aggressive battleground attitude, and i don't see if he will calm down.Shadow4dark (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose indef but GPinkerton, I suggest you take very seriously the comments about incivility, edit warring, and learning to recognize vandalism that you've received here and other recent threads. Stop commenting on other editors' motivations. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Noted with thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Nsk92. I understand the frustration, and hope the involved editors will take a little break long enough to regain their proper editing composure. The advice given here is definitely good food for thought. Atsme 💬 📧 14:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nsk92. There's a whole lot of garbage behaviour in these subjects, and frankly, many of the editors commenting in support are themselves well on the way to blocks and topic bans for their own poor behaviour. On Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty alone there are two active RfCs concerning article content that many editors can't stop edit-warring over anyway; I'm considering full-protecting that article until the discussions conclude, or just handing everyone a limited partial block to deal with it. Broadly, I don't think any of this cesspool will be properly addressed without a full Arbcom case and investigation. I'm not impressed that Assem Khidhr quoted me at least twice out of context, both times that I see twisting my words to fit their narrative, and didn't think it would be worthwhile to notify me. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  That having been said; @GPinkerton: your next ad hominem will be your last. Stop. Now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  GPinkerton: I strongly suggest that you step back from this entire thread for a while. You do have the right to defend yourself but the basic facts have already been brought out, and at this point some of your comments here are doing you more harm than good. Better let the discussion proceed at its own pace and have more uninvolved editors comment here. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • @Ivanvector: I'll make that clear. My understanding was that directly pinging an admin who was more likely to approve of one's proposal would be understood as pushy. In case you noticed, I also refrained from mentioning any other editor I quoted. I actually thought this would be understood as more professional, until your comment here. As for context, your first remark was relevant because you were almost the only admin to raise the concern I was bringing here: failing to understand a core policy, such as that of vandalism, is too dangerous that it deserves a block until otherwise is proven. Since your comment was split into two edits, I chose to link the second so that the first would thereby also show as prev, not to take anything out of context. I was also keen on addressing the entirety of it by the paraphrase until they show understanding and retract their remarks, lest it be understood that you're calling for a block whatsoever. Apropos of the 2nd quote, you being the closing admin, the comment you left post-closure was at the centre of the thread. I paraphrased it as explained below. Finally, I don't think I'd be having any extra energy and time to go for ArbCom. I'll merely withdraw from contributing side-by-side with GPinkerton, hoping that what I've proposed here will be enough both to alert the community and to urge GPinkerton to cease. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment What's a "permanent block"? The only thing that can really be called that are certain WMF bans which cannot be appealed. (AFAIK, the WMF doesn't specifically say what results in such an unappealable ban but it's probably mostly child protection reasons.) If someone wanted such ban, they would need to speak to the WMF. We could do an indefinite community site ban here. But indefinite is not supposed to mean permanent. While it's hard to imagine some long term socks who have cause untold disruption coming back, if they stop and 10 years down the track they make a very good appeal, perhaps they'll be allowed back. In any case, if we're discussing implementing the ban here it's unlikely it's reached that level. More likely it's a regular community indef site ban. Such site bans often can be successfully appealed in 6 months to 1 year. If it's just an admin indefinite block and doesn't involve any socking there may not even be a minimum appeal period although it would depend on what happened before and the chances an admin can be convinced the editor will change. This isn't just an aside since when making proposals, it helps if you have some understanding of community norms since otherwise people like me think the evidence isn't worth looking at. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nil Einne: Please note that the editor who opened this subsection is different from the OP, which is me. I actually didn't even vote here. Yet, while I don't approve of its content, moving it to another section by me would very likely be interpreted as aggressive. Deleting it altogether would be even disruptive. It's readers' responsibility, I believe, to resolve the ambiguity. It takes a look at the signatures. Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Assem Khidhr: I don't understand your point. Although I'm sometimes careless with the word OP to mean the OP of a subthread or even unmarked subdiscussion, I don't see where I said anything about OP or original poster in my comment above. And as far as I can tell, User:Debresser is the one who use term "permanent block" and also who made the proposal I'm commenting on namely to "permanently blocked" GPinkerton [143] because "Gpinkerton has been involved in conflicts almost every month" and "He has been on WP:AN3 a lot" etc with only a passing mention of "the report" under which they started this proposal. There are a bunch of other sub discussions here including the original starting thread by you where you suggested action without suggesting any specific action since you weren't sure what (which is fine). I make no comment on them. It seems to be the quicker we dismiss this nonsense proposal, the better we can deal with whatever other issues may or may not exist. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
      • @Nil Einne: I thought it was the evidence I put forth that you believe isn't worth looking at, as if it was being scapegoated for this subsection. Pardon me then. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a permanent block, because GPinkerton has made many valuable contributions to wikipedia. But GPinkerton should be given a warning of a topic ban on "Muslims and controversy" if they continue their behavior. Consider:

• At WP:RSN, GPinkerton questioned the reliability of widely published academics, in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim"[144] or "true-believers"[145]. An academic's religion (or race, gender etc) must never be a factor in their WP:Reliability, period.
• At Talk:Hagia_Sophia/Archive_5#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_4_August_2020, GPinkerton pushed a ridiculous and false anti-Muslim story (Drmies described it as "anti-Muslim propaganda") and edit-warred to have it inserted into the article (warning against said edit-warring).
• At Talk:Murder of Samuel Paty GPinkerton pushed, what WhinyTheYounger called, the idea that "Islam is incompatible with free expression", refusing to recognize that is both possible to be a moderate Muslim who condemns the murder but also condemns the publication of the cartoons.
• Anytime GPinkerton disagrees with someone, they make allegations of extremism. When GPinkerton edit warred against three users, they accused their opponents of a "campaign to enforce blasphemy law on Wikipedia"[146]. Later they accused Assem Khidhr of being an "anti-blasphemy ringleader"[147]. This creates a toxic atmosphere for Muslim Wikipedians.VR _talk 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• The first point of this is absurd. The story is a well-known cultural myth, and at this point it is really very silly that even though the material exists throughout Wikipedia, Vice regent has argued that it should not appear on the article that deals with the building in which it is set and which is a crucial part of the well-known trope. Oddly, Vice regent also tried hard to force a phraseology that emphasized the wrongs of the 4th Crusade in looting the building than the Turks, even though the same school-age history (without fotnotes) suggested by him as the source also states that Mehmed the Conqueror personally destroyed the altar, a legend Vice regent mysteriously never sought to include in Wikivoice. I pointed this out on the talkpage and Vice regent abandoned the dialogue. Drmies was in point of fact wrong to describe the tale, which was accepted as fact by everyone in the West from 1453 to Voltaire, as anti-Muslim rather than anti-Turk since the ideological purpose of the story is to complete the legends surrounding the origin of the Turks in Greek folklore and the fulfilment of prophecies originating in the 7th-century Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, which itself is predicated on seeing the predicted fall of Constantinople as an event at the end of time in which the Muslim armies (understood as deviant Christians) are the agency of God's destruction of worldly things. The first part of this is explained in the article. Wikipedia is not censored, and nether should the history of the middle ages be bowdlerized because of the feelings of people might be offended at non-events centuries ago. Vice regent is wrong to imply that I presented the information as true; the wording I used stressed the attribution to introduced, Wikilinked medieval people and chroniclers and unambiguously stated they were apocryphal. Vice regent you should amend your comment on this matter. GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• The second point is also unfounded. Vice regent is wrong to suggest WhinyTheYounger was right to characterize my arguments in this way. I never mentioned Islam, or Muslims, until I replied to this very allegation. Vice regent and WhinyTheYounger confouded Islam and Islamism, an illiberal political ideology rooted in theocracy which wholly different from any religion itself.
• The third point is just exaggeration and misrepresentation and again confuses Islamist ideology with Muslims. Can you find any articles involving discussions which do not deal with terrorist attacks motivated by Islamist doctrine on blasphemy law which show any evidence of such a claim? Seeking to kill because of cartoon images is ipso facto extremist, and is seeking to ban images on the grounds of blasphemy is ipso facto extreme and in dire contravention of the concept of human rights. This cannot be gainsaid. GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose After I engaged in a lengthy back-and- forth with GPinkerton, the editor has committed to avoiding edit warring and false accusations of vandalism. The editor should be warned against personal attacks and sweeping generalizations problematic editing about Islam, and should continue editing with a less vehement and dogmatic tone, embracing the letter and the spirit of the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have struck through "sweeping generalizations" at the request of GPinkerton here and in discussion on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: Thank you for your comment but please amend it; I have never made sweeping generalizations about Islam; that's not true at all. Islamism≠Islam and Islamists≠Muslims and I have never suggested otherwise. GPinkerton (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, who is a trusted editor and who is not a Muslim, concluded that you were engaging in "anti-Muslim propaganda" at Hagia Sophia, so I will not amend that part of my comment. The amendment that I will make is to say that you should also be warned against tendentious editing including bludgeoning and posting endless walls of text. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Cullen328: Drmies did not say I was engaging in "anti-Muslim propaganda", they said that story is anti-Muslim propaganda, which is a statement about a medieval legend I have nowhere presented as fact. GPinkerton (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• You argued at length to keep that false story with all its lurid details in the article. Q.E.D.. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• NED! I continue to argue that the well-known legend, which was repeated by everyone in Renaissance Europe by everyone from the pope on down, deserves discussion in the article. It is treated of elsewhere in Wikipedia and "anti-Muslims" have nothing to do with it. I repeat further that I never once gave even the slightest suggestion the story was anything other than false. The two sackings of Hagia Sophia are massive events in cultural history and to pass over the impact that one of them while of treating the other in depth is weird and imbalanced. The lurid details are an inevitable part of the Renaissance need to see the event as a mirror of the fall of Troy. How not to include the story may be seen at articles where it has considerably less relevance: the Fall of Constantinople and Constantinople articles. In neither case is it attributed to mediaeval people, as in the text I used, and in neither instance are the internally contradictory and mythic elements described or explained as was done in the text I proposed. I am not going to reveal my position on religion and I am not going to describe myself as a subject matter expert on Islam, even though my second postgraduate degree is in Islamic studies from a world-leading university and have a much greater understanding than many other Muslims, but I am not going to accept labelling as "anti-Muslim", that's just not possible. I realize I've said a lot on this thread but this point really must be stressed and brought home. GPinkerton (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose siteban, support warning - for reasons explained by others above. It's not a siteban-level problem, but the concerns raised here are real, and the problematic conduct should not be repeated. Lev¡vich 17:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• I have recently seen GPinkerton do some useful stuff, and in fact I was wondering why I remembered their name: August seems like years ago. But when I look over that discussion again, at Talk:Hagia Sophia/Archive 5, yeah--if that is how GPinkerton operates, that's severely disruptive. It may have started here. Note "apocryphal" where the unimpeachable secondary source says false (and here--look for "propaganda", "entirely spurious"). Read the archived talk page discussion again, if you like, and you will see denialism and editorial interpretation to pursue a POV of sorts in all its glory. And GPinkerton makes just really elementary mistakes: a story is told with some fabricated details added to it, and other writers repeat it--and somehow that makes them independent witnesses, it seems. What you will also see is bludgeoning: who wants to get involved in a discussion with that editor?

  So yes, I stand by the point that I made at the time, that there was some serious POV editing and manipulation of sources happening in article space, and a kind of intransigence littered with misunderstandings on the talk page where the purpose appeared to be to get everyone bogged down and simply give up. I think I would support a topic ban from Islam-related topics. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• I again strongly deny this allegation and repeat once more that to speak of me being "anti-Muslim" is a clear oxymoron which I ask Drmies to retract. In addition, I can only point out again that I never once made any suggestion that it was true and have explained this before and repeatedly. The story is at present repeated as though true at Fall of Constantinople, a fact I have nothing to do with, and the way I described it has never even suggested that it was true, a fact I pointed out at the time. I have not once suggested for moment anything like the claim that different textual witnesses suggest multiple eyewitness accounts, and it's not fair to suggest otherwise Drmies. I tried to point this out at the time and expressed a desire that better wording could be worked on, but my appeals went unheeded. GPinkerton (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Here, and on my own talk page, GPinkerton claims I'm calling them "anti-Muslim". You all can see I said no such thing. I believe they have a POV which is an impediment to neutral editing, yes, but I have not accused them of being a Muslim hater or whatever. I do not understand why, in a discussion that may well lead to sanctions, they continue to be so ... well, what is it? Belligerent? Careless? Unencyclopedic and uncollegial, that certainly. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Having looked a bit into the Syrian/Kurdistan articles this week, where there is currently a great deal of feuding going on, I can't help but notice that some Support & Oppose votes here are falling into sides I see edit warring on articles. I hope this decision as serious as a siteban would not be overly influenced by editors active in disputes in this subject area. This is a decision that should be evaluated by uninvolved editors and admins. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • My feelings exactly. My impression is that if we are talking about POV related topic bans, several other participants in this discussion deserve them at least as much as GPinkerton. I can't support a topic ban for GPinkerton in this situation, where his accusers escape similar scruitiny and are allowed to sit in judgement over GPinkerton here. IMO, POV related topic bans require careful and slow examination of evidence by uninvolved editors. ANI is completely unsuited for that purpose. If there isn't an active Arbitration case with Discretionary Sanctions in place for which an AE request can be made, then a new WP:ARC request should be filed and any relevant topic bans should be handed out there. Nsk92 (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban I've had sharp disagreements with GPinkerton, who can certainly be very rude, acerbic & agressive. I notice most of the diffs at the top come from May or earlier, & I think he has calmed down somewhat. Some of the editors complaining the loudest are in no position to cast stones. At the same time he can be a useful & energetic force for improving WP. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, per Konli17 and Nsk92. - Daveout(talk) 02:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, the user has serious WP:BATTLEGROUND issues and persistently edits disruptively. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Another editor from the Syrian Kurdistan dispute. GPinkerton (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, valuable contributor who upholds NPOV in multiple contentious topic areas. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Stong Support Indef block. I hate to say this, but this user is not here to contribute positively, collaborate or debate in a civilized way. Even worse, they have a confrontational mentality powered by an aggressive behavior and personal attacks. Out of nowhere and with no prior encounter anywhere, this user opened a case against me simply for disagreeing on topics. Well, that might not sound too bad per se, but the problem is that this user reverts to personal attacks and rude wording when their argument fails. I am quoting some of their personal attacks in the one thread they opened against me:
• Any look at any of the works will show that the editor's POV is divorced from the real world, and is apparently vocally, partisan as regards the al-Assad regime and its opponents. 02:59, 11 November 2020 (side note: I am really offended by this accusation. In my 10 years here I never edited in favor of Assad, and I challenge Pinkerton to show one single piece of evidence to support their baseless claim).
• Rank hypocrisy. I've expanded with quotes since you're too unwilling to lift a finger to pull the wool from your own eyes and read a book. 07:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Can you read? Or do you only spew? 08:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• The idea the idea it didn't exist before 2011 is as laughable as the editor's understanding of epistemology 08:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

In conclusion, the edit-warring behavior of Pinkerton is obvious in every article they edit. I think an indef block, although severe, is sometimes unavoidable like in this case. Otherwise, a really-long ban would be necessary. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose can't believe a user even has the idea of a block for GPinkerton. He has a sharp tone in discussions but is a rather experienced editor. At Syrian Kurdistan at least better than me where GP (I'm thinking of a Grand Prix for GPinkerton) argued with multiple academic sources for an existence of Syrian Kurdistan, while Amr Ibn and Supreme Deliciousness clinged to a book review of a no-name Phd candidate as a source for a denial of Syrian KurdistanParadise Chronicle (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Here we have an case of actual ideological opponents clamoring for someone to be sitebanned based on their POV, and that they view the editor as obstructive due to their opposition. This isn't in the usual way that we casually throw around the term "ideological opponents", and I don't say this lightly. While it should be fully acknowledged that there are real issues with GPinkerton's editing, especially in terms of their combativeness, hopefully they can take advice on board, and possibly change that. But I echo the statement of Konli17, that they have been "more sinned against than sinning". This issue is largely more about assorted editors with strong nationalist sentiments invested in this issue, and an entrenched view regarding ethnicity and national identity in the region. For Supreme Deliciousness to say that this is a case of "Kurdish Nationalists" pushing a POV is absurd, and indicative of what I'm talking about. I'll also note that other editors have given to calling good-faith edits "vandalism" in their edit summaries when reverting. Drama aside, this is not a controversial term outside of internal Middle-Eastern politics, where fears of a nascent Kurdish irredentism is a persistent bogeyman. GPinkerton has been trying to maintain what I think is a consistent NPOV in an embattled environment, and has skirted the line of problematic editing, but I think this is more calling out fire in a crowded room, when there's just a few smouldering coals. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Note that I've had to repost this due to the formatting issues here. And if it wasn't clear, I'm primarily talking about the edits in Syrian Kurdistan. Their exchange with Drmies is unnecessarily combative, and a mischaracterization. I have no opinion on Vice regent's suggestion of a topic ban on Islam-related articles at this time, as I'm not sure that POV editing is a persistent, intransigent issue in that topic area. That's a very broad topic, even if it were narrowly construed, and I certainly don't think this is likewise an issue in every subject that they edit, calling for a siteban. But they could do with a formal warning for their behaviour, generally. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment What strikes me the hardest is how the attention of both admins and users simply shifted into a peripheral comment, albeit significantly less organized and poorly structured, only because it can be tackled in the form of a simply binary survey rather than a nuanced discussion. This is probably a stark example of WP:STRAW. It also shows, unluckily, how much tolerance is left in the community for topics deemed as potential flame wars and how many presumptions are in place about editors still interested therein. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block and a Site Ban - We know that Syrian Kurdistan is a real battleground. We can see that the subject editor is engaging in battleground editing. While this thread is open, they are continuing to rant at WP:AN, and are a net negative. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Response to GPinkerton

I wrote this in response to GPinkerton comment above:

User: Assem Khidhr edit warred on Murder of Samuel Paty. (the schoolteacher beheaded for teaching his classes the classes on free expression a history of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons as required by the national curriculum. He repeatedly sought to change the text to his preferred version, here, here, and here. I was blocked for 24 hours ... User:GPinkerton (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It was moved to avoid interference with the other discussion. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: I'm truly glad you finally started quoting diffs, though you didn't even bother to put them in a chronological order and only presented them after a plethora of ad hominem claims. Here's a comprehensive timeline of what happened at Murder of Samuel Paty leading me to take notice of GPinkerton's behavior and leading to their temporary blocking:

1. 16:23, 10 November 2020 GPinkerton introduces the statement Protests were held in X against Macron's defence of human rights. (X being Syria, Iraq, and Libya) in the article for the 1st time.
2. 05:06, 18 November 2020 I came across the vague statement. Being WP:BOLD, I tried to reword the reporting of the protests in Syria section with WP:ATTRIBUTION to Macron.
3. 05:33, 18 November 2020‎ I noticed the same statement verbatim in Lybia and Iraq sections. I did the same replacement, gave rationale, and omitted attrbution for redundancy. (notice that the two edits were consecutive without any intervening edits by another user).
4. 06:52, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton reverts my edit.
5. 07:07, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton further deletes the attribution to Macron, qualifying it as editorializing.
6. 07:10, 18 November 2020 Proceeding in BRD, I reverted GPinkerton, citing in my summary The Guardian's article with an exact wording (my 1st revert).
7. 07:10-07:36, 18 November 2020 GPinkerton makes a series of edits elsewhere in the article: [148], [149], [150].
8. 05:44, 19 November 2020‎ Almost 24h later, GPinkerton reinstates the same statement witout any discussion.
9. 08:32, 19 November 2020 Moved by the absence of WP:REVEXP and BRD WP:STONEWALLING, I further reverted GPinkerton again while alluding to the manipulation of WP:3RR as per WP:SPADE (my 2nd revert). This was indeed a violation of the exemplary 1RR.
10. 08:54, 19 November 2020 GPinkerton reverts again.
11. 09:11, 19 November 2020 Further proceeding in BRD, I started a discussion 17 mins after their 2nd revert. I declared my intent to withdraw from any further reverts.
12. 09:14-09:51, 19 November 2020 Another editor tries to wP:HANDLE here. They were reverted by GPinkerton here.
13. 09:58-10:46, 19 November 2020 Yet another editor opposes GPinkerton in [151], [152], and [153], only to be reverted by GPinkerton in [154], [155], [156], [157]. This user was warned of edit warring by the blocking admin here, for which they apologized here.
14. 11:07, 19 November 2020 GPinkerton is blocked for 24h for edit warring, as shown previously.

Knowing that I'm not much well-known in the community here yet, unlike GPinkerton, who was actually praised by some admins in the AN thread I mentioned before, I'd also like to mention a piece of data in refutation of the endless disparaging remarks they made. Although I shouldn't be in a position to defend myself, I do think that such fervent demagogic attacks with an overwhelming amount of proofs by assertion can end up leaving some implicit associations. I firstly encourage anyone to browse through my edit history. I'm a Muslim Egyptian/Sudanese pharmacist who is interested in social sciences. I wander through the project trying to utilize my more or less diverse background to give back to the encyclopedia. In fact, Murder of Samuel Paty was the first and only flame war article that I involved with. However, please note that in contradiction to the claims of campaigning and lobbying:

• My authorship of Murder of Samuel Paty is only 0.1% vs. a gigantic first-ranked 29.8% for GPinkerton (evidence here).
• I first edited Murder of Samuel Paty in 22:13, 23 October 2020 (See here) vs. 02:56, 10 November 2020 for GPinkerton (See here). I stayed longer yet added way less.

Finally, here is a comment about my attitude on the page from a disinterested user whom I've never contacted and who never engaged in relevant disputes previously and just came for the RfC. Thanks. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Assem Khidhr: Saying you have taken less action to improve the page than an editor you are trying to have excluded from editing seems like an odd perspective to me. As I've said, Khidhr is here arguing I should be blocked twice for the same edit war in which he himself violated 3RR. As point of fact, your claim that I was in contravention of policy by reverting your unsolicited comments on my talk page are incorrect, and I am under no obligation either to reply or to retain your remarks where you put them. GPinkerton (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A further consideration is that the protesting extremists, some of whom are now in jail for glorifying terrorism, are protesting about the implicit refusal of the French head of state to throw out his country constitutional freedoms and pander to their demands for Paty's head. They are not riled up that Macron said as much, but more about the fact it was victim that got the legion d'honneur and not, as they would see it, his martyred murderer. Trying to pin the blame for Paty's killing on Macron is what Anzarov did in his martyrdom video, but we should not be crediting his perspective. Note that all the sources say the protests were directed at France with a boycott of French things imposed in some areas. The protests reflect the status of free speech in a democracy an its incompatibility with the concept of blasphemy law, not anything Macron has done to bring about this century-long constitutional situation. In any case these arguments do not benefit from rehearsal here, as they have already been considered and dealt with appropriately. GPinkerton (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Debresser interaction ban

Assem Khidhr referred to an incident at AN3 (archived here, Assem's link didn't work) in which I declined to block GPinkerton because it was an obvious "gotcha" report by the editor they were involved in the same dispute with (the "you shot first" theory of edit warring, which I do not subscribe to), but Assem failed to interpret from my comments that I also declined to block because Debresser appeared out of nowhere just to cause trouble. They torpedoed the report so that it was incomprehensible, while their entire argument for sanctions was that GPinkerton should be blocked in that instance only because they had been blocked before. By Debresser's own admission here they "do not usually edit the same topics" and "not ran into [GPinkerton] since" (referring to some incident I don't know about but clearly long in the past), yet here is Debresser for the second time in six months jumping on a dispute they're not involved with in any way to attack GPinkerton. That is harassment, and since Debresser won't knock it off on their own, they should be banned from interacting with GPinkerton. (Edited to add: this is a proposal for a one-way interaction ban) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Ivanvector: this is actually the third time Debresser has advanced this line of attack, once before on this noticeboard and once on my talkpage recently. GPinkerton (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Per Ivanvector's justification. As I understand it, the proposed ban is a one-way interaction ban; this point probably deserves to be made more explicit. Nsk92 (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  I thought it was clear but yes, that's correct. Edited to be specific. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support one-way. I'd oppose making it two-way, as this is clearly Debresser following GPinkerton around trying to bait him, not a two-way street. ‑ Iridescent 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I proposed a permanent block here for GPinkerton now, because at an earlier date admins, like Ivanvector, were not yet ready to see the underlying problematic attitude of GPinkerton. It seems that admins already see what I meant then. That justifies my post. If one were not allowed to ask for sanctions against a longtime problematic editor, then Wikipedia is really in trouble! Ergo, I strongly oppose an interaction ban based for this reasoning. There is no need for an interaction ban on other pages, since we don't as a rule edit the same articles. As stated above by Cullen238,[158] forums like WP:ANI are not restricted to admins, and anybody can post here, and Ivanvector's claim that I posted here "just to cause trouble" is a bad faith assumption. To the contrary, I posted here to try and make Wikipedia a better place. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I've seen the same almost spammy comment twice for now. On a side note, @Ivanvector:, my link above still works for me, as of now. Also, I did interpret and deliberately addressed what you mentioned in your comment by confounded by other parties involved. To reiterate, by "involved", I meant all the editors who were involved in the AN report, not only those who engaged in the edit war. Idk whether you read this part, but I'm honestly shocked you thought of it as a twist. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - don't punish editors for raising valid concerns. Lev¡vich 17:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Levivich that this isn't the appropriate time for a boomerang. Debresser was correct in bringing this to the community in light of the behavioral issues and was filing a sensible and legitimate case. This iban proposal is redirecting the thread from the real problem at hand to unrelated and less significant matters. Krow750 (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose While an editor should not follow another everywhere, there is a deep root for these reports against GPinkerton: his incivility. This is what should be addressed. This isnt really about the content disputes, but the provocation and impoliteness of GPinkerton, who have no understanding of the meaning of discussion, civility, or cooperation and compromise. This is stressful for other editors, and this should be handled, and thats why Im against this ban, because Debresser brought to light examples of the toxic behaviour of GPinkerton, whom Im sure will respond to my comment in his typical rude way full of accusations and intentions interpretations, while never understanding that its his rudeness, battleground mentality, pushiness, and lack of understanding of whatever goes against what he is convinced in, are whats getting him here. If he is not forced to respect other users, he will be back here over and over again.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - wouldn't wish that on my worst detractor. Admins have tools to stop HOUNDING - don't need no iBans. Atsme 💬 📧 15:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. GPinkerton is the one who needs to be blocked here, not Debresser. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see why this is necessary. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I suggest that a previously unvolved editor close this thread now. It seems clear, at least to me, that none of the proposals put forward are going to generate consesus. I think the discussion is well past the point of yielding anything constructive. I still think that the disputes raised here are best suited for Arbcorm and for WP:AE. Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support no sign of improvement yet. GPinkerton (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be mutual. Just that you are nominated for a sitewide block, and I for an interaction ban with that same editor, who is nominated for a sidewide block. See the difference? Debresser (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support (would support a one way interaction ban, i.e. Debresser disallowed to interact with GPinkerton, too): Debresser's recent behaviour w.r.t. the New Schubert Edition article, including edit-warring and retaliation, makes me doubt whether they are here to build an encyclopedia. The evidence of their failing (to put it mildly) behaviour towards GPinkerton is clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This is just an attempt at revenge for me calling you out on your WP:OWN issues at that page. Low. very low. Even for somebody from the Low Countries. Debresser (talk) 10:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Levivich. ~ HAL333 23:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Close with warning

Proposal: Close this report with a warning to GPinkerton to avoid incivility and edit warring, and that further problems may be met with sanctions without additional warnings.

• Support as proposer - other proposals above aren't getting traction; perhaps this is where consensus is at this point. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per the discussions with and remarks by Cullen328, Ivanvector, and Drmies. Assem Khidhr (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is time to move on and go improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support a warning seems useful here. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support As per Levivich's reasoning on getting a consensus, and Cullen in moving on. I would add that Levivich's wording should be amended to 'will' as opposed to 'may'. Any content issues that User:GPinkerton may have, or any narrow but valid points in their arguments on content that they may make, should be made within the boundaries of WP:editwar and WP:civility. Simon Adler (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  <pedantic wonk mode>The problem with "will" is that because we're all volunteers, we cannot require an admin to issue a block. The most we can do is agree that if there are future violations, an admin has consensus to block without further warning, should an admin volunteer to do so at that time.</pedantic wonk mode> Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, <pedantic wonk advice> duly taken. Simon Adler (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Such was already the conclusion of the #Permanent_block section above, so no need to propose this separately. For the record, I think this is a mistake, and that we will yet have grief from this editor. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support: I hope he will learn how to discuss with respect, discuss sources and arguments not persons and intentions, and to stop putting other point of views down instead of trying to understand and argue in a civil way. Hopefully he ditch the childish teen manners (unless he is a teen...) My hope is weak though.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I was repeatedly called a Islamophobe and also after a final warning the editor wasn't blocked initially but only after my insistence. This (as to me) is way worse than asking one if he can read or speaks English as first language. Then, I also have faced heavier edit warring than this so called edit war here. Mine goes on since May, and there is no action taken even though the opposing editor refuses to answer at the talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose closing with no action; we clearly need to do something here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Again attacking: Ivanvector, you told GP that "your next ad hominem will be your last." Well, despite the cases here, despite discussing a warning for his lack of civility, he did it again a few hours ago: You're showing your ignorance again. I don't know why you bother continuing to reply in reality-based encyclopaedia. I am not inclined to listen further to your griping. This was a sample of a long relpy of his full of attacks. For how long? Is civility not a policy of Wikipedia? Drmies, Girth Summit, Cullen328, Levivich, would you care to see this?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

While people here have been discussing user Gpinkerton behavior, that user was continuing their rude, uncivil personal attacks elsewhere. Here are some examples: here, here, here on top of their previous attacks. This shows there is no cure for their addiction to this aggressive behavior and they don't belong in an encyclopedia. I hope a strong action will not delay any further. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

All of that seems like fair comment to me. They're attacking sources, and any comment they've made in these edits that is directed to another editor is limited to criticism of their choice of sources. I'm not going to act on this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If you think "You're showing your ignorance again." is "fair comment", or that an editor's action can be described as "griping", especially in an area with discretionary sanctions and ongoing conflicts between editors, then you are part of the problem, and I think other admins should state their opinion on this as well! Debresser (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Damnit Ivan. I count nine PAs in that one single diff. How are you possibly saying any of these nine comments are "fair"???

1. You're showing your ignorance again.
2. your absurd POV
3. Why aren't you capable of reading sources?
4. I don't know why you bother continuing to reply in reality-based encyclopaedia.
5. This fantasy project of yours will not gain traction here.
6. This project is built on the use of reliable sources, not the strenuousness of your denialism.
7. It will not be necessary for you to comment further.
8. Your quotation of this document is specious misinterpretation, which is either wilful or incompetent, and I am not inclined to listen further to your griping.
9. The extract you have quoted nails the final nail in the coffin of your ideology.

That's all from one comment! How are these anything other than ad hominem attacks? You should adjust your idea of civility looks like. This is not civil.

Frankly, the fact that more PAs were made while a proposal to warn for PAs was ongoing (with near unanimous consensus) makes me want to pull my support for my own warning proposal and support a TBAN instead. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, the moderating admin Girth Summit found it uncivil. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"Why aren't you capable of reading sources?" is about as personal and uncivil as it gets... Drmies (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from GPinkerton about this comment. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I think all the hearing from them you'll get is down at the bottom of this page. As for the list of ad hominems above, I interpreted all of them as directed at an editor who was selectively choosing and serially misrepresenting sources, as pointed out by several editors on that talk page who were not GPinkerton, and in which case a comment like "why aren't you capable of reading sources", while not very nice, is valid. Anyway, Girth Summit seems to be perfectly capable of moderating that dispute and pushing block buttons if needed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• This comment is adapted from one made on my talk page.I'm mystified at the way this situation is developing. I thought these processes worked better than I am coming to realize. Why is my choice of language so fascinating when the issue at hand is just being ignored? Is the discussion intemperate? Yes. Am I the one that created this situation? No. Look at the months of furious argument that squabbles on long before I ever made an edit. Am I the only one more interested in improving the encyclopaedia's coverage of the subject than this comedy of manners? Hopefully not. Am I unique in making accusations of bias and agenda pushing? Not a bit. I invite, nay, beg, editors to ignore for now this superficial (and partly confected) issue of courtesy and examine the real torrent of problematic editing which has been running in spate below the recriminatory rhetoric. If I am to be blocked for disruptive editing (viz. imncivility), an idea I am saddened even to have to defend myself against, how would Wikipedia be served by allowing other parties to this dispute continue editing? As was my original point in raising this whole issue here weeks ago, they are not suited to building an encyclopaedia. Uncivil language is not excusable, but this isn't about me being impolite. Was anyone watching when عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote:

• "This is scandalous attempt to convert Wikipedia into a Kurdish propaganda blog and completely adopting the Kurdish nationalist rhetoric. This text is cherry-picking and completely ignores ..."
• "Furthermore, this problematic, POV-screaming edit suggested by Pinkerton is designed to draw our attention away from the most important thing we are discussing right now, which is the name of the page/territory, and whether that is universal or not."
• "Since you seem to not read what you are adding ..."
• "This is another one of your comments that confirm that you don't read before jumping to conclusions."
• GPinkerton, if all the evidence we presented did not convinced you, nothing will, and that's your problem. Before you showed up here with your editing behavior editors here had a consensus that this term is used by some and disputed by others. Again, as usual, you make arguments and jump to conclusions before doing your homework.

Or when Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) said:

• "What GPinkerton has done throughout this entire article is to cherry pick sources that use kurdish nationalist names and narrative and she tries to disregard other sources. And in some cases she is not even following her sources in regards to history as seen above."

Apart from the reliable sources I have added and the wilfully tendentious misinterpretations and Ba'athist ideology regurgitated back in return, there is actually nothing but incivility interspersed with a catalogue of unanswered pleas for administrator intervention, which has been going on for months (years?) before I ever clapped eyes on it, and would certainly continue unabated, just as it has been allowed to do for over a decade, if I were blocked. Blocking me would make absolutely no difference, the disruption would just continue. Happily, Ivanvector has perceived that I am not alone in identifying the real problem. I urge anyone else to look at the contents of the discussion, at the two ANI reports on this page as I write, and at all the other fora this ridiculous war over a warzone has spilled over into. GPinkerton (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please everyone look at the Talk page in question for yourselves. The bottom line here is that user GPinkerton is presenting the Kurdish nationalistic narrative for this area of Syria as a fact, and as the ONLY fact. What we are trying to do is balance the article by presenting sourced content for other views on this. What I am providing there is pretty much quotes from French and British sources relevant to the era in question. What I get in response from this user is kind of "this X Kurdish author said this" and "this Y Kurdish institute mentioned that", and of course a ton of personal attacks (for the last ten days or more). On top of that, GPinkerton is mispresenting information, taking things out of context (e.g., leaving out important parts), or even adding/changing dates compared to what's mentioned in sources, one of which I explained in the edit here. This comment by Fiveby (who is not part of the dispute and has not edited the article in the near past) summarizes the situation: GPinkerton are you purposefully obtuse? If not you can look at the index from Tejel here under "Syrian Kurdistan, terminology" and view those pages, or Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria#Polity names and translations. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

And here is another edit from Fiveby describing user GPinkerton's mission at the article: And 'Syrian Kurdistan' has other meanings, implied and explicit, notably Kurdish nationalism#Syria. From your added content, you are writing an article not about that portion of Kurdistan in Syria, but through bludgeoning and equivocal use of sources an article about a multi-ethnic region from the perspective of one ethnic group. The ambiguous title and scope of the article allows a selection of content from Kurdistan, Kurds in Syria, Kurdish Nationalism, Rojava, Syrian civil war, etc. to form the article implied by this title: a Kurdish only nation of Northern Syria. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support reluctantly. Concerned that a warning is too weak and sends the wrong message as this editor badly needs to cool it, at least in this area. But it also seems clear that this problem is a two-way street. Taking action against one side only would send a worse message. Hence my support. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

One last thing

I had another fresh look at the talk page today, at a revision before Valereee did a good job clerking and cleaning up old discussions. Going back a month or more, the talk page basically looks like a long, repeating pattern of comments exactly like the two above from GPinkerton and عمرو بن كلثوم (Amr ibn Kulthoum): deeply personalized partisan sniping over a real-world ethnic/cultural conflict, and little to do really with constructing an article. Other editors have occasionally responded in kind but it's just these two who have been doing basically nothing but this the whole time they've been editing that talk page. GPinkerton's first edit on that talk page was on 17 November (a pure personal attack), while Amr ibn Kulthoum's disruptive sniping goes back much further, way back to 28 July (also a personal attack). I have three non-exclusive proposals which some editors will find extreme, but the goal here is to get the talk page back to a state where editors can discuss the content free of this partisanship.

1. GPinkerton and عمرو بن كلثوم (Amr ibn Kulthoum) are partially blocked from editing Syrian Kurdistan and its talk page for three months, to give other editors time to resolve open discussions.
2. GPinkerton and عمرو بن كلثوم (Amr ibn Kulthoum) are banned from interacting with each other anywhere on Wikipedia, indefinitely.
3. GPinkerton is formally banned from publishing any comment that any editor reasonably interprets as a personal attack. (Yes, I do know WP:NPA is policy, but this formal ban would be logged at WP:EDR and make it less up to interpretation as to whether any such comment compels admin action, as we saw yesterday. I also know "civility parole" is a discredited approach; I hope this is not that.)

Thoughts? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• The asymmetry of this should be slanted to other way in my view. I don't see why the heavier sanction should fall on me. I have done more to improve the Syrian Kurdistan article than has been done in some time, and have never once touched the subject before. My first contribution to the talk page came long after the futility of interaction became apparent after exhausting the possibilities of rational debate at WP:RSN and WP:FTN (I think it was) and after the first ANI report about the whole issue. In addition, the problem with Amr clearly runs deeper. After numerous sanctions in the past and a catalogue of edits to pages relating to wider (and even narrower) Middle East geopolitical topics which display exactly the type of behaviour in other issues. And indeed, yet another ANI report has now appeared that relates to the same issue but involves neither he nor me. (i.e. the one about Diyarbakir (only the largest city in (Turkish) Kurdistan ...)) GPinkerton (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I don't even agree that my actual edits have been partisan, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the talkpage. Unlike Amr (evidence catalogued in a section far below) and SupremeDeliciousness (evidence far above and who ought to not to go scot free give the history of ArbCom topic bans in this kind of area) I have not made tendentious edits to the article space and besides the partisan commentary no-one else has objected to anything I have done in terms of content. GPinkerton (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support, especially measure 3, i.e. making it clear that this is not a facebook group where users roast each other and argue with the aim of winning and not to actually improve articles while keeping the NPOV. It would be refreshing not to expect a random guy online insulting you for entering a discussion! We all have our own POV, but this doesnt mean that what others think is "none sense", and that only we can understand sources. Im sure that I and the other editors will be able to reach a consensus and compromise if civility is restored and a constructive discussion can take place.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The comment above should be considered in light of the false declaration that "There are no historical record that puts the Kurdish inhabited regions of Syria within historical Kurdistan before the establishment of Syria." which is none other than the same conspiracy theory, refuted (and I mean refuted and not just denied) numerous times on the talkpage, that Syrian Kurdistan is a fiction created by post WWI immigrant Kurds from Turkey, a nonsense invented by the national socialist Ba'ath Party as part of its Arab Belt policy of ethnic cleansing in that very territory and cooked up in order to deny the legitimacy of non-Arab citizenship in what was later renamed the Syrian Arab Republic. Naturally the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary thought otherwise in the drafting of their definition of "Kurdistan" in their recent third edition, which defined Kurdistan as region split between four states, including Syria. Wikipedia needs to treat this kind of editing in the same way Holocaust denial is treated. GPinkerton (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me Ivanvector. First, this discussion is not about me, it's about GPinkerton's behavior across a wide range of articles and topics. Second, you had to go back four months to see something that looks like a personal attack from me side against a recently-blocked edit warring user, that has been insulting me and others (recent examples: here, here, here, here, here and here, and here, here.) for months without any any action, with currently three WP:ANEW open cases against them, here, here and here and waiting for ANY admin attention for more than TWO weeks. On top of that a fourth was archived for without admin action. Here is the edit you linked that you describe as a personal attack: ::Konli17, What does an Erdoganist/Assadist conspiracy theory have to do with Kurdish immigration to Syria in the 1920's? Obviously, you fail to argue with the sourced content, some of these sources are from the mid 20th century, long before Assad, and half a century before Erdogan. The content is well sourced, and well known by the way. If you don't like it, that's your problem, but then you can stay away from the topic. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please go read the cases against Konki17 before you respond to this. I wonder how my comment above can be considered even close to the level of GPinkerton's or (Konli17's) behavior! That's unfair. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The user's name is Konli17, and I did read all of those discussions you forumshopped, long before I wrote this section. It's always about someone else's behaviour with you two, isn't it? And the diff I picked above was your first in a very long line of disruptive personal attacks on just that one talk page. I don't feel the need to subject anyone reading this far down with another laundry list of misdeeds. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "you forumshopped"? All three cases were opened by other editors, while mine (a fourth one) was archived without action. In the three open cases mentioned above, there is at least seven users commenting about the disruptive behavior and edit-warring of Konli17. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with GPinkerton. Amr's WP:GAME approach to talk page discussions alone ought to invite stronger sanction, let alone the rest of it. Konli17 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Moving to close with whatever sanction that is imposed. Plenty of time has been given for voting and this discussion is way too long over one person. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 17:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• I still feel that stronger measures should be taken against GPinkerton, who was again blocked today...! After that is said, I agree with #1 and #3, but disagree with #2, or at least it should be limited to the same 3 months as #1, otherwise they could never go back to editing that same article, which is not what we want here. Add to this that in general I see no use in interaction bans, especially after a 3-month hiatus. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, GPinkerton is requesting an unblock. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

So? By the way, {{nac}} stands for "non-admin closure". Is that what you had in mind? Debresser (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, meant {{nacmt}} (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 19:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support 1 and 3. Both editors apparently need to WP:COOL and this civility problem is proving more intractable than lots of contributors previously thought. (Non-administrator comment) Assem Khidhr (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 3 - this has to come to an end one way or another. Worth noting GPinkerton has two active threads on the subject on WP:AN, including one freshly started; regardless of the original merit it's become badgering. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1 & 3 Let's wait to see if an interaction ban is necessary, they're a last resort. —valereee (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

BLP violation?

I don't know where to post this. I was honestly hoping @GPinkerton: had changed. But they just made a comment in which they attack Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (a living person), calling him a "megalomaniac". (Their comment can also be interpreted to mean they are attacking the Prophet Muhammad.) This is not the first time they have either smeared living Muslims or maligned made negative comments about the entire Islamic faith ("a religion dreamt up in late antiquity"). While I support everyone's right to criticize Islam, I don't think doing so in the middle of heated discussions is WP:CIVIL. And this just days after they were blocked by valereee (later unblocked by Girth Summit) for talk page misconduct.VR _talk 02:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, interpreting the calling of an avowed dictator a megalomaniac (a well-earned characterization for man who built himself a new 1,000-room palace to live in because his existing palaces were insufficiently grand and who has annexed the administration of the very Topkapi Palace to the Office of the Presidency) as attacking the Prophet Muhammad is perverse and silly. This is not the first time you have either cried wolf on this matter or sought to have action taken against me without grounds. GPinkerton (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You just confirmed your attack on a living person. Stop digging.VR _talk 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, This is not the first time they have either smeared living Muslims or maligned the entire Islamic faith. You are criticizing me for BLP violation and yet you are casting unfounded aspersions like that baseless allegation! Danger of hypocrisy ... GPinkerton (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, This is not the first time they have either smeared living Muslims or made negative comments about the entire Islamic faith. You are criticizing me for BLP violation and yet you are casting unfounded aspersions like that baseless allegation! Danger of hypocrisy ... GPinkerton (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with Vice regent, GPinkerton is still behaving the same. Below are some examples from yesterday:

• Here: ridiculous misinterpretation that it proves the Ba'athist lie
• here: You appear to be labouring under the false impression the wall of text you have posted, and malicious lie and it is unfortunate that you persist in repeating it. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  عمرو بن كلثوم, is unfortunate that you persist in repeating it and it is a Ba'athist lie. You should read harder if you think that's wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

  عمرو بن كلثوم, It would be better had you not misrepresented my comments and edited them (a fact betrayed by the now-incoherent grammar). What I in fact said is: The idea Kurds are not native to Syria is malicious lie and it is unfortunate that you persist in repeating it as though it could be countenanced as anything more than ahistorical propaganda. As you can see, there is nothing incorrect in this assessment. GPinkerton (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton No, I haven't edited anything, I just copied and pasted the parts from your separate comments available for everyone to see for themselves in the provided links. You obviously have a strong POV on controversial topics and that shapes your editing and makes you aggressive. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, I sense hypocrisy GPinkerton (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• When I look up "megalomania" in the dictionary, Erdogan is used as an example [159]: "Following Turkey’s hundred-year sleep, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in full megalomania bids to restore a supercharged Ottoman Empire...", quoting National Review. I put "erdogan" "megalomania" in Google News and see RSes from around the world similarly using the term to describe him. Not a BLP violation. (No comment on the Syrian Kurdistan conduct concerns, now that I am involved in the content dispute there.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: Seeing that much prejudice in the topic, I utterly have no intention to get into it, but I'm kind of puzzled this is coming out of an admin you. Please refer to WP:RSPSOURCES for the consensus on National Review. It's particularly notorious in the scope of BLP that it was explicitly stated. Consensus synopsis reads: There is no consensus on the reliability of National Review. Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from the National Review constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. I tried to follow your research methodology to find other RSes to no avail, accounting for The Washington Post's false positive where the occurrences of the two words are irrelevant, only found things like Bangor Daily news, Israel Hayom, Asharq al Awsat. Correct me if I'm wrong. Assem Khidhr (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    Assem Khidhr, "The Megalomania of Erdoğan the Magnificent" - HuffPost. "Turkey’s worsening crisis is due to Erdogan’s megalomania, not Trump’s bullying, but Turks won't see it that way" - Times of Israel It's mystifying why you'd claim Asharq al Awsat is "irrelevant"! GPinkerton (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    @GPinkerton: I'd encourage you to pay a visit to WP:RSPSOURCES before citing a source as supposedly reliable. This is the least we can do in recognition of consensus on the site:

    • The first article you're providing here is from Huffpost contributors. Believe it or not, it's deemed generally unreliable on the list according to an overwhelming 18 threads. See WP:HUFFPOST and the two rows underneath (see, there's even a dedicated shortcut for that).
    • The second source is Times of Israel. While not on the list (which is enough to exclude it as a RS for such contentious claim), you can find a relevant discussion here. There were some valid grounds for unreliability. For example, Pluto2012 pointed out that it was created and is founded by Seth Klarman who is also the founder (and donator) of the Israel Project, a pro-Israel media advocacy group. Oncenawhile described the founder's statement: it is clear to me that anti-Zionism is simply the newest form of anti-Semitism. When the Jewish State is singled out above all others for criticism, such as it is at the United Nations, this is anti-Semitism as deeply biased and frankly ridiculous.

    Finally, I was ascribing irrelevancy to the occurence of both words within The Washington Post article, meaning that megalomania was mentioned in another irrelevant place in the artice than where Erdogan name is mentioned, hence being a false positive. What I indeed thought of Asharq al-awsat, Israel Hayom, etc. is unreliability, especially when it comes to politically sensitive comments. Assem Khidhr (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    @Assem Khidhr: (I'm not an admin.) I'm not sure why the WaPo articles are false positives or why you seem to be dismissing Israel Hayom or Asharq al Awsat. I guess I'll dispense with the links from Haaretz, JPost, Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, Kathimerini... but here are some others:

    • World Affairs — "Indeed, many voters may seize on the corruption charges as credible in light of Erdogan’s near megalomania for building." [160]
    • Der Spiegel — "The protests against the destruction of Gezi Park showed that Turkish civil society is no longer willing to give unquestioning backing to the megalomania of its government." [161]
    • The Nation — Interviewer: "Erdogan seems to suffer some serious case of megalomania..." Interviewee: "He is a megalomaniac." [162]
    • Federal Academy for Security Policy — "...after Erdogan showed clear signs of megalomania and authoritarianism..." [163]
    • Politico — "...how to deal with Erdogan: censure him publicly, counsel the man privately or play to his megalomania." [164] Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

    @Levivich: Thanks for correcting that, I probably thought so due to the merge we discussed on your talk page, seemed a bit bold for a non-admin to modify ANI threads structure, at least to me. Now it'd become redundant if I referred you to consensus on sources like The Nation. It is also likely that you'd end up being not sure of my attempt to explain the differences between megalomania for building, megalomania of its government, or even play to his megalomania and that megalomaniac believes to be God's greatest prophet. I'd therefore leave that interpretation to readers, but I'd just draw attention to the fact that such comment comes at the same time as an active nearly consensual proposal for civility editing ristriction, a partial block, and a serious warning of incivility from multiple admins. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• There's far too much nonsense on this noticeboard as it is, but we had better not start circling the wagons in defense of a brutal dictator. I recommend shutting this subthread down with a boomerang week-long block on the OP. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. GPinkerton (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It should be noted this whole ANI thread was begun as a result of the OP edit warring in a pro-Erdogan news source on Murder of Samuel Paty, an issue in which Erdogan has heavily involved himself, and that that source was purporting to be authoritative for events in Turkish-occupied Syrian Kurdistan ... GPinkerton (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. GPinkerton did not smear a living Muslim. Fake accusations like "interpreted to mean they are attacking the Prophet Muhammad" should not just be thrown around like they have been by VR here. Barca (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Indefed

I indefed GPinkerton after I saw they reopened WP:AN#Intractable problem still unaddressed and unabated; administrator action deficient for a third time, quickly perused their talk page, and saw an unblock request that dramatically failed WP:GAB#Talk about yourself, not others. This block was done in my personal capacity and was not done as part of this conversation. Any admin can lift the block if they have a good faith reason to believe that GPinkerton will no longer be disruptive. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Good block. WP:NOTHERE was already waved at GPinkerton by Ealdgyth and Guy macon after he failed to accept their benevolent advice. Now that I've also come to know about WP:RGW policy, I can see, in hindsight, how great of a mistake that I didn't quote it any earlier in my report. Assem Khidhr (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have declined another (or the same?) overlong confrontative unblock request and endorse the block. Sandstein 20:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• I have to say I agree, and endorse the block. I don't think it solves any of the related issues raised above necessarily, but as Assem Khidhr pointed out, GPinkerton has had the threat of a block over their head for several days now, and their response to that has been to keep digging. At some point WP:NOTTHERAPY, and we really passed that a long time ago; the only reason GPinkerton wasn't blocked earlier is because other users are also being disruptive, but that's not a situation we can continue to tolerate. (WP:NOTTHEM also applies here) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• I proposed an indefinite block above, and the only thing that surprises me is that it took so long for other editors/admins to reach the same conclusion I did long ago. Debresser (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Comment removal

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

---

@Guy Macon:@Ealdgyth:@El C:@Guerillero:@Vice regent:@Drmies:@Valereee:@Levivich:@Hardyplants:

GPinkerton is systematically removing comments from his talkpage that oppose his unblock request.[165][166] I think these comments, one of them mine, need to be brought to your attention. Previously I have notified User:El C, but since there are many more editors active on that talkpage, I think all should be notified. IMHO this behavior shows that he is not ready to be unblocked, as I see this as undesirable intervention in, or probably even tempering with, a community process which is in a way about him but not completely with him. Somewhat like the last American presidential elections. :) In any case, for your attention. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, you've already been told GP is perfectly within their rights to remove comments from their own talk. —valereee (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

As Debresser is helpfully illustrating, it was probably a mistake to allow the various issues around GPinkerton to drop without any sort of consequences for the multiple other editors whose behavior was also problematic. --JBL (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: That was the opinion of one editor.[167] However, please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Wikipedia:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, and you'll see this is not so clear-cut as it looks. In addition, you may remember the adage: don't be right, be smart. He may be within his rights, but is removing all negative comments from ones talkpage really the smart thing to do if you want to show that you are a mature editor who is ready for community editing, with the possibility and even likeliness of other editors disagreeing with you? Hint: it is not. In any case, this post was only to inform you of what happened, not to discuss whether he was within his rights. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, that was an editor with 100k+ edits quoting policy. —valereee (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee What is the ″100k+ edits quoting policy″? The page WP:OWNTALK does not talk anything about quotas, if it does can you please specify where? (Non-administrator comment)Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold, when someone with that much experience speaks, others should listen. I listen to that editor. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Drmies Thanks for making it clear, I now more clearly understand.  :) How do users with that much experience end up in such trouble, or is it another user that Valaree was discussing and not GB? Either way, I will also listen to that user and am already on Valree's side, as it can be seen in the comments bellow. (Non-administrator comment)Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee I too am an editor with over 100k edits and over a decade of experience on Wikipedia. And I think the other editor was wrong. Respectfully, as you may have noticed from my interactions with him, but wrong. Debresser (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, what I was trying to point out was that this wasn't simple opinion or unfamiliarity with policy. You may think that policy is wrongheaded, and while I think removing your comments was just sort of silly and counterproductive, policy says there are only a very limited number of things a user can't remove from their own talk. Yes, I know that you're also very experienced. I was trying to not say, "Debresser, are you really making the argument that stating policy equals giving opinion?" :) —valereee (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee I think we understand each other now. Thank you for your additional explanation. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Debresser this kind of gravedancing is unbecoming of a Wikipedia contributor. GPinkerton is indeffed, and will probably remain that way. There are plenty of eyes on this - it does not need yours. Drop it, go contribute to the encyclopaedia instead. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 23:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Alfie Although I am not Debresser, I would like to make a comment. If a sock puppet were to remove their failed unblock request, why is it that they are more scrutinized, when compared to the situation here where people are supporting a regular blocked user with the username GB in their right to remove the content from their talk page? I understand that sock puppetry is a whole different level of vandalism, but no where in Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Wikipedia:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK nor WP:OWNTALK does it talk about where the line is when users should not remove such content from their talk page. I think the issue here is that Debresser may not be doing this intentionally and may not be able to have a feel for where that line usually is. (Non-administrator comment)Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I think you missed the point of my comment somewhat, I will respond: There is no bright line here, and it's up to the judgement of the administrators handling the unblock request to assess whether the user presents a risk of disruption to the enclopaedia (which is what blocks are designed to prevent). My frustration with Debresser is that this is not new information to any of the administrators pinged - a whole bunch of people are watching GP's talkpage all the administrators handling the unblock request are already aware. It is, ultimately, unnecessary gravedancing that will just serve to aggreivate the situation, and I don't think that's particularly collegial behaviour. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 00:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Alfie Now I think I understand. You do have a valid point, and I did not see that Debresser does have a lot of admin privileges (which if they have, must imply they should know the policies and rules of Wikipedia by now). In fact, by reading the way Debresser was talking about the situation, it did not even seem as if he was an admin and was a normal user. To be honest, I rarely come to ANI, I do not remember the last time I saw an admin act like this here at ANI. (Non-administrator comment)Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Debresser doesn't have a single administrative privilege, unless they became a template editor while I wasn't watching. Alfie, as long as there are active unblock requests and discussions, there's no gravedancing--sorry, but you are mistaken there. As for judgment, now we're getting somewhere, yes. GPinkerton has to right to "clean up" their talk page, within limits--obviously they can't selectively remove comments from threads, for instance, like you can on Instagram and make the responses meaningless. But the bigger issue here is whether that's wise, and the particular discussion here, on the conditions of any unblock, really needs much input from many different people. I don't know specifically what GPinkerton has been removing; I know I spoke my peace there and I will leave it to the judgment of my fellow admins there.

Anyway, jurisprudence and policy says "yes GPinkerton can"; common sense says "it's probably not smart, if not done smartly. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Alfie I am not "gravedancing". Please assume good faith. To use your parabel, I just want to make sure that one those who deserve it rise from the dead. Debresser (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

While I'm aware of the likely perceived disruption brought about by re-opening a closed discussion, I do think this section gives me (and others) an opportunity, given my first-hand experience with GPinkerton's editing, to provide an arguably important and otherwise selectively deleted opinion. Despite being the OP, I've been relatively laconic throughout the voluminous thread. However, it's important to remind admins currently engaged in reviewing the unblock of the following:

1. You might wanna take time to read the main report in detail.
2. Even though the block was done outside the scope of this thread and in Guerillero's personal capacity, the issues covered here were significant and were on the way to lead for probably a community WP:EDR and a WP:TBAN at once. The least we can do about this is making sure they be covered in the appeal.
3. Unlike stated by admins who admittedly didn't scrutinize previous content disputes (namely, El C and valereee), it was not only matters of uncontrollable misconduct that culminated into the block, but those of editing quality as well, to the extent that WP:CIR was once quoted by Swarm in response to one of GPinkerton's unblock appeals. I guess Drmies would have something to say in that realm too.
   • My favorite example in this sense is here: Protests were held in Libya against Macron's defence of human rights, which he fervently defended against the now-instated wording I was striving to convince him of: ...against Macron's defense of the caricatures.
4. GPinkerton has previously declared to have obtained two postgrad degrees. With this level of education, the difference between subjective and objective language should have really become open and shut. This puts one in a painful dilemma: ABF, even though he knows the difference, he just wouldn't, during argumentation in general, stop heaping insults, judgments about other contributors motivations, and unnecessary exaggerations. OTOH, AGF, this would take us back to a question of competence.
5. It'd be a win-win situation if GPinkerton really takes a lesson. Yet, by definition, this platform is for chronic and intractable behavioral problems. These require a serious degree of self-reflection and mental flexiblity to be reversed and are hardly likely to resolve in a 5-day span, much less when he didn't even bother to swallow his pride and simply apologize for editors he badly attacked, some of whom, I'd argue, never insulted him (including yours truly), or were even advising him (unless maybe they were admins, even though this line was sometimes crossed as well, as when he mocked Girth Summit for not being informed of Syrian politics, as pointed later by Ealdgyth). I mean, GPinkerton almost always speaks in that assertive and somewhat condescending tone that is profoundly subjective and that doesn't exhibit the tiniest bit of self-criticism or any acknowledgement of falsifiability. Even when proven extremely wrong, he anything but concedes. Like, when he was informed of the policy on canvassing, earlier when he didn't know about that, he bitterly accepted the warning but still criticized, with fancy words as he does, the very guideline, saying it's a bizzare stricture. You see, Wikipedia is all about collective contribution, and this becomes extremely difficult with such attitude.

Finally, this is not necessarily to argue that an indef should be maintained, but merely to make sure the entirety of this is being considered in any future decision. Assem Khidhr (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Assem Khidhr There are some issues that I would like to point out.

• First, having two post graduate degrees does not always mean that one can easily differentiate between subjective and objective language. There are too many factors involved ranging from what the degrees were in (English and Script Writing, or was it in Physical Therapy and MBA). The types of degrees make a very big distinction in the manner of their studies. I would furthermore like to state that post-graduate does not always imply a doctors degree, if that is what you are thinking about when GB claims he has two post-graduate degrees.
• Second, the claim where you state that he is against the use of the term "caricatures", and there may be a valid reason for that. Firstly, not everyone knows what caricatures means. Usually in a place like Wikipedia, unless that topic is about something relating to caricatures itself, you would typically would want a slightly bit dumbed down sentence. An alternative would be to put the contextual use of the word in reference to what is being stated in the sentence inside parenthesis. For example like in the case of the diff link example that you gave, ....caricatures (cartoon images depicting things in a bad way). or ....caricatures (cartoon images depicting Mohamed the prophet in a bad way). Remember this is an online encyclopedia that teenagers may read, I personally do not think teens would like to go thru the trouble of looking up what caricatures means. Even I had to look up what it means, even though I have a Masters in Science in Information, Network, and Computer Security.

That is all I can think of for now. (Non-administrator comment)Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

{{u|User:Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold}] Interesting. I have know this word ever since childhood. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since the main problem with GPinkerton is their unwillingness to de-escalate and disengage, I hope that administrators will observe that GPinkerton's antagonists also suffer from this problem, as they are helpfully pointing out, and take appropriate action -- the problems here were very much not one-sided. --JBL (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @JayBeeEll: When one remains on-point, objective, and above all, civil, their contributions are no longer a problem that requires disengagement, but rather a consensus-building process. The bottomline is to know the difference. Assem Khidhr (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

    Sorry, but you are definitely demonstrating an inability to disengage. GP is indefinitely blocked and the thread has been closed. You had ample opportunity to present your views in the thread before it was closed. There is no need for consensus-building at this time. As JBL observes, the problems here go beyond GP. I seriously question whether it would be wise for you to pursue this discussion further and thereby risk drawing scrutiny to yourself. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

    @Lepricavark: Views change according to the situation and the ongoings. Trust me, I wouldn't start this very thread if I had something to hide. I've even encouraged admins before to examine my edit history. Feel free to do that too. Unless an update had come about that precluded the interpretation of my remarks as bludgeoning, I wouldn't have participated. Assem Khidhr (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Lepricavark You do not seem to be aware of the unblock request, and the fact that admins there seem to be inclined to lift the indefinite block, albeit with certain restrictions. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Assem Khidhr, beware of the WP:BOOMERANG. They hurt when they hit you. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Long-term user with long-term warnings and issues

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

---

Hi everyone! I'm here to file an ANI report in regards to Lonniemitchell22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user has an extensive history of being given notices, warnings, and final warnings for various disruptive behaviors on Wikipedia, as you'll clearly see by viewing their user talk page. Lonniemitchell22 was first brought to my attention the other day by IJBall in this discussion on my user talk page, which was followed up with more information and diffs provided by Magitroopa in that discussion one day later. In short, this user has been warned for various issues, such as re-ordering parameters in templates (diff that was given to me) and using the wrong citation method "such as cite press release instead of cite web for press releases", as quoted by Magitroopa (diff that was given to me). This, in my opinion, isn't typically a big deal and I usually treat these issues as good faith attempts at being bold when I encounter them. However, I am bothered by the fact that I was told that this user removes referenced content without explanation or discussion, such as here.

This user has a bit shy of 14,000 edits and has a clean block log. I see minimal participation on talk pages by this user over the time they've been on Wikipedia, with the majority being made this month. In these cases, I try to work directly with the user in a positive way and try and mentor and guide them to improve their edits and stop the behavior. However, this case is having me come to ANI due to their extensive warnings and minimal participation in discussions. Their last final warning, which was given to them on December 1, advised them that an ANI would be filed if any more issues continue to occur. The diffs were all from edits that occurred since that warning was left.

I'd like to ask the community for input on this case. Have any other editors experienced issues with this user? If so, can you provide details and information? I'd also like help with examining this user's contributions, and if this user has violated Wikipedia's policies and caused enough actual disruption that administrative action is warranted. I'd like input, thoughts, and recommendations from the community.

Thanks. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, looking at my interaction history with the user, he appears to be editing in good faith every time I have interacted with him. However, looking at his contributions his problem seems to be not communicating despite multiple warnings and chances to interact with the community. I would say that he mainly edits templates based on the diffs I have looked at and will require some cleanup. Regards, Heart ^(talk) 13:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it goes quite beyond this – removal of valid sourcing/validly sourced content is a very serious issue. Yes, this is also a WP:Communication is required case, to some extent. But there is no denying this editor's long-term (coming up on two years now!) pattern of disruptive editing, especially in regards to removing sourcing/adding unsourced content/adding sourcing incorrectly and various WP:STYLEVAR-type edits, as well as not using edit summary. If this editor had shown any capacity from learning from their mistakes, we wouldn't be here. And, to be clear – it's more than just myself and Magitroopa who have problems with this editor – their Talk page shows warnings from multiple editors, including Admin OhNoitsJamie. I don't have an answer on what should be done – but something needs to be done here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This has gone on for far too long. Blocking indefinitely, with any unblock being contingent on acknowledging and addressing the concerns Oshwah and others have repeatedly raised. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption by related accounts

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.

---

• Rock200514 (talk · contribs)
• Bond2005 (talk · contribs)

Edit warring, removing sourced content, with a shared interest in Indian religion. National Liberation Front of Tripura is but one example, but all the articles may need to be restored. Looks like meat or sock activity. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The two accounts are  Confirmed to be connected. Bond2005 is a sock puppet of Rock200514. No other accounts were found. Indefinitely blocking both. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

user:Отрок 12 returns

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,

Recently in articles relating to Eastern Orthodoxy, a certain Wikipedian has returned and began what appears to be edit warring with multiple contributors challenging their contributions, and seemingly agenda pushing via the act of deleting references as verified in Eastern Orthodox Church revision history. These contributions appear to be political in nature as well, attempting to glorify a single church which shall not be named and forgo notions of a former political entity. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

1) You're breaking WP:NOR. Phrase "Roughly half of Eastern Orthodox Christians live in the territory of the former Soviet Union, most of those living in Russia" ain't exist in any form in ref. Article contains EXACT PHRASE: "The Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church has at least 150 million followers – more than half the total of Orthodox Christians" WHICH I ADDED TO THE PAGE instead of original research which it's contained before. So it's ME FIXED article aacording to wiki rules and you breaking it again and complaining on me to wiki administartion.

2) it's you're, who politicizing article by bringing political issues to the page about religion. You bringing up political entity which wasn't mentioned in referenced cite. I MADE CITE FROM REFFERENCE EXACT AS IN REFFERENCE AND YOU DELETING IT, REPLACE IT WITH POLITICIZED ORIGINAL RESEARCH WHICH AIN'T EXIST IN REFERENCED ARTICLE AND THEN BLAMING ME FOR BREAKING WIKI RULES. Nice. You're good editor as i see.

3) Hello.

4) I didn't returned cause i never left. I'm watching few articles which i'm interested in with a certain periodicity and fixing wrong and misleading statements for years (from this account or anonymously in before)

--Отрок 12 (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: referred article contains phrase:

"The Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church has at least 150 million followers – more than half the total of Orthodox Christians"

the phrase i added to wiki page is:

"Roughly half of Eastern Orthodox Christians are parishioners of Russian Orthodox Church (including metropolitanates)."

Dear, TheLionHasSeen, how is this is breaking the wikipedia rules or attempting to pushing agenda, can you tell me, my dear friend?

Also don't even think that i will allow to substitute concepts in article i watch for years. You can try but you can't finish it until me is wathcing this page. Cheers. Have a good day. Don't brake WP:NOR rule please.

Taking into account the previous editing history of the user (155 edits, two blocks, plenty of warnings going back from 2017 at least) and the fact that during the current editing period they have never edited a talk page, I would suggest a block of an indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

So, you don't like my edits which was 100% correct according to Wikipedia rules, but you like edits of other user who made edits which is braking wikipedia rule WP:NOR, and you suggest to ban me, guy who made the quote 100% correct according to cited source and allow wrongful misleading statement which is breaking WP:NOR rule exist in page? Don't even try. I spent three years fighting with misleading information in Russia page and won at the end. Now it looks as it supposed to. So you can ban, you can block me, you can do whatever you want, but i will come back every time till wikipedia would exist. So you can not even try to make this article look as you want (and not as it should be). I will make it look as it must look anyway. I spent 3 years on fighting with deceitful information in Russia page, i can spend same here and even more. You will die sooner than i will stop to editing this page. Cheers --Отрок 12 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: Also most sklent part in you words is my stats. My page have a link to my russian wikipedia profile, where you can see that i'm long term respected editor which made big contribution in Russian WIki, and i'm for many years editing Orthodox Christianity related pages while you just casual editor without any relation to Orthodox Chrisrtianity and editors like you is main problem while editing Orthodox Christianity related pages. In russian wiki there's a lot of editors who have deep insight in Orthodox Christianity so all good edits in the end stay in Wiki. While in english part of wikipedia there's no such editors aside maybe from me, so i have hard times here fighting with few know-it-all editors with almost no insight in related topic. --Отрок 12 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You will die sooner than i will stop to editing this page - thank you for best wishes, and I hope the next admin who is going to see it makes sure you have stopped editing the page for a long time. I hope I will still be alive, though nobody knows of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You americans are so snowflakes. Don't put my words out of context. That's nonsense what you said. You're ultratoxic guys, really, chill out a bit and leave articles you have no clue about at rest --Отрок 12 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We are ultratoxic guys (and some of us are, you know, uktratoxic girls), sure. When someone talks trash we say they talk trash. Wondering what other bullshit you will continue with. I actually should have blocked you myself before you started to write this junk about me, but it is too late now, somebody else will have to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks and prayers of death are disapproved. As a fellow Orthodox Christian (Orthodox Church in America), I am appalled. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"prayers of death" you see what you want to see. i just said that i will edit this page as i see it in correct way (with any profile or IP) till i would live, so it's no option to trying to impose your agenda on it. "prayers of death" really? dude you're so toxic as much as other editors here --Отрок 12 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me, fellow Christian brother, but is not what you're doing the definition of insanity? Nothing will change in your favor. You're better off starting a competitor to Wikipedia with a MediaWiki hosting service, such as Wikia- TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You're not my brother, american. Please leave page about my nation's religion alone and don't touch it with edits that breaking WP:NOR --Отрок 12 (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I am your brother, according to our ancient and apostolic faith. In Christ, we are grafted as spiritual brethren, despite nationality differences. Do not let ethnophyletism overtake you. In conclusion as well, it is not "your nation's religion", but a universal religion which has a distinct cultural aspect wherever it abound. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Today I learnt the word 'ethnophyletism'.LittleDwangs (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

LittleDwangs, I am humbled. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Отрок 12 has been blocked indefinitely for their talk of "you will die before I stop editing". GiantSnowman 21:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

May it be deemed feasible to request a permanent protection of every article pertaining to the Orthodox churches from non-confirmed users, etc indefinitely with promises to continue on. Several users related to the Ethiopian culture have done so for decades with the P'ent'ay article. Refer to the talk page for instance. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No, we have to consider such requests individually via WP:RFPP. Pages which experience infrequent but long-term disruption typically get pending changes protected--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Long-term pattern of adding nothing but unsourced material to sanctioned articles

Ruben192 (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice for repeated additions of unsourced material in areas subject to sanction, once in 2017 on WP:ARBMAC material and in September 2020 by @Acroterion: on WP:ARB911 related articles.

I issued a final warning for continuing to add unsourced material on a Mohamed Atta, another 911 article, on October 3. I filed a report on AIV yesterday for this latest unsourced addition but the report was declined.

Looking at this editor's history, every edit since the release of the September block had been to add unsourced material to 911 articles. I think a topic ban or block is needed. Toddst1 (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocking. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Edits so infrequently, may be a while. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:GAMING by an IP editor using multiple IP's

This IP range Special:Contributions/2409:4073:0:0:0:0:0:0/34, partially blocked for block evasion, is into regional POV pushing in various articles including Adimurai and Silambam and Kalaripayattu with WP:OR and misrepresenting sources. They are also using other IP's including 137.97.67.74 and 157.46.141.57

On Adimurai - Talk:Adimurai

• From 27 to 29 November, adds WP:OR with no sources and no edit summaries- [168]
• When reverted claims This version is more unsourced than the earlier. And other problems like MOS:HEADCAPS and promotional subjective attributions like "regarded as one of the oldest and most important martial art"., though they had never added any sources - [169]
• Removes cited content already in the article citing WP:OR - [170]
• Removes a source (not a good source), added by me citing WP:EXCEPTIONAL and goes on to add WP:OR in the next three edits - [171]

On Silambam - Talk:Silambam

• From 27 to 29 November, adds WP:OR and adds an unreliable source from fitindia about an event with no explanation - [172]
• I reverted it seeing their first few of the unsourced additions. They claim their content is sourced though it's not fully sourced -[173]
• I started a discussion at the talk page and reverted it to a revision from 22 August 2020 as lot of other auto-confirmed accounts seemed to have added WP:OR
• Calls my edit as vandalism and asks me use the talk page even though I've started a discussion - [174]
• Cites a fit-india event source and a book for the first sentence on the lead "Silambam is a weapon-based Indian martial art originated at Kurinjimala (Kurinji hills) in modern-day Kerala in the Indian subcontinent." - While the fit-India event source says Silambam is a weapon-based Indian martial art from Tamil Nadu, but also traditionally practiced by the Tamil community of Sri Lanka and Malaysia. It is closely related to Keralan kalaripayat and Sri Lankan angampora. It derives from the Tamil word silam meaning “hill” and the Kannada word bamboo from which the English “bamboo” originates. The term silambambu referred to a particular type of bamboo from the Kurinji hills in present-day Kerala. Thus silambam was named after its primary weapon, the bamboo staff. The related term silambattam often refers specifically to stick-fighting. and the cited book with the page 23 doesn't even mention Kerala. This is a clear misinterpretation of source and WP:OR
• I reverted them and told them they are misinterpreting sources, they reverted it without any discussion in the talk page, saying No misrepresentation. There are three sources which clearly cites the content. Sourced content stays until a consensus is reached to remove it. Stop edit-warring.. - [175].

The IP range did the same thing in Kalaripayattu, edit warring with other editors Kalariwarrior and Outlander07 without using the talk page while asking other editors to use the talk page.

They also seem to be disinterested in discussing content and is interested in making baseless accusations against me at Talk:Adimurai#Revert and User_talk:Suneye1#December_2020, and other editors User_talk:Anarchyte#A_question. I strongly believe that this User is not even slightly afraid of scrutiny since they are using multiple's IP's and adding WP:OR and misrepresenting sources for POV pushing.

A block for the IP range to edit those articles (don't know if this will work because they are using different IP ranges) or a page protection with the status-quo version is necessary. I don't think this is going to stop. This is a waste of time for us editors who have these articles in our watch-list dealing with these POV pushers. SUN EYE 1 06:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

2601:143:8000:18A0:4048:80A0:755:4185

More of the same edits on multiple pages from another IP from a user who was blocked yesterday or Friday. Specifically on Luis Arce, Cory Gardner and Steve Bullock. On further examination, the diverse subjects and the fact that all pages have been edited by User:Krisgabwoosh can't be coincidence and seems to point at vandalism aimed at harassing the latter user. @Krisgabwoosh: Crmoorhead (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

He's done this with other IPs, too. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

IMHO all these articles of lame-duck officials should be semi-protected, until their elected successors take office. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I should clarify that I do not personally believe that this IP user is aiming their edits towards me. I do not usually edit articles relating to U.S. politicians. However, in looking through the IP user's edit summary, I saw that similar type of edits made on Luis Arce were being made on these other politician articles and that they too had previously been reverted and readded. Since I was already reverting the edit made on Luis Arce, I opted to revert the edits made on those U.S. politicans as well. This is why I also appear on the edit logs for those pages. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I got the wrong end of the stick then. Still, they are being a nuisance on multiple pages. I just saw the edit history and saw that you were involved, I thought maybe someone got annoyed at you and started being petty. Crmoorhead (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The fellow is at it, again. Blanket semi-protection would seem the only route. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've semi-protected each article listed above for one week. This IP range is huge, and I'm not going to bother looking into blocking any part of the range. There's going to be collateral damage if I do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: He's also messing with the Doug Jones (politician) article. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I did check, and IMO there's a smaller range than the WHOIS-reported CIDR that we could block, however that's still significant collateral. I have blocked 2601:143:8000:18a0::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for 3 months. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector - Thank you for doing that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Admiral Farmer: you may want to comment here, as well. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Mache2007

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.

---

Mache2007 (talk · contribs) has been continuously disruptive on the Miss Universe 2020 article after repeated warnings. WikiProject Beauty Pageants has long suffered from uncontrolled vandalism, and we must finally begin taking efforts to rid the project of this. Mache2007 keeps adding countries to the "Contestants" section of the article even though their contestants have not been crowned yet, and are changing the number of contestants selected as if these countries actually have picked a representative, both a WP:CRYSTAL violation and just blatantly incorrect information; we have a specific section for countries with planning national pageants, yet they are ignoring this section and the WikiProject's standards (Difs: Dif 1, Dif 2, Dif 3 (unrelated adding of unsourced information), Dif 4, . One mistake would be understandable, but they have been warned numerous times, blocked already previously, and have shown no interest in improving their editing. They additionally keep removing the hometown of one contestant, and directing the link to a disambiguation page instead of the actual article (Difs: Dif 5, Dif 6. There are endless examples of Mache2007 being a disruptive editor here on Wikipedia, but I do not have the time to list every disruptive thing they have done. Wikipedia and the WikiProject would be better off with them not editing at this point. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Mache2007 has 674 edits, all but maybe half a dozen to Miss Universe 2020 and Miss Universe 2019. The handful of others are messages on their own talk page, which paint a picture of a young, non-English editor who believes they have the "right" to add any information they please and don't need to provide sources for things that are "obvious", but what's obvious to them are BLP violations to us. I have blocked them from editing Miss Universe 2020 indefinitely. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Adamant1 continued WP:ASPERSIONs and bludgeoning

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.

---

• Adamant1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Adamant1 has been making disruptive edits to schools and school list articles for awhile now. Many of these edits are fine, including removing promotional langauge from school articles, and there is work to be done in cleaning this area up. However, some of these edits have been problematic, and Adamant1 has taken a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to these edits which frequently spiral off into WP:BLUDGEONing and casting WP:ASPERSIONS.

One specific conflict is ongoing. Adamant1 has been converting "List of schools/universities in Country" list to only include bluelinked institutions and has often removing verified entries we don't have an article for. This led to a discussion over at the List of schools in Namibia talk page and in order to solve the impasse an RfC over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#RfC on African school lists.

Because I've disagreed with Adamant1 on whether only bluelinked articles should be allowed in these lists, I've frequently been the target of aspersions, including being called dishonest, which they have not backed up with specific diffs. For instance: [176] [177] [178]

These diffs aren't the first rodeo, either, so here, exhaustedly, I ask for diffs showing how I've been dishonest: [179] And no diffs were forthcoming: [180]

Adamant1 also then went after PGallert: [181] [182] and we were called dishonest again this morning, which is really the reason why I'm here now: [183]

And then again here [184] even though I'm not even in that part of the thread.

There are other behaviour patterns here as well, including to make these controversial edits and claiming the RfC doesn't apply to their edits (see the discussion with Toughpigs at the linked RfC starting 16 November 2020 and the edit here which shows a complete misunderstanding of the guidelines) and Adamant1's typical bludgeoning behaviour that's not just limited to me (I can provide other diffs of this as well if required, as they have a habit of responding to anyone who doesn't agree with them at AfDs they've nominated.) Furthermore, on 5 November, Drmies closed a proposal for Adamant1 here on ANI suggesting "civility alerts."

My goal here: I'd really like to stop being called dishonest on a regular basis over a mere content dispute, and I'd like the disruption at school articles to stop, based on the mis-understanding of the guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 18:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If people here want examples of your dishonesty they can just look to the first paragraph your message here. Two great on going examples is your portrayals of my edits as "problematic" when there is zero evidence that they are and your constant hemming and hawing that I have a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to this or am somehow WP:BLUDGEONING things by responding to messages that are directly related to me and where I have been pinged or asked questions.

For instance you bring up List of schools in Namibia as an example of me having a "WP:BATTLEGROUND approach" to this. When when me and PGallert discussed things, I said he could do what he wanted with the article, and I haven't edited it since then. It is dishonest to say that me working things out with another user and not editing an article anymore is having a "WP:BATTLEGROUND approach." Period.

Here and on Talk:Wikiproject Schools you accused me of BLUDGEONING things for responding to people who addressed me directly in my comments, asked me questions, and (or) pinged me. You have done the same thing in other discussions I have been involved in on talk pages also. Including ones where you were the one who asked me the question that I was responding to. Again, it is dishonest to accuse someone who is responding to direct questions and criticisms as BLUDGEONING things or having a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. Especially in the case of Talk:Wikiproject Schools because you went out of your way to make the RfC about my edits and directly them called them out in the RfC question. You can't do that and then not expect the person your calling out to not be involved in the RfC.

You also can't have it both ways where the person is supposedly taking a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to things but then at the same time criticize their there attempts to work things out through discussion as BLUDGEONING.

Also, in Talk:Wikiproject Schools you said no one agreed with me in the discussion. Which was simply false and easily disprovable. More so because ToughPigs had already made the exact same statement that I responded to. In that case, you were saying something that was clearly wrong and had already been discussed and I was BLUDGEONING for telling you. So, if I don't respond to your blatantly obvious lie about me then I just look bad, but if I do then you accuse me of BLUDGEONING or whatever. How is that an honest tactic to use?

You've made numerous personal comments about me over the last month and accused me of lying at least once (probably more), but then when anything even slightly related to you or your behavior is brought up it's aspersion casting.

Re "PGallert", I had worked things out with him in List of schools in Namibia a few weeks ago and have left the article alone since then. In the meantime, completely unprovoked and after I thought we had settled things he left a rather critical and clearly dishonest message about me on Talk:Wikiproject Schools. Where he said among other things

• That I was "lecturing" people (again, just for responding to questions Etc. Etc.), said I've been wrong from the start about this (which there is no evidence of and I never claimed I was "right" about everything from the start of this anyway)
• I have policy wrong every time I cite policy (which is clearly false because I go out of my way to directly policy and direct quotes aren't wrong. Plus, if anything his reading of policy was clearly wrong),
• I am attacking people "all over Wikipedia." Which I'm not doing. Least of which because the discussion at Talk:Wikiproject Schools is really the only one I'm involved in right now and have been involved for a while. Except for a few AfDs, where from as far as I know I haven't attacked anyone (nor have at Wikiproject schools). Even if I had of said something about someone in an AfD, it wouldn't be "all over Wikipedia" anyway.
• I'm an inch away from a topic ban. Which is simply false and a hollow threat. Plus, he said the topic ban resulted from my claims of other peoples wrong doing. I can't be an inch away from a topic ban and also already be topic banned.
• He said "If you find school articles which have been abandoned, by all means change them to your liking." While at the same time criticizing me for editing schools articles and saying I will be topic banned for doing so. Which is just non-nonsensical.
• He told me I needed to drop the stick. When, again, I had worked things out with him at List of schools in Namibia. Essentially continuing to badger me about something that I dropped two weeks ago.
• Also, in List of schools in Namibia among other ridiculous claims he said that there needs to be consensus to fix a dead reference. Which is blatantly false. Also, he's saying clearly false things like that while telling me that I'm wrong every time I cite policy.

One more thing, your more then open about the fact that you regularly look through my edit history to find ones to cherry and find fault with. You've also continually brought up my supposedly "inaccurate" or "problematic" edits in multiple places over the last month. While doing absolutely nothing to fix them or at least sway me to, or anything else. Nor have you done anything else in relation to my edits except use them as fodder for criticism when you need to. Which I'm pretty sure goes against WP:WIKIHOUNDING. You've also ignored every other instance of other people making exactly the same kinds of edits I have. So, clearly this isn't even a thing you care about outside of me doing it. You can't browse single users edit history repeatedly for a month, single there edits out, then use them as examples of the person's supposedly "deficient" editing in various venues. Especially while doing absolutely nothing else to sort out your personal grievances with the person and also while not taking issue with the exact same edits being done by other people. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

For the 100% of people who don't have time to read all that verbiage, the one thing you should look at is the Responses section on the African schools RfC. Adamant1 has been responding to every single post with increasingly strident, self-pitying rants, in the manner of a 2020 post-election truther. He accuses everyone who disagrees with him of harassment and hounding, says that their arguments aren't grounded in policy or reality, throws around accusations of lying and bias, and claims that a book called Schools and Schooling in Pakistan is not about schools in Pakistan. In my opinion, he no longer has the ability to collaborate successfully with other editors. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

"He accuses everyone who disagrees with him of harassment and hounding." Off the top of my head Andrew, ClemRutter, and davidwr disagreed with me and I didn't accuse them of harassment or hounding. I'm sure there's other people who disagreed with that I didn't excuse of anything either. I have better things to do then browse through a discussion just to disprove your clearly wrong and hyperbolic comment though. What I did say is that SportingFlyer is hounding me for the clear reasons that I've provided here. Maybe it's to novel of a concept for you, but people can both disagree with someone and be hounding them. They aren't mutually exclusive and I'm not "accusing" SportingFlyer of hounding me simply because he disagrees with me. Period. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Dude, if you can provide a list of people that you haven't accused of harassment, then that is all of the evidence that is required. You are not working well with other people. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

These discussions are always a lose lose with you. You say something blatantly dishonest and inflammatory, and then no matter how I respond you have a similar critique that deflects from your original, wrong comment. You've done the same thing multiple times now. Do you mind if I ask why your having such a problem with being honest and fair about things in these discussions? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment My edit to List of universities in Algeria was reverted by @LittleDwangs: because they thought the edit was akin to systematically wiping out the data of a whole continent or some such. Despite there being an ongoing discussion about it that hadn't been resolved yet and me saying I was going to selectively revert the edit anyway once it was finished. Which hardly sounds like a totally reasonable, policy based reason to revert me. Especially when I'm the one being accused of treating this like a battleground. But whatever. If nothing else, at least @SportingFlyer: can strike it off his list of grievances though. So, job well done on the supposedly reasonable side. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Your saying "they thought the edit was akin to systematically wiping out the data of a whole continent or some such" is not a productive thing to say especially when they made no such statement. You were brought here in part due to concerns regarding WP:ASPERSIONS and you're casting more of them here. Also please remember that WP:CIVIL is not optional. Your comment above says a lot more about why you are a problem here than it does about other people. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bushranger: "especially when they made no such statement". Actually they did in the relevant discussion from WikiProject Schools that SportingFlyer linked to in his original report. I'll quote it here though since it appears you can't be bothered to read relevant discussions before accusing people of being liars. "Personally I like to know a little basic geography before I start systematically wipe out the data of a whole continent." That was the only message they wrote about my edits and never participated in the discussion me and WhisperToMe were having about what to do with the article that got reverted. So, I would have to assume that was why they reverted me. I think that your so willing to cast WP:ASPERSIONS of other people being dishonest without looking into things first says a lot about why there is a problem here, and clearly it's not related to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In that case I stand corrected on that part - but your attitude is still highly WP:UNCIVIL and the "or some such" speaks volumes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I'm more then willing to strike out the phrase "or some such" from my comment if you find it insulting. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be better if you did, I think. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. It wasn't meant in any insulting way toward LittleDwangs. It was a self deprecating nod to Meghan McCain because she says it a lot on The View and ToughPigs compared me to a self-pitying right winger. I know it's an obscure reference. I guess that's what I get for going along with peoples digs at me. Your really damned if you do and damned if you don't though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the edit that @LittleDwangs reverted a few weeks ago, and that Adamant re-reverted a few hours later. I have been seriously considering reverting it myself, only I thought it'd be more collegial to wait until the RFC (which is clearly against this sort of edit) closed.

Let me give you some background: There are something like 150 universities (actual degree-granting universities, not schools for children) in the country of Algeria. A few weeks ago, we had a fairly complete list of the names (sometimes in two languages, since it's a multi-lingual country), which part of the country each is located in, the founding year, and the general type of universities (e.g., whether it's a Public university). These were generally sourced to reliable primary sources, e.g., the universities' own websites.

What we don't have is individual articles about each and every one of these universities. Anyone who's been editing seriously for more than about five minutes will realize that any bona fide university is assumed to be notable until proven otherwise, but one of our long-term problems is that we write about what interests us, which means that we don't systematically sit down and write about every single university in every single developing country, just so we can make a list full of blue links.

Adamant1 blanked dozens of universities from that list. I understand that he's edited many list articles similarly, but I've only talked to him about that particular article in detail. In the RFC, he indicated that his believes that WP:LISTCRIT requires List of universities in Algeria to exclude the names of all legitimate, government-run, degree-granting university unless and until a Wikipedia editor has already written an article about the university. This "blue link" standard is useful in huge subjects (e.g., "List of people from New York"), but it's absolutely not required, or even appropriate, for a list of universities in a small country. I think he's wrong on the content question, and wrong in his uncollegial, revert-heavy, aggressive behavioral approach when people call him on his bad edits.

By way of providing greater context, my general experience of Adamant1 is that he seems to have a strange notion of what counts as "reliable". I've seen him previously complain at length at the External links noticeboard because someone (maybe User:Walter Görlitz, but I'd have to check) cited (with <ref> tags placed at the ends of the sentences they support, not as ==External links==) Amazon and iTunes for release dates and track listing information on music albums. (WP:RSP on Amazon: "Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date..." Adamant1 on Amazon: "The links are not used properly as citations either and seem to only be there for the purpose of sending readers to a place where they can buy the artists work.") I somehow ended up with the impression that, in at least some cases, Amazon and iTunes were being cited for this content only because Adamant1 had previously insisted that the albums themselves, and anything published by the artists or music label about their albums, were in his opinion "unreliable" for their own contents. We normally take the album to be not merely reliable but actually authoritative for this kind of content, but Adamant1 seems to want something better. I'm sure he'd accept a scholarly article that names all the songs and all the singers, but these don't exist for 99% of notable albums.

What strikes me in looking back at this 2018 discussion is how little has changed in the intervening couple of years. It's like every conversation with this editor involves him trying to remove bog-standard, already-cited content from Wikipedia, with him insisting that he's entitled to remove accurate information if the sources don't live up to his high standards. Everyone disagrees with him, and he complains very stridently about how everyone is horrible to him and making Wikipedia worse, because they're doing things like saying who sang which song on an album, or by accurately listing the names and general locations of most of the real universities in African countries. It's even the same phrases.

I have been thinking this week about the old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct process. I think that if we could all sit down and look at his contributions with a broader lens, without the time pressure that ANI brings or the time-sucking pain that ArbCom entails, we might all be able to arrive at a shared understanding of what he needs to do differently, and then let him either adapt, quit, or get blocked. As it stands, though, I feel like the options available to us are going to be an ever-widening series of TBANs or a trip to ArbCom. Offhand, thinking about disputes I've seen, I could probably provide evidence that would tend to support a TBAN in music, hospitals, and schools. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

My alert went off. Yes, WhatamIdoing's memory is mostly correct. While I did not add the iTunes Store or Amazon links, I understand WP:PRIMARY well enough to know that they can be used to support basic information about a subject, and they do not count toward supporting GNG. However, I restored them when Adamant1 removed them. Yes, Adamant1 claimed that they should not be used at all as they are a commercial source, and rather than discuss it as RSN, he raised it at the External Links board. It was explained by me and other editors that refs are not ELs, and that these primary sources can be used for this purpose.

I agree with WhatamIdoing that Adamant1 has his own, personal high standards, that do not line-up with CONSENSUS or any community standards. I am certainly not an expert on Algerian Post-secondary education as WhatamIdoing used in an example above, or that of any nation, but from what WhatamIdoing described, it seems that similar efforts that were made on the "religious musicians" (my wording) articles in the past—attempts to remove anything Adamant1 felt was not appropriate—are being repeated here. If consensus is that this list should be exhaustive, and contain entries without blue links, then Adamant1 should probably accept that, or try to generate a new consensus. Reading the original complaint, the behaviour does sound familiar. If an admin would like me to point to that other set of articles, I could provide them, but it might take a while. However, it looks like there are enough editors here on this current run of edits that I likely won't need to provide them. As has been pointed out above, {{|Drmies}} has already commented negatively aboutsimilar behaviour when closing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive326#Proposal for Adamant1 a little over a month ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"his believes that WP:LISTCRIT requires List of universities in Algeria to exclude the names of all legitimate, government-run, degree-granting university unless and until a Wikipedia editor has already written an article about the university." @WhatamIdoing: I'd love to see you back up the claim that the only thing I'm willing to except is that an editor has already written an article about the university with a diff, because I was pretty clear with you multiple times that I could really give a crap if there is an article for the universities and that their lack of articles had nothing to do with why I removed the entries. I'm pretty sick of the amount of lying about me going on in relation to this by you and other people. It's ridiculous that you wasted my time and everyone else's requesting I explain what I was doing just so you could disingenuously put words in my mouth.

It's also just as ridiculous that you had to dig up a 2 year disagreement that wasn't as black and white as your making to try and prove that I'm doing something I shouldn't be. I'm not going to waste my time relitigating it just so people here can lie, miss-quote me more, and use it later to accuse me bludging or whatever. Except to say that I asked about it at a board, which at the time I didn't know was the wrong one, where I was told by an admin me to go ahead and remove the Itunes/Amazon links. So that's what I did. Then later on after Walter Görlitz refused to let it go and kept badgering me about it. So I asked for clarification from other people besides the original admin who told me it was OK, and I stopped doing it after the clarification. They aren't even similar circumstances or types of edits. It wasn't a black and white thing either, it had nothing to do with what you claim it did, and the same thing is true here. There was really zero on my part that I did wrong there and I took the time to discuss and work it out. Just like here. Yet, for whatever reason it's still being throwing in my face as if the whole thing was intentionally bad faithed on my part and that it wasn't just a miss-communication mixed with Walter Görlitz being insufferable.

Walter Görlitz had a long history of badgering, verbal abuse, and reverting my edits (including ones that weren't "wrong" like fixing spelling errors) before that to. All the way to when I first edited articles. I think on my third edit as a new user he called me pathetic and said I needed to get a life simply for adding a "more citations" needed banner to an article. He also spent an inordinate amount of time accusing me of editing Christian music articles out of a distain for Christians and badgering me pretty well on my talk page and other places repeatedly over literally nothing. I don't think it's fair of you to use a 2 year-old (it was actually four years old because it was pretty on going for a long-time) disagreement where the other side was acting completely horrible and all I was doing was following what an admin said as evidence in this.

As far as I'm concerned I handled it exactly how I should have and there wasn't really anything I could have done differently or better. Same here. Even when I have worked things out through the proper channels and means, it still gets throwing in my face as un-acceptable behavior Etc. Etc though. Just like how I worked things out in List of schools in Namibia, never edited the article again, and it's still being used as an example of supposedly bad behavior. Yet all that's happened from you and the few other people involved in this is that you've all lied repeatedly about my position on things, my edits, personally attacked me, and yet no one seems to have a problem with any of that. There's literally nothing I can do or say that certain people won't take issue with, miss-construe, lie about, or throw in my face years later when it serves them. Then supposedly I'm not being harassed, hounded, and I'm the uncivil one when all that is going on and issues are being taken with years old discussions and edits that I've made.--Adamant1 (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You do understand you didn't need to call Walter insufferable in that last response, that the "pathetic" and "get a life" edit you need to specifically back up with a diff, and those two things are at least half of why this thread was started here in the first place? I've repeatedly asked for diffs after you've called me dishonest, and have yet to see one. SportingFlyer T·C 12:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This response feels pretty typical. I feel like having this thread open is an example of Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope: If you have any doubt about how Adam response to all disagreements, then you're seeing it right here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: How would you prefer I respond to multiple people saying things about me that are clearly wrong? Also, the last time I checked my user name is Adamant1, not Adam, and I never said my name was Adam. So, unless you can point out where I have said my name was Adam in this discussion, any other that you've been involved in, or would like to take responsible for doxing me, I'd appreciate it if you referred to me by what my user name actually is. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume that your username comes from the musician Adam Ant.

What I'd prefer is that you didn't blank accurate and encyclopedic content from articles. I'd prefer that you didn't insist that your interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources is the only honest and accurate one, when almost nobody ever agrees with you, especially once they fully understand what you're complaining about (e.g., not when you ask an admin to tell you that external links to Amazon are unwanted, when the URL is actually being used as a reliable source). I'd prefer that when editors tell you to stop it, and that your edits are bad and unwanted, you would actually stop it, and not re-revert to your preferred version. I think that if you stopped doing this stuff, then there would be very few opportunities for people to complain about your editing, and no opportunities for them to accuse you of responding poorly to legitimate criticism of your editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Literally nothing you said in that message is accurate. See my last comment below this one. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Really? It's not accurate that I'd prefer that you didn't blank accurate and encyclopedic content from articles? It's not accurate that I'd prefer you didn't insist on your weird interpretation of reliable sources? Is it also not accurate that I'd prefer that you would Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, and even learn Wikipedia:How to lose with some grace, or at least to go away when you're told that edits like this one, with the edit summary "Removed non-notable entries", are bad and should not be repeated? I wonder why you think you know what my "accurate" preferences are, and that I don't know my own preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Mostly, the information I "blanked" from articles was not referenced. So, there's really no way to know if it is accurate or not and it wouldn't matter if it is was anyway if there is no reference to support it. Wikipedia isn't a collection of random, un-sourced facts. Even if they are technically "true." Also, plenty of people agree with me. Almost everyone in the Wikiproject schools discussion has said exactly I have been saying and I get thanked for my edits all the time. As far as the admin goes, he (they?) never actually changed their opinion. I asked someone else. I was pretty to him (them?) in the original discussion and linked to the relevant articles when he (they) told me to go ahead and delete the sources to Amazon. Someone else also agreed. So, it's completely inaccurate to say they changed their opinions after "fully understanding me", because that's not how it happened.

As far as me "doing this stuff", I didn't open this complaint and I didn't start the RfC either. So, there is no "stuff" I'm doing. Nor am I the one with the stick here.

Re, I should just go away, again, people thank me for my edits all the time and multiple people agree with me when there is discussion about it. I'm "going away" simply because you and a few other people want to be disingenuous and misconstrue things. I also take a massive issue with you saying that I don't stop my edits when someone takes issue with them, because that's exactly what I did with List of schools in Namibia and I haven't reverted LittleDwang's revert of my edits to List of universities in Algeria either. Nor have I made all that many edits to school lists while this and the discussion in Wikiproject Schools have been going on. I haven't really edited Christian music related articles since Walter had a big fit over me doing so either. Your simply unwilling to acknowledge those things because they don't fit your narrative that I am unreasonable and unwilling to stop doing things. I have been plenty reasonable and have stopped doing things multiple times simply because someone was triggered by the edit though. Even when the consensus was clearly on my side about it. I haven't edited an Amazon or iTunes link since me and Walter got into it about them either. So, I stand by that nothing was accurate about your comment. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

A correction, above you said "I haven't reverted LittleDwang's revert of my edits to List of universities in Algeria either.", you did re-revert the edits, stating, "Guidelines say entries should be reliably sourced. Unless they are discussed as a group or set in reliable sources. Which last time I checked these aren't. Last time I checked it's better to go with the guidelines.". You made similar re-revertions and edit summaries to various other African universities articles. I opted not to make any further edits to any of the affected articles so as to avoid an edit war with you, especially as I have seen you get personal with so many of the editors you disagree with. LittleDwangs (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

No one here needed to lie about me either. So, what's your point? Walter has a long history of problems with people and miss using the revert system. I'm not going to waste my time digging through 4 years of edits to provide a diff for something I know he said just because you want to treat me like I'm making it up. Especially while people here, including you, have done nothing but be dishonest about this and no one seems to care at all about it. If your standard is that people should provide diffs for things, then request WhatamIdoing provide one for what they said about me. I didn't see you asking ToughPigs for a diff when he said I accuse everyone who disagrees with me of harassment either. So, I'm not jumping through arbitrary hoops to comply with standards that you clearly don't care about. As far as me providing diffs of your dishonesty, I provided actual examples. So, I'm pretty sure I don't need to. Why don't you read through my original message where I gave multiple examples of you being dishonest instead of acting like I didn't already provide them? There's nothing I dislike more then a discussion where one side can act however uncivil and dishonest as they want, but then the other has to be 100% perfectly measured about every single word they say or be policed over extremely minor things that aren't really issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I did provide a link. I linked to the African schools RfC, where there are lots of examples of your aggressive behavior. — Toughpigs (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Which isn't evidence that I accuse everyone who disagrees with me of harrassement. When that's what you said and is what I asked for evidence of. Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This 12:57 post is typical of my experience with Adam: Everyone's going "to lie about me". Other editors are bad, so it's okay to be bad in other ways. Other editors are "dishonest". Disagreeing with Adam about the standards for reliable sources is proof that "no one seems to care at all" about "standards". The problem is all just "your dishonesty".

Adam needs to stop accusing editors of being dishonest. Adam also needs to stop blanking content that is sourced to reliable primary sources and reliable non-independent sources, specifically including WP:ABOUTSELF sources. These are not unreliable sources, even if he dislikes them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Someone who said multiple clearly false things taking issue with another person pointing it out isn't surprising. It's kind of ridiculous when pointing out a lie is treated worse then the actual lie. Also, I never said my user name is Adamant1, not Adam. Unless you want to take responsibility for doxing me I'd appreciate it if you called me what my user name actually is. I assume that's what you think it is though. Since you've called me it multiple times now. Releasing people's private information on the downlow in discussions is an especially insidious form of bullying and in no way should it at all be acceptable. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I said nothing false. You removed references to the iTunes Store or Amazon, edit warred when I or others restored it, took the discussion to ELN rather than RSN, argued that commercial links should never be used, all in the face of multiple editors telling you that you were wrong. Separately, I responded to a comment you left at RSN at a time when I was patrolling the pages and I had responded before I recognized the name I was responding to. You made a claim about whether the Michelin Guide could be used to help prove notability of a restaurant. You provided a link to the disputed article I followed the link and and restored the reference. It was only then that I realized it was you. You accused me of stalking you. Bludgeoning occurred there as well. All at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284#RFC on Michelin stars as a reliable source for notability of restaurants and the linked article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Walter, where have I removed references to iTunes store or Amazon links since the original discussion about it took place? I don't even really edit Christian music related articles anymore. And as far as I know you were the only one that reverted me for removing the links. The admin that got involved never did. Nor did the other people who were involved in that discussion. At the time I didn't know the difference between ELN and RSN and it superficial anyway. You just use that as an excuse for them not giving an answer that you thought was acceptable. Either way, you treat my like asking someone for clarification was a bad thing and that I should have just done what you wanted in the first place. Which I wasn't going to because you had a massively bad attitude about it and have a history of misusing reverts. Even before I came along. Going to the wrong board was not intentional though. You really need to get over it. You say you were just patrolling pages and that it wasn't anything specific to me, but that isn't proven by the evidence. You left a message on my talk page around that time called "You need to find another target" where you said "You don't like Bethel music is specific and so you're engaged in drive-by tagging" and reverted me for adding more sources needed banners to pages. You can't use that you were just watching the articles as an excuse for singling out and reverting my edits or for making spurious claims on my talk that page that I was intentionally "targeting" something. You also commented on a talk page where I suggested an article split that I was just suggesting it because I disdain Christians and trying to wipe their presence from Wikipedia. There was zero reason you needed to comment about it. Let alone in that way over aggressive and personally attacking way. So, how was that not stalking me? Your responsible for the discussions and edit wars you engage in. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

When you say that a person is being dishonest, or lying, you are saying that the other person is intentionally saying something inaccurate, and not confused, making an honest mistake, accidentally misremembering something, didn't understand the situation correctly, etc. As you and I have previously discussed on my talk page, unless you have magic mind-reading powers, you should not be accusing so many people of intentional errors.

• "Assume good faith" means that you say "I disagree" instead of "You're a liar".
• "Assume good faith" means that you say "I remember that happening differently" instead of "You're dishonest".
• "Assume good faith" means that you say "I think you might be exaggerating" instead "Everyone is lying about me".

If you do not believe that there is a difference between an honest error and a bold-faced lie, then you should not be part of Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Except when it's an ongoing repeated thing by the same couple of people and the comments are so completely obviously false, I have to believe that are being made intentionally. "Assuming good faith" doesn't mean to be a push over by just taking other people's abuse and not calling it out. It's not just a matter of remembering things differently when someone says something like "you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of harassment" either. That's not a comment made by someone who just isn't remembering a discussion perfectly clearly. ToughPigs has had every opportunity to say so though if that is the case and hasn't. In the meantime I was perfectly willing to give The Bushranger the benefit of the doubt when they took responsibility for the wrong thing they said. So, don't treat me like I'm not willing to. I'm not going to give people who aren't willing to admit to their mistakes and keep making them after they are pointed out the benefit of the doubt though. Especially when they are completely unwilling to give me the benefit of the doubt about anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Enough already. This discussion isn't going anywhere and I think most of us know why. If Adamant doesn't seriously dial back the confrontational tone, I think he's headed toward an indef block. He'd be wise to step back now and let this thread die a natural death, if it isn't too late for that already. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are brief excerpts from his most recent comments on article talk pages:

• "At least you created the RfC. Even if you were a little dishonest about it."[185]
• "Generally, the faux politeness from both of you is really a bad way to go about this. ... Not that either one you of is being polite in any way"[186]

I'm not convinced that the community's interests are best served by kicking this can down the road any longer, and I am convinced that this editor does not understand the nature of the problem. We have seen the same behavior, some of it nearly word-for-word identical, for several years. IMO if reform were likely, it would have already happened. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/JudydWest

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.

---

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

Email abuse. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797: I was hoping to get email access revoked? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Bad close on my part, reverted. (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 18:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I have disabled email access. They still have talk page access should they want to appeal their block. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

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.

---

5.43.72.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). IP engaged in multiple WP:EW, acting the same way. He is reverted once, then he looks into the said user's contributions and start reverting everything he/she sees it.

It appears to be a case of WP:SPA, engaging in disruptive editing, WP:EW, and vandalism (insistence in removing or altering information without sources or ignoring sources already present in the articles).

Diffs

• Vandalism (editing without providing sources): diff1, diff2
• Vandalism (changing information that is backed by reliable sources): diff1, diff2
• Vandalism (removing sources that contradicts what he is changing, without a proper explanation): diff1, diff2

Attempts at dialogue ignored and messages deleted without explanation: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5.

User sorta acknowledges that he/she is not using sources but he/she thinks he/she doesn't need to: diff

It appears it's an obvious case of WP:SPA for the purpose of engaging in disruptive editing. All attempts of dialogue and show what rules he/she was breaking were ignored. Coltsfan (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: IP has been temporarily blocked for 24 hours by EdJohnston for edit warring. Relevant AN3 report here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 21:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, the 24 hour block imposed by EdJohnston didn't work. As soon as he got off the block, he started doing the same things he was doing before (as he did here, for instance). Once again, attempts at dialogue were promptly ignored. Like i said before, he seems to be a case of WP:SPA and seem to ignore blocks and warnings, consciously. A more extensive and comprehensible blocking might be necessary. Coltsfan (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:5.43.72.55 reported by User:Narky Blert (Result: Blocked). Narky Blert (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The IP user is now blocked six months. See details in the AN3 closure. Their filter log looks especially bad; it is more typical of vandalism than edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Renew rangeblock against Poland date-changing vandal

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.

---

Regarding Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Poland, can we please renew the rangeblock on Special:Contributions/37.248.160.0/21? Disruption has resumed recently. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. 6mo this time. Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

75000cases

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.

---

75000cases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Would someone mind taking a look at the contributions of 75000cases (talk · contribs) ?

Highlights:

• vanadalising a signature with an anti-Semitic meme, with a vulgar edit summary
• Vulgar edit summary
• Using their userpage for political ranting

- MrOllie (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged as a sockpuppet already. Thanks, folks. MrOllie (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@MrOllie: I love how I submitted a report about this exact user mere minutes after you. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The socking continues: Sievert81Conservapedia (talk · contribs). - MrOllie (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I already posted a complaint regarding this user at the edit warring noticeboard, but I'd like to report his blatant violations of WP:NPA. He is targeting the article for RationalWiki, adding the term "far-left" to the lead, and when we remove it, he uses very aggressive edit summaries when he reverts it back. One example is, when I posted on the 3RR thing, he removed it and added the edit summary "stop reverting me nigger". In another one, also on the 3RR noticeboard, he vandalized my signature with an anti-Semetic slur, and his edit summary was "signing comment of far-left cunt" or something to that effect.

He then posted the following on the 3RR noticeboard before it was reverted (the summary was RevDel'd): [187].

This user's user page is just a bunch of links that claim that BLM is a terrorist movement. Please also see his talk page and his blatant incivility on there. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I deleted it - of more concern was his abuse of Wikipedia as a webhost for his theories on the origin of Alzheimer's. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposal to topic ban Sievert 81/75000cases from editing about prion diseases

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.

---

• Sievert 81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 75000cases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'd like to report the actions of Sievert 81 and his suspected sockpuppets, specifically his unconstructive edits to articles relating to prion diseases, specifically Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. He primarily, on this article, changes the frequency from 1 per million to 350 per million without citing a reliable source. One of these accounts, User:Invisible Prion Pandemic, wrote that "Nanoplastic contamination" causes prion diseases, without citing a reliable source. Other accounts that are suspected sockpuppets, such as User:75000cases, have added original research into articles related to prions, such as "This is also a threat to humans, as crops are sometimes sprayed with animal feces," without citing sources. Along with this WP:OR being added to prion-related articles, I'd like to add that these accounts have also disruptively edited the article about RationalWiki, by categorizing it as "far-left" without citing a reliable source, but he did cite a source, although it was his user talk page. He then reported edit warring at the 3RR noticeboard, to which I replied "Please cite a reliable source for "far-left". Otherwise, I will consider what you are doing edit warring." He then opted to vandalize my signature by replacing my username with "(((JJPMaster)))", which User:MrOllie described in this diff: [188]. 75000cases, before being sock-blocked, was NOTHERE-blocked without TPA, until it was later discovered to be a sockpuppet of Sievert 81. He has confessed to using the account User:Prionopathy as a sockpuppet, whose username clearly refers to these disruptive prion disease-related edits.

In summary: This user has disruptively edited articles about wikis such as RationalWiki and Conservapedia, as well as adding original research and synthesis to articles related to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and other forms of prion diseases, using various sockpuppet accounts (which usually have "75000 cases", "Sievert 81" or a variation thereof in their usernames). I would like to propose taking some form of action against this user in some way, preferably a topic ban regarding prion diseases and/or RationalWiki. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 15:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

JJPMaster, He's already evading an indefinite block with sock puppets and can be blocked on sight for that alone, I don't really see the point in imposing a topic ban as well. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if they weren't evading, anyone who uses Triple parentheses in a semi-serious manner should be indefed IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I mean, his edit summary was "signing comment of far-left cunt", so, I agree. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Spam at Talk:Green

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:Green

And the automated censor will not allow me to remove it, thinking I'm attempting to vandalize the page. Really. Help appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• South African spammer using multiple IPs. Perhaps a rangeblock. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • 41.144.73.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked for 48 hours - weird spam removed. Thank you for the report Bob.— Diannaa (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Diannaa. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Limon Lima and image copyright

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.

---

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

I have noticed this user yesterday when they were removing a speedy deletion tag from File:Honey Bafna.jpg, which was tagged for a copyright violation from Facebook. Since I noticed that this is not the first time, I left a clear warning and also explained more. Despite that, they today again uploaded File:Honey Bafna.jpg, again a copyright violation from Facebook. I think the File deletion log of that image speaks for itself. Their user talk page contains a total of 5 speedy deletion notices for the same image file. At this point, I must assume that their either dont know about copyright (after all explanations) or dont care (which wouldn't be ideal either). Either way, I feel that a block is in needed, in order to prevent further copyright violations. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked by HJ Mitchell while I was writing this. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Block evasion, editing in bad faith, use of abusive language

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.

---

Sungpeshwe9 (talk · contribs) posted a message on their sandbox where they admitted to having previously operated the blocked accounts User:Surpalsingh, its confirmed sock User:Fretz69, as well as User:Peshwe90. They also stated that they "abused some faggots" with their earlier edits and had "got blocked because of obvious reasons".[189]

They then almost immediately deleted this message[190] and a minute later asked on the Teahouse whether their sandbox is publicly viewable.[191] It is also worth noting that less than an hour prior to all this, Sungpeshwe9 pinged me to inquire about how sockpuppets are identified.[192]
Alivardi (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Quack anyone? Canterbury Tail talk 22:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Socks?

Junnyhulbourg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ItsMeAliG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hey @Materialscientist:, saw you blocked the first one. They appear to be socks of the same user based on their edits of the same page so close together. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 10:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwenhope: here is SPI, and here is Materialscientist's user talk page. --JBL (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

New activity by sock Hugo Refachinho ?

The new user Alanhammed (talk · contribs) restored maps by confirmed sock Hugo Refachinho (see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hugo_Refachinho/Archive) at Battle of Wayna Daga and Ottoman–Portuguese_conflicts_(1538–1559). I only mention this because he did the same thing on the Portuguese WP, see pt:Especial:Contribuições/Alanhammed, where 4 of his total 5 edits inserted or restored maps by Hugo Refachinho, some of which had recently been deleted with an edit summary explicitly stating the sock problem. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: here is SPI. --JBL (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

User justifying bombing of civilians + other responses

User: @User178198273998166172:

article: 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

Archive 8

Of course 'Liberated' is extremely biased. All these towns now have an Armenian population, and they don't feel 'liberated' by the Azeri armed forces killing them in their homes.

And the Armenians have done nothing close to this, and a missile hitting a residential area in Ganja is not as 'deliberate' as shooting dead an unarmed prisoner from a few meters away and Scud missiles are known for their inaccuracy.

Archive 12

They view the Azeris as brutes who execute and behead PoW's and execute civilians in their homes, not as friendly 'liberators'.

Archive 13

Reckless? Sure, but this was retaliation for Stepanakert being bombed with cluster bombs by the Azeris. That too was reckless and provocative. What we can proof is a war crime are two Armenian PoW's being executed after capture and captured taped on video for all to see. We have evidence for that despicable war crime, thanks to the sadistic soldiers who filmed it.

He justifies twice the bombing of Azerbaijani cities, and other respons accusing Azerbaijan to execute civilians in their homes. Serious actions should be taken against this user. Beshogur (talk) 23:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Non admin here. How is expressing an opinion sanctionable? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Of the four bolded passages above, three of them are very obviously describing the views of a third party—views which are not necessarily held by the user him- or herself. The one remaining passage doesn't establish a pattern of misbehaviour and even in isolation doesn't seem to me to be anything worthy of a block, warning, or other sanction. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Psychonaut: that's a sneaky way to push your own point of views. I don't see any sources on his texts. Beshogur (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The comments you quote are from the talk page, not the article, and so aren't required to have sources. But assuming the comments were made in order to justify the addition or removal of content in the corresponding article, what did the user say when you asked them to provide sources for their claims? (I had a look over the talk pages myself but didn't see any queries from you, so perhaps I am overlooking some important part of the discussion.) —Psychonaut (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

As long as it remains easier to run to ANI and try to get someone who's wrong on the Internet blocked than it is to follow policy and discuss a dispute on an article's talk page, important parts of the discussion will continue to go AWOL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm taking it on good faith that there's been a longer history of dispute resolution between the two parties than is evident in the original report here. If Beshogur is unable or unwilling to furnish this evidence then this report can probably be closed. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Numbering British Prime Ministers

I seem to recall there was some sort of LTA from someone insisting on numbering British Prime Ministers. Was there a block, SPI or somesuch? I ask because two new accounts have today started assigning ordinals to British PMs. AndréVolgen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and OrchestralHuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see anything to do with British Prime Ministers when I search for it at WP:LTA. Closest thing seems to be Bidhan Singh. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I vaguely seem to remember this, but I can't find an obvious SPI. I do however remember that is was pointed out in the previous discussion that a number of good-faith editors have tried to add a numbering column to the List article purely because they think it's a good idea. So these could be either; however the fact there's two of them is a little fishy. I'll keep an eye on it. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

A consensus against numbering British prime ministers proposal to number the British prime ministers was closed with No consensus (and only one supporter) at Talk:Boris Johnson/Archive 5#RfC for Numbering Prime Ministers, on 21 February 2020. The same thing happened at There was also a discussion of what to do about Australia in Talk:Prime_Minister of Australia#RfC on PM numbering. In some countries there may be a standard list of office holders with numbering done by the government, as in the case of US presidents. In a few other countries, enthusiastic one-track-minded people have tried to impose their own unofficial numbering and I believe some of them have been blocked. If AndréVolgen (talk · contribs) and OrchestralHuman (talk · contribs) continue with unofficial numbering and without getting talk page consensus I think they should be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ain't nothing more frustrating then trying to keeps groups of bio articles in sync. I feel your pain. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive user continuing, also at IP

• Band1301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 174.141.204.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My previous discussion here had no reply apart from the user in question, so here is attempt #2. I'm not going to explain it all over again, so just please see my previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Disruptive user- edit warring and disruptive edits.

The user is still adding unsourced content any changing things they way they want it to be, despite the many times they've been warned and reverted. The user is doing it from their IP, 174.141.204.77. One of their main places to keep being disruptive is Template:Nicktoon creators.

At this point, I'm thinking this might be a WP:CIR case. The user does not seem to understand why they are being warned whatsoever, and are still continuing despite the many times they've been warned. Their edit summaries are still quit misleading/not understandable as well (such as this edit). Hoping something can come out of this discussion this time... Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Also worth noting the user's talk page literally filled with so many warnings- mostly because they don't have an understanding of how to properly add images. Not sure what (if anything) can be done about that as well. Magitroopa (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This user seems to have long-term issues with this template, but things seemed to have settled down. The user made many edits to the page at the beginning of November, but the edits significantly slowed down afterwards, with one edit being made on November 19 (with the last edit being on November 10), followed by one edit made on December 2. I don't see any recent warnings left for this user in regards to this page, nor for anything else. I see that they were blocked over a year ago for edit warring, but I don't see any edit warring notices left for them. I think that we should start warning the user each time that they make a disruptive edit to the page, and take things from there when the warnings become repeated. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Band1301 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)But It's Pony seriously debuted this year!

@Oshwah: I honestly think this might go beyond just the one template. Relevant to their editing at the template would also include Ollie's Pack.

However, beyond the disruptiveness and edit warring mainly at the template, I just don't think they truly understand what they are doing wrong and there's no way to explain it to them, especially since their above reply still insists that they are entirely correct. Most of their replies from them on their talk page (such as this) claim that they cannot get blocked for this and they are not being disruptive in anyway possible.

And again, I'm not sure if there would be any possible solution for the images problem, but their talk page makes it quite clear that they don't know how to upload images. They never include any sort of source, and most of them can't be used and just wind up getting tagged and deleted since they fail to include any kind of source for the file to actually be used. I'm not quite sure they'll ever understand how to upload images properly or actually add information with a source, as they'll only keep claiming to have seen/found, "an association" (whatever they mean by that...) Magitroopa (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Right.editsgold

• Right.editsgold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user continuously does disruptive editing and engaging in edit warring. Please check this user's edits in St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Cathedral, Mulanthuruthy - This user removes cited references and distort the data the articles. Earlier this user did same thing in other articles like St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Cathedral, Piravom,St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Cathedral, Kandanad, Valiyapally. Requesting to look into this and take appropriate steps to stop this user's disruptive editing. -John C. (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Johnchacks, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkktpkirij may apply here. Elizium23 (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Question...

According to WP:UP#CMT, amongst the things that a user should not remove from their page is "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block." Now that was fairly straightforward when blocking was all or nothing, but should it apply to partial blocks (i.e. from one single page)? The issue doesn't appear to have been addressed as far as I can see, and there is currently an issue going on where an editor is removing such a declined unblock request and another one keeps restoring it. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's a type of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, but other restrictions are logged, a partial block isn't logged, but other sanctions are not required to be posted on a user's page so why require a failed appeal of this type of restriction to remain, but such info is pertinent to removing the restriction/block. What if there was an edit filter that logs declined unblocks, and whenever a new unblock is posted the template links to the edit filter so an admin can review all unblock requests? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• I get why we don't allow fully-blocked editors to remove declined unblock requests while they are still blocked: the reason is that, more or less, the only edit a fully-blocked editor is allowed to make is an unblock request (or discussion about it), so if we know an editor's next edit is going to be an unblock request, it makes a lot of sense to require the previous declined unblock request to remain visible, to save admins the time of hunting through the page history. However, this reasoning doesn't apply to a partially-blocked editor. As such, I don't see a reason not to allow a partially-blocked editor to remove a declined unblock request. However, I think it would be a good idea to require partially-blocked editors, when making an unblock request, to affirmatively identify and/or link to (if it's not on the page) all previously-declined unblock requests; again, to save admins from having to hunt in page history. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Just my interpretation but the wording is pretty clear to me. It's "a currently active block", partial or full. If the block is active, and a request is made and declined, it stays there. An active block is an active block, partial or full. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Ignoring WP:UP#CMT as it is, what if the active partial block message stays but a record of denied unblock attempts is kept somewhere, per Levivich's suggestion? If someone makes multiple unblock requests that are declined, not being able to remove them when others are reading/editing their talk page for other reasons would be an eyesore. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  And a red badge of shame that will make partial blocks/unblocks become more of an emotional thing for the blocked editor, who will want to be rid of the red badge of shame. Turning up the heat on partial blocks by requiring declined unblock requests to remain on a partially blocked editor's talk page will have a significant negative impact on the entire project. It's really a terrible idea. A partially blocked editor is still actively and productively editing, and that makes a huge difference between a partially blocked editor and a fully blocked editor. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Rick. A block is a block, be it full or partial. Mjroots (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. And, quite frankly, if an editor doesn't want a "red badge of shame" on their page, they shouldn't have edited in a fashion that got them blocked in the first place. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  I've added a clarification to WP:UP#CMT to make it clear that partial blocks are included. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I think we should really continue the discussion of whether that's the way it should be. EEng 00:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

When I think over the technical innovations of the last few years, the two I've always thought the best are (1) the Thank feature (as someone pointed out, we had so, so many one-click ways of reverting and scolding people but no fast and easy way to give out atta-boys) and (2) page-level blocks. Vandals and trolls, who needs them? -- full blocks are fine. But for everyone else, a partial block is the perfect tool for getting an errant editor out of a bad situation without making them feel unwanted and rejected. How the editor feels about the block is key, and reasoning like if an editor doesn't want a "red badge of shame" on their page, they shouldn't have edited in a fashion that got them blocked in the first place is counterproductive. The question isn't what the editor deserves, but what will best help them get back on track. This needs to be considered from that perspective. EEng 00:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with EEng in this respect, as the amendment to the policy appears more punitive than remedial. The policy as written doesn't say that the partial block notice itself can't be removed, but it forces the user to either resign themselves to forever being blocked from that page range or pray they're lucky enough to have it appealed on their first request to not incur a buildup of denied unblock requests, as there shouldn't be anything stopping the user from making a new one every few months(?). I don't think it's unreasonable to mandate the presence of one denied block request, but how about just the most recent one to reduce unnecessary clutter? A link can be provided to a repository of previously denied unblock requests. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 07:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not saying that my clarification to UP:CMT can't be changed or discussed, but as it stands, that is what our rules seem to say. Maybe a request for comment re Tenryuu's suggestion would be beneficial? Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it could be a worthy venture. Would you like me to draft a sample proposal somewhere? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Wikipedia talk:User pages is a good place for the RFC. There has been recent discussion there on this subject. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Red Rose 13's personal insult

@Red Rose 13: took the discussion too personally, and insulted me by calling me a bully who seeks to destroy his enemies. The user also stated that I have limited perception and called me a liar. Can you give a warning to this user? --Governor Sheng (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Governor Sheng: It is important to note that he is a bully and I just realized it a few minutes ago. I was seriously wanting to report him. I have the intention of wanting to work peacefully with other editors. I have been editing for 9 years. He is constantly fighting, resisting opposing views, editing warring, falsely accusing me of things, going after references he doesn't agree with, deletes them, talks down to me and is very disruptive. My intent was to bring structure and a balance to the article. I was hoping someone from conflict resolution would step in because he keeps making it personal. I was thinking of stopping editing because I don't feel safe and because no one is coming help. But then I reconsidered that what I am doing for this page is too important. So now that we are here, I can report him.Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you and I agreed in mid-October 2020 that we will discuss any inclusion in the article. I agreed and brought all of my proposals to the talk page (which can be seen in the talk page's archives). Immediately after our agreement, you rearranged the entire article, deleted some major parts, inserted new sections - all of that without any discussion whatsoever. Also, you continue to do so to the present day, continuously bypassing our agreement. Even a third user recognised your disruptive editing and hypocritical behavior [193]. Talking of edit warring, it's enough to see the article's history and see mine and your behaviour in that matter. Regarding the sources, I have a right to challenge the sources I consider unreliable. Regarding the balance of the article... is this the balance you're talking about here or POV-pushing you're mentioning on the article's talk page? [194] --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a sample list of accusatory comments from the talk page:

(1) Red Rose, because of her bias, is honestly not interested in the opinions of other contributors
(2) Red Rose didn't bother one bit to comment on anything further. She was satisfied with the status quo
(4) Stop being borderline hypocritical
(5) I think you're finding random quotes on the Internet, and just use the source their using.
(6) Red Rose 13's misuse of sources (accusatory post title)
(7) "Red Rose cites page 71 (out of blue), and references the same page where they mention that Bishop Hnilica quoted Pope John Paul II." (ignorant accusations)
(8) Stop vandalizing my effing little presentation (when I put my comment at the top of his accusatory post)
(9) Are you sure you're not quoting from http://www.totus2us.com/vocation/blessed-virgin-mary/our-lady-of-medjugorje/ (after I gave him information about the book I am using as a reference.)
(10) I'm amazed how you don't see that to win and to triumph are synonymous even in English. ...You're obviously lacking basic translating skills. (even when it had nothing to do with the him not translating the name of book correctly.)

• I would like to continue editing on this page but I need someone to stop Governor Sheng from his continuous badgering of me, my references, authors, subjects. I am becoming a nervous wreck and I don't think editing on Wikipedia should cause so much stress. I need a moderator that can keep him in his place. Someone also who is an excellent editor and can settle disputes. Perhaps you understand why I don't feel safe and after a month of badgering, it gets exhausting. My housemate is concerned about the stress this is causing me.Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear I caused you any discomfort. That was not my intention.

(1) I really think you're biased. That's my own opinion. You're free to disagree with it. [195]

(2) I don't remember this comment in particular, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

(4) "Stop being borderline hypocritical" is a comment from another user [196], whom I quoted.

(5) You do find random quotes on the internet.

Example - [197]

Comparison - [198]

The Internet:

In line with Roman Catholic tradition, Pope John Paul II considers the Medjugorje phenomenon an issue for the local hierarchy. It is, however, common knowledge, that the Pope is sympathetic to the Marian site. In a meeting with Bishop Paul Hnilica, the Pope reportedly said: "If I were not the Pope, I would probably have visited Medjugorje by now." During a meeting with the Superior General of the Franciscan Order, the Holy Father asked: "All around Medjugorje bombs have been falling, and yet Medjugorje itself was never damaged. Is this not perhaps a miracle of God?"

This article was taken from the November 1996 issue of "Inside the Vatican." Subscriptions: Inside the Vatican, Martin de Porres Lay Dominican Community, 3050 Gap Knob Road, New Hope, KY 40052, 1-800-789-9494, Fax: 502-325-3091.

Red Rose:

During a meeting with the Superior General of the Franciscan Order, the Holy Father asked: "All around Medjugorje bombs have been falling, and yet Medjugorje itself was never damaged. Is this not perhaps a miracle of God?"

Also, you quoted "Czernin, Marie (2004). "Medjugorje and Pope John Paul II – An Interview with Bishop Hnilica". Germany: Politik und Religion (PUR).", when it's actually this website http://www.medjugorje.hr/en/news/medjugorje-and-pope-john-paul-ii---an-interview-with-bishop-hnilica,1132.html. Or you own the magazine Politik und Religion and speak German?

(6) Again, this is my oppinion. You're free to disagree.

(7) Didn't you told me on the talk page that you mistakenly quoted page 71 and said it was your mistake? So I was right, wasn't I?

(8) Yes. I added a title on a talk page, and you put your comment as an opening one, referring all the time to my comments as "my little presentation". This is not something one usually does. It looks like you created a section.

(9) Well, are you?

(10) Excuse me. You challenged my entire translation of Croatian sources based on your idea that I'm using google translate because I translated pobijediti as "to win", when her book was officialy translated as "to triumph". I nicely explained to you why that doesn't matter so much. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Governor Sheng is capable of translating Croatian. The example given on the talk page of the supposed use of Google Translate is for Moje srce će pobijediti being translated to 'My heart will win'. That's an accurate translation. You wouldn't generally translate pobijeda to 'triumph'. For example, pobijedili smo utakmicu would translate to we won the match, not we were triumphant in the match. However, if the book title in English says 'triumph', then use 'triumph'. I am not wasting my time scouring the article history for translated material (particularly given the edit-warring). If you have something specific, then post it below (I likely won't respond today, though, as I'm preparing to go to bed).

Other comments: Red Rose, you do not have the competence to judge who is or is not capable of reading, writing, speaking, or translating from Croatian. English sources are preferred, not mandatory. I am incensed by your attempts to portray Sheng as a danger to you. If anything, they've been unnecessarily patient with your insulting conduct. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

For the continuation of this translation issue please go here [199] Red Rose 13 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Let's be WP:CIVIL please. Both of you, Rose and Sheng, seem to have some serious disagreements between you two. (For content-related disputes, the WP:DRN would be a better venue, but since discussion has begun here, and involves the conduct of other editors, it'll continue here until properly resolved.) Reading through, as a non-admin, I would:

• Suggest you two WP:DISENGAGE. The back-and-forth is continually eliciting more personal and less professional responses. Even if another editor starts something, you always have the power to end it by not engaging and simmering the cycle of continual escalation.
• Caution using pejorative terms like "bully" which can be seen as WP:ASPERSIONS. (However there is the endless debate whether to call something what it is or to not do such. So if you believe an editor to be violating site policy, that is different and needs to be brought with evidence and neutrally-worded.)
• Caution about making assumptions about other editors that aren't objectively stated by them or evidenced in site logs and page histories, these can also be seen, depending on presentation, as WP:ASPERSIONS as well.
• Caution continually interacting with another editor in a way that looks like WP:HOUNDING or WP:HARASSMENT.

Overall, I think it would be much better for both of you to try to wait until cooler heads can weigh into this situation. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 04:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gwenhope:, I appreciate your help. Thank you! --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Substitute administrator requested

The administrator who handled the July 2020 sockpuppetry case regarding KevinPR82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and to whom this matter would have been referred has retired. As a result, I am asking that one or more administrators review the editor's history and subsequent behavior. Following the sockpuppetry case, the editor has been sporadically editing from the IP 72.43.48.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), logging in to edit protected pages a number of times: [200][201][202][203][204]. (The editor has logged in to make some edits to unprotected pages as well.) Now, the editor has logged in to repeat a reverted, factually incorrect (12,406.68 x 2 > 24,229.76) edit by the IP: IP (October) and account (December). Among the potentially disruptive behaviors is repeatedly replacing "Washington, D.C.": [205][206][207] (post-July sample). The account and IP talk pages show a history of unsourced and disruptive edits as well as edit warring. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a bit of a hobby of editing pages on Wikipedia among other cites. I also have two separate IP address locations - one in New Hampshire and one in New York. Keene, NH is my regular place of residence but I am currently staying with family on Long Island, NY for the holiday season. My time spent at each location is based on factors unrelated to my editing of Wikipedia. If you would like me to sign onto my KevinPR82 account every time I wish to make edits (even when the website is open for general editing), I will try to remember that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.189.67 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOCK. Miniapolis 23:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Since archiving has just been changed from 4 to 3 days, could someone please address this beyond an ambiguous page reference? Did WP:SOCK mean that the editor replied from an unmentioned known sock IP? Does it mean I should have refered this to WP:SPI even though there is nothing left to investigate after the sockpuppetry previous filing? Am I being accused of sockpuppetry? BiologicalMe (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

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

SerVasi has been blocked half-a-dozen times for disruptive editing to Balkan-related articles, which are subject to WP:ARBCOM sanctions (WP:ARBEURO). [208] This behaviour appeared to have subsided after SerVasi's most recent block expired in August, but seems to have picked up once again and we now have multiple slow-burning edit wars taking place over many months ([209]) ([210]) ([211]) ([212])

Instead of substantive discussion all we get from SerVasi is WP:IDHT and flippant edit summaries written in vernacular American English. [213] [214] [215] SerVasi also hasn't helped their case by leveling inflammatory remarks, which could be regarded as anti-Semitic, against other users. ([216]) ([217]) Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• This sort of behaviour has been going on for a while and I think that the editor in question is not here to build an encyclopedia or engage in any rational discussion. [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Editing wars. Constant edits without any interaction on talk page despite multiple warnings

• 176.23.91.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

IP keeps on editing this page, using wrong data despite numerous warnings. Considering this is the only page IP chooses to consistently edit, I suspect this might be some sort of bot. No interaction on the talk page as well. Could an admin sort this out? I'm trying to maintain the integrity and accuracy of this page [[234]] but its becoming increasingly frustrating. It should say 125 months for Carlsen's reign as World number 1 not 126 months as it was 124 months in November. I'm requesting IP is perma-banned or at least given an extensive ban since it is probably a bot . Exxcalibur808 (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2D55:5600:E8F6:38A1:90FC:6021 (talk)

Block review request

I have been block indefinitely by an admin with the tag copyright violation and pointing out this four warning 1, 2, 3, 4,Out of these 4 warning only 1 is from an admin(Dianna) other 3 were made by an editor ChunnuBhai who was previously on edit dispute with me,copyright review was also made by him [235],the thing is after Dianna warned me he searched my past edit and report as many as he can for copyright violation.I am not saying I did not made the mistake but before Dianna(copyright clerk admin) warned me I was not aware of the rule(copyright infringement).He even blamed my account as sock for personal promotion.Thanks to him with full of misunderstanding I am now blocked indefinitely for a thing which I do not repeat(repeated copyright violation).Kindly unblock me I never intended to repeat copyright violation nor continue to violate it after the warning from October this year. sincerelyꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 14:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Luwanglinux:..Wasn't it clear in your unblock decline that there is an investigation into your edits since October? Wasn't it clear that an unblock was inappropriate while the investigation was underway? I do not understand why you see the need to come here. Tiderolls 15:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Tide rolls It feel so unfair to me and I do not know how long will the investagation take,kindly help me know how long will this investigation take atleast? the review admin said to consult the blocking admin and the blocking admin did not respond when I requested about this severe punishment,Thats why I came here for help..Sorry this is so new to me(idefinite block)ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 15:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The investigation will be done when it is completed, we do not have a time table for that. As the admin stated in the unblock, if that comes back with nothing found, then a removal of the restrictions can be considered. As Tide rolls said above, nothing else will be consider until that investigation is done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Also just so it's clear, as long as it's warranted a warning template placed on your page by an admin is no more (or less) meaningful than one placed there by Randy in Boise. "Only one of these four warnings was from an admin" is meaningless. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

HiThe Bushranger what I mean was that those 3 repeated copyvio warning were not for repeated violation but my past mistake which I made before aware of the copyvio rule fully.I accept it I made that mistake , but I really did not try to violate copyright after that 31 October to be precise..please see the signed date of the 3 warning its all on 31 oct.believe that user had edit dispute with me,I am trying to blame him for my past mistake but I feel he deliberately did something....ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 18:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• If they hadn't added copyright violations after their first warning, I could understand their frustration at being namespace blocked. However, looking at their most recent edits, show e.g. this one, which is a copyvio of this (note: that source may be a copyvio in itself, not clear). So "I am now blocked indefinitely for a thing which I do not repeat" is not correct. Fram (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi,Fram that article is about a mythology(Manipur religion) I did write after reading work of Wangkhemcha Chingtamlen but not from thisthis he is a research person.but I tried my best not to violate copyright,if that is wrong too ok I admit the wrong of writing it after reading his book.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 18:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC) also recently this article was also tagged for copyvio but its also a misunderstanding [236] here is what I wrote to him[237].I can't express my sincerity more than this.Also it is very unfortunate of me that most of you think I am a liar (repeated violator).Honestly I think this recent block is not related with the copyvio but my recent edit dispute with some editor on some topic of Manipur.Anyway thanks for sharing your view.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 18:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Honestly I think this recent block is not related with the copyvio but my recent edit dispute with some editor on some topic of Manipur. Are you accusing the admin who blocked you for copyvio -- Moneytrees -- of some sort of malfeasance or misbehavior? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken Not the admin but the person who reported me which had edit dispute with me before in this page Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 as the background of my block reason is so much related with his personal attack(just my view) after the admin warned me from that page Manipur government in exile,I asked the admin I had made similar mistake(some copyright violation=3 warned by Chunnubhai) and what I should do,the admin said not to repeat the mistake..I do not repeat the violation(copyright violation I never try to repeat) but getting block in December for something from October is not clear to me,the blocking admin did not give a clear reason for the recent block,just the four warning from october he mentioned he counted,and he do not even respond to me well[238] and I doubt the investigation is even going on(He just blocked me indefinitely and seems like do not care about me at all),,,,,Its natural for me to feel so unfair in this matter,ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is the admin's job to protect Wikipedia, and I assume they believed that blocking you in the way that they did would protect Wikipedia from additional copyright violations. Copyright investigations are difficult and time-consuming by their very nature, and you're just going to have to wait until it's done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The copyvios didn't stop in October as Luwanglinux claims. This edit they made on the 5th December contains text that has been copied and pasted from here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Focus4073

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.

---

Reporting for disruptive editing to Hugh Keays-Byrne. edit history is just them refusing to stop changing his death date to an incorrect day. Even after I left them a message informing them they weren’t correct, and after I left hidden notes at all three area where the date can be changed. They seem to have no interest in conversing and are just being disruptive. Rusted AutoParts 22:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposed community ban of User:Sievert 81

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 previously proposed that this user be topic banned, but I have since changed my proposal from a topic ban to a site ban, per The Bushranger's comment on my topic ban proposal.

In the past year, this user, along with his various sockpuppets, has added severe original research violations to various articles generally relating to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The WP:NOR violations started when he posted on his user page saying "Covid 19 causes AIDS." and linked [239] as a source, which does not mention AIDS, it merely states that it causes T cell deficiency. The user was a constructive contributor who frequently used RedWarn before his account was CheckUser blocked. It wasn't until December 8, 2020, when his behavior began to change. His sockpuppet 75000cases began to disruptively edit articles related to RationalWiki, by adding the POV language "far-left" to the lead. This slowly led to an edit war, which he reported at AN/3. I replied with 'Please cite a reliable source for "far-left". Otherwise, I will consider what you are doing edit warring.', to which he opted to vandalize my signature by changing my username to "(((JJPMaster)))", to which you can see a fellow editor, MrOllie's, response here. Note that his revdeled edit summary was "signing comment of far-left cunt". I then decided to report him at AN/3, which led to him posting this as a reply to my comment. MrOllie then reported his behavior to AN/I, which then led to the account's tagging as a sockpuppet. However, prior to being identified as a sock, it was indefinitely NOTHERE blocked. Further disruptive editing took place to the article on RationalWiki, this time using socks with names like Sievert81Conservapedia, Conservapedia is better than WP and RW StopTheSteal Hashtag 75000cases, and 20% of the world is infected. All of these accounts were blocked on sight. More accounts have continued to be created, and all targeted very specific pages, related to political wikis and prion diseases. I then decided to request that RationalWiki be protected, and it was. However, the disruption on the page for the source of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, continued to be vandalized until JavaHurricane executed a mass rollback of edits made by these accounts.

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sievert_81, for a more detailed description of the activities of specific sockpuppets, and on that note, I'd also like to ping Oshwah, as he was the CheckUser who closed the original SPI case before I reopened it due to new accounts being created, the category of his sockpuppets: CAT:SIEVERT, and the text of his deleted draft entitled "Draft:75,000 cases" that Luk very kindly granted me for use as evidence: [240].

Alright so here are the options I will give you:

Proposal 1: Site ban

1. Ban the person behind the account Sievert 81 and all of his sockpuppets from the English Wikipedia

2. Introduce a bot that detects users with "75000 cases" or "Sievert 81" in their usernames and reports them to UFAA, as this is a trend among these sockpuppets.

Proposal 2: Partial ban with one-account restriction

1. Unblock Sievert 81 in order to allow him to return to his use of RedWarn to revert vandalism, but

2. Ban him from editing about prion diseases and RationalWiki, and

3. Enforce a one-account restriction to Sievert 81 in order to avoid further sockpuppetry.

Proposal 3: Partial ban without one-account restriction

1. Unblock Sievert 81 in order to allow him to return to use RedWarn to revert vandalism, but

2. Ban him from editing about prion diseases and RationalWiki

Proposal 4 2: Do nothing

1. Maintain his indefinite block and block all sockpuppets on sight.

Please reply with your thoughts.

Edit 1: Dreamy Jazz has requested that these accounts be globally locked, and has closed the sockpuppetry investigation.

Edit 2: I forgot to add that one of Sievert 81's sockpuppets left this message on this very ANI thread:

You pulled my TPA. How about I stop editing about prion diseases or 75,000 cases without valid sources and accept a topic ban from all online encyclopedias. Or just let me have an account to revert vandalism. Remember, you blocked my main account for absolutely no reason, I only started socking after my false ban. SIEVERT81ANI (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit 3: If you support this ban, please also state if you support the introduction of standard community-authorized discretionary sanctions than can be imposed on editors who disrupt pages on prion diseases and/or RationalWiki.

Edit 4: As several fellow users have pointed out, the user is technically already site banned per WP:THREESTRIKES, however, I created this formal request with the intent of obtaining formal consensus for the ban. I chose to do this also because of this phrase in the definition for a CheckUser ban:

Administrators or sockpuppet investigations clerks will normally tag the master account's user page with {{sockpuppeteer|checked=yes|banned}}. If the user made substantial good faith contributions before being banned, a notice should be placed on the administrators' noticeboard alerting the community to the ban,

and the user who I proposed for banning was a prominent RedWarn user prior to being CheckUser blocked and committing sockpuppetry.

Signed, JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Why would Proposal 2 and 3 even be considered given that Sievert_81 has not made an unblock request or given any indication that they wish to return with restrictions? 4 is the inverse of 1, so just stick to the first proposal and vote up/down. 2001:4898:80E8:9:B5BD:83D2:BBA0:F656 (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Good point, however, Sievert 81 did make an unblock request in September. I added those options as Sievert was formerly a constructive contributor before he began his sockpuppetry. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever seen an editor unblocked without an unblock request from said editor. A declined unblock in September should not count. 2001:4898:80E8:9:B5BD:83D2:BBA0:F656 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This indicates they have no intention of ceasing the behavior that has gotten them blocked, so entertaining an unblock is inappropriate. 2001:4898:80E8:9:B5BD:83D2:BBA0:F656 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I now understand. I have stricken through proposals 2 and 3 as it is unlikely that the user will actually follow Wikipedia policy if they are unblocked. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• I turned down Sievert81's recent UTRS appeal(#38388) because they stated that they involved the police(a legal threat). 331dot (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• With this number of sockpuppets, this editor has already been site banned by means of WP:3X. That said, support in principle. This editor appears to be of no value to the project. —{Canucklehead} 01:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support even if mooted by WP:3X in light of 331dot's comment about UTRS above. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 00:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, Question: Do you support the site ban and the username restriction or only the site ban? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The site ban because the username restriction is mooted by it and the legal threats, on top of the other issues laid out, demand nothing less. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see a CU check being done at the SPI so 3X may not apply. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: This user is WP:3X banned due to numerous  Confirmed sockpuppets. ST47 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

ST47, Could you please add a note on the SPI page regarding this? Thank you! JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Unconstructive editing

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

This user has about 200 edits in four weeks, the majority of which have been reverted. In that time, there have been six TP warnings about disruptive editing. There seems to be a pattern of unsourced or otherwise inappropriate changes. All edits in the last several days, after the last warning, have been reverted. Not really vandalism, but still needs some attention. They have not responded on their TP. MB 01:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted a few of their edits back in November -- their contribs are, at best, confusing, and at worst, disruptive. They seem to enjoy doing dozens of rapid-fire edits on an article, moving around punctuation and then moving it back. Sometimes people will do this as part of a bid to get enough edits to edit ECP articles. Who knows? At any rate, it looks like they're going to be at WP:AIV pretty soon anyway. jp×g 10:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

There's socking here. Given me a tick to sort it all out.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kevingamer9. I doubt Kevingamer9 is the master account, but it's the oldest one that came up in my limited check. I suggest leaving this open a bit longer in case someone recognizes the pattern and can help identify the actual master account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Likely paid editing and copyright violations to political BLP

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.

---

• Mgoodman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Lewis E. Reed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello administrators,

I have come across what I believe is paid editing on the article Lewis E. Reed. Reed is a local politician in St. Louis currently running in the mayoral election, and within the last few days, the primary image on his biography was replaced with File:Lewis Reed, 2020.jpg, which is of lower quality than the original. After reverse-image searching the new image, I found that it was a blatant copyright violation of a photo by a photgrapher at KWMU, seen here; I subsequently tagged the image for deletion under WP:F9 and replaced the primary image on the page. However, while looking through the edit history, I came across flattering edits to Reed by User:Mgoodman1, who added the copyrighted image to the page. (Redacted) I firmly believe that (Redacted) is User:Mgoodman1, and failed to disclose the conflict of interest, thus compromising the neutrality of the page. Passing this on here so further action can be made. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I've issued an indefinite partial block from editing that page. Mgoodman is free to raise issued on the article's talk page. Been pointed to our guidance about COI and PAID. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and made a try at un-ruining it. Might sharpen the scalpel and go back later if I've got time. jp×g 20:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Admins, thank you to all for your swift and professional response. I'd also like to note that looking through the edit history, it seems User:JJMC89 found some of the text were copyvios as well, which was not something I was initially aware of. Special shoutout to User:JPxG for their phenomenal edits, which removed a lot of the flowery language, added information and made the page far more NPOV compliant. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

75.154.181.216's edit summary at Chair of the Federal Reserve

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.

---

• 75.154.181.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Chair of the Federal Reserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is the correct spot to place this, I think? Anyways, the above-mentioned IP has used a profanity at Chair of the Federal Reserve's edit summary, here and I would like the summary, but not the edit itself, deleted. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Whereas clearly not ok, I do not think it qualifies for a revision deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Goodone121: That does not rise to the level of needing revision deletion. It's rude and vulgar, but not "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". A simple warning to the editor is enough. If they continue, report them as a vandal. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Neutral note: I've changed the link to the diff, because OP's link is to the watchlist and their layout, which in turn screwed up my watchlist; it took an hour and massive troubleshooting to bring it back to normal. Next time, please just link to the diff, not to your watchlist page. Nate • (chatter) 23:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Outdent) Could an admin close this, then, please? Thanks. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Sdkb deliberately introducing HTML errors

Page has been fixed to no longer have any HTML errors and to have the desired infobox structure. We can cross the bridge of potential similar content disputes in the future when and if we come to it. Prodego ^talk 20:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Sdkb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I have an intractable conflict over HTML errors on the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page.

Nobody has been able to figure out how to format the infobox the way Sdkb wants to format it without the result generating HTML errors. Nobody has been able to figure out how to remove the HTML errors while formatting the infobox the way Sdkb wants to.

And he just restored his preferred formatting, knowing that the result will generate HTML errors.[241] I am here in order to avoid an edit war.

Rather than paraphrasing Sdkb's position, let me link to a diff:[242]

My position is that HTML errors often result in a page that is so mangled that it is unreadable -- but only for some users. For other users it works just fine, fooling them into thinking that there is no problem.

"Validation is your early-warning system about introducing bugs into your markup that can manifest in interesting and hard-to-determine ways. When a browser encounters invalid HTML, it has to take an educated guess as to what you meant to do—and different browsers can come up with different answers." -- W3.ORG: Why validate??

"But what if you pass a browser invalid code? What happens then? The answer is that the browser error handling comes into play to work out what to do with the code. It basically says 'ok, this code doesn’t validate, so how do we present this page to the end user? Let's fill in the gaps like this!' It sounds great doesn’t it? If you leave a few errors in your page, the browser will fill in the gaps for you? Not so, as each browser does things differently... None of the different browsers’ behaviours is incorrect; they’re all trying to fill in the gaps of your incorrect code. The bottom line is, avoid invalid markup if at all possible in your page!" (Emphasis in original) --W3.ORG: Different browsers interpret invalid HTML differently

Many browsers detect the HTML error and display something reasonable. Alas, not every browser makes the same decision on what is reasonable to display when a web page has invalid HTML. And sometimes a browser update changes the behavior. Unfortunately, the browsers that are most sensitive to HTML errors are the text-to-speech systems used by the blind.

The pernicious thing about HTML errors is that the page might look fine to you because your browser happens to handle HTML errors in a way that looks OK to you. It might also look fine to someone else using another browser but they may not see the same thing you see because each browser handles HTML errors in a different way. And a third person might not be able to see the page -- or perhaps just a part of the page -- at all.

If necessary, I will post an RfC, but I have very little doubt that the overwhelming consensus will be that removing HTML errors trumps formatting an infobox in a certain way.

The errors that Sdkb introduced are:

1. Missing end tag: div
2. Stripped tags: div
3. Missing end tag: div
4. Stripped tags: div
5. Misnested tags: div

Relevant discussions:

• Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 41#Errors in Infobox
• Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Restoring collapsing of infobox maps
• Template talk:Collapsed infobox section begin#LintHint errors

Other links:

• Help:HTML in wikitext: "HTML in pages can be checked for HTML5 compliance by using validation. Some elements and attributes are supported by MediaWiki and browsers, but have been deprecated by HTML 5, and therefore should no longer be used."
• Help:Markup validation: "Although most major browsers will tolerate many of the errors, and will display a document successfully even if it contains errors, they may misbehave on documents that contain the errors"
• Web Design Principles: Validating Your Code By Michael Tuck

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Response from Sdkb: I'm not sure what makes Guy think that ANI will be a productive venue to address this issue, but here we are. Here's the situation:

At COVID-19 pandemic, {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} and {{Collapsed infobox section end}} have been used to collapse the non-primary maps in the infobox since March or April, by talk page consensus (specifically the discussions that led to current consensus items 2 and 7). Recently, Guy figured out that this was leading to lint errors and removed the collapsing. I suggested that he start a discussion to try to fix the template functionality so that we could retain the desired behavior without introducing the errors, which he did with a sentence at the template talk page (I tried my best to contribute there, but I can't do much as I know very little about lint errors). We disagreed about what the interim state of the article should be until the templates are fixed, though. Obviously no one wants lint errors (which is why I hope that the templates are fixed), but my view is that, weighing the hypothetical concern of display problems from them (that no one to our knowledge has reported actually experiencing over the past eight months on one of WP's highest-trafficked pages) versus the concern of undesired uncollapsing at the infobox, the non-hypothetical latter issue should take precedence. On that basis, I reverted Guy's edit back to the status quo and left a message at talk; Guy then reinstated his change with edit summary Generating valid HTML in non-negotiable. See talk page. Another editor reverted him, and he again reinstated the change. I let the matter sit for a few days, hoping that the technical fix would make progress, but when that did not happen and the weak prevailing consensus at the talk page discussion indicated support for collapsing, I signaled that I intended to restore the status quo and did so a few hours later.

Other than some minor edit warring from Guy which he has now backed off from, I don't see any conduct issues here that warrant ANI's involvement. It seems rather unfortunate that there's been this much heat around the issue, since if that energy had been directed at fixing the collapsing templates instead I'm guessing we'd have them fixed by now. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: "I'm not sure what makes Guy think that ANI will be a productive venue to address this issue". I considered the option of posting an RfC and possibly being criticized for not going to ANI vs going to ANI and possibly being criticized for not posting an RfC. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Needless to say, if I am told to take this somewhere else, I will be happy to do so.

Re "the weak prevailing consensus at the talk page discussion", per WP:LOCALCON, consensus among a limited group of editors at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic cannot override the community consensus regarding HTML errors. As I said before, if anyone seriously thinks the community supports adding HTML errors I will be happy to post an RfC to document what the consensus of the community is.

Re: "minor edit warring", I am at two reverts; one revert on 04:49, 25 November 2020‎[243] and one at 17:31, 5 December 2020[244] Sdkb is also at two reverts; one at 04:22, 25 November 2020[245] and one at 02:41, 9 December 2020.[246] I do not believe that either party edit warred.

The only issues are whether a local consensus exists (some editors came out against adding the errors and nobody took a poll), whether a community consensus exists (It isn't explicitly spelled out in any policy or guideline that you shouldn't purposely introduce HTML errors, possibly because this is the first time anyone wanted to do that). and whether the local consensus (if it exists) overrides the community consensus (if it exists). --Guy Macon (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Wait, so your argument against the "local consensus" for collapsing of multiple RfCs (albeit a little tangential) and eight months of precedent at an article that's gotten tens of millions of views over that period is that your consensus is broader, but yours is just presumed and not explicitly spelled out in any policy or guideline?

You could start an RfC and ask whether we want to introduce HTML errors and the answer would of course be no, but that's not the question we disagree about. The question is whether avoiding HTML errors should be our single most important priority that overrides every other consideration (including the WP:Consensus policy), or whether we sometimes need to tolerate them temporarily while we work on fixing underlying issues. You have not presented any evidence of agreement on that to justify twice reinstating your edit after you were reverted by two different editors.

Re I do not believe that either party edit warred and The only issues are whether a local consensus exists..., then you have no cause to come to ANI, which as it says at the top is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I request that this be closed as a bad report and Guy reminded not to drag other editors here just since he disagrees with them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. There is indeed a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. The problem is that you (Sdkb) are deliberately introducing HTML errors despite knowing (and I quote) "you [Guy] could start an RfC and ask whether we want to introduce HTML errors and the answer would of course be no". Your argument that not deliberately introducing HTML: errors "is not explicitly spelled out in any policy or guideline" rings hollow after you yourself admit that the consensus of the community is to not introduce HTML errors.

The basic argument that "following [insert random Wikipedia policy here] should not be our single most important priority that overrides [one small group of editors deciding that the policy doesn't apply to them as long as they violate it "temporarily"] can be used by any editor who doesn't want to follow any Wikipedia policy.

I invite you at this point to voluntarily agree to stop deliberately introducing HTML errors and to no longer revert editors who remove any errors that you inadvertently introduce. If you do not agree I call for a topic ban against deliberately introducing HTML errors.

May we please have an administrator step in, evaluate the current consensus, decide if one or both of us is editing against consensus, and tell me if I need to post an RfC to show what the consensus of the community is? There is a very real possibility that, while this remains unresolved, readers who are blind are unable to access all or part of Wikipedia's Covid-19 coverage. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn: See Template talk:Collapsed infobox section begin#LintHint errors. Will refile if any new errors are deliberately added. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Retracting withdrawal. We clearly have an unresolved behavioral issue here. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see the withdrawal, and much thanks to Plastikspork for providing the technical fix. The issue of this report having been a misuse of ANI does remain, and I hope Guy learns not to file such reports in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The filing was correct. Nobody but you has expressed the opinion that this was a misuse of ANI. You were wrong to deliberately introduce HTML errors in order to format an infobox a certain way. Do it again and you will be reported at ANI again. Your insistence that certain of Wikipedia's rules don't apply to you is a time bomb; sooner or later it is going to blow up in your face. You had your say, and I had mine. It is now time for us both to drop the WP:STICK. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay, so it appears that that lesson has not being learned. The collapsed section above is just a back-and-forth between Guy and myself, so for the sake of any other editors he might be tempted to subject to this in the future, it would be nice for at least one non-involved editor weigh in and clarify the purpose of this noticeboard. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
      • OK, colleagues, you both have enough experience to know the answer to this question: If you solicit uninvolved editors' opinions, are they likely to agree with (A) you, (B) the other editor, or (C) pox on both your houses? If you want my opinion (and you probably don't but here it is anyway), I would file this dispute under "legitimate problem but not a crisis, poorly handled all around, now resolved, pretend it never happened". Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Serious question: in what way could I have not "handled this poorly"? As I said, I was undecided between ANI and RfC and invited you or anyone else to tell me if I should withdraw the ANI report and post an RfC. Nobody suggested that I do that. I don't see any other viable actions I could have taken. Doing nothing and allowing Sdkb to break pages and make them hard to access for blind users was not acceptable. Having a page on Covid-19 look different depending on which browser you use was not acceptable. All attempts to reason with Sdkb on the article talk page were met with aggression and refusal to acknowledge that deliberately breaking pages is wrong. Edit warring is never the answer. So what, exactly, do you propose that I should have done instead? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

          This should have been taken to VPT instead of ANI (or RFC), IMO. This was a technical problem in need of a technical solution, not an urgent or chronic behavioral problem, nor a content dispute. Taking someone to ANI for 2RR is a bit extreme. I believe the reason that nobody noticed these errors until you did, on what's probably the single most-visited page on Wikipedia (and thus the entire internet), is because the errors (missing end tag, stripped tag, misnested tag) are examples of tag soup (note what mw:Help:Extension:Linter says about missing end tag, stripped tag, and misnested tag, and when they should be fixed, and how much time should be spent fixing them). So yes, there were lint errors that should be fixed (albeit minor/low priority), and yes, the maps should have been uncollapsed until the lint errors were fixed, and no, Sdkb should not have restored it twice, but altogether IMO wasn't "ANI worthy". Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

          • Please try to avoid saying things that are not true. Nobody took anyone to ANI for 2RR. This is about purposely making the page look different to different reasders. This is about purposely making the page so that it doesn't work well for readers using text to speech screen readers. Until Sdkb purposely did that I was working as hard as I could and asking everyone who I thought could help to fix the technical issue. Sdkb decided that he didn't want to wait any longer. Sdkb decided that formatting an infobox the way he wants to (which, BTW didn't seem to work on mobile devices) was more important that the basic rights of the handicapped to read about Covid-19 on Wikipedia. And that is a behavioral problem that justifies a trip to ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, let me try to explain this to you one more time.

HTML errors often result in a page that is so mangled that it is unreadable -- but only for some users. For other users it works just fine, fooling them into thinking that there is no problem.

"Validation is your early-warning system about introducing bugs into your markup that can manifest in interesting and hard-to-determine ways. When a browser encounters invalid HTML, it has to take an educated guess as to what you meant to do—and different browsers can come up with different answers." -- W3.ORG: Why validate??

"But what if you pass a browser invalid code? What happens then? The answer is that the browser error handling comes into play to work out what to do with the code. It basically says 'ok, this code doesn’t validate, so how do we present this page to the end user? Let's fill in the gaps like this!' It sounds great doesn’t it? If you leave a few errors in your page, the browser will fill in the gaps for you? Not so, as each browser does things differently... None of the different browsers’ behaviours is incorrect; they’re all trying to fill in the gaps of your incorrect code. The bottom line is, avoid invalid markup if at all possible in your page!" (Emphasis in original) --W3.ORG: Different browsers interpret invalid HTML differently

Many browsers detect the HTML error and display something reasonable. Alas, not every browser makes the same decision on what is reasonable to display when a web page has invalid HTML. And sometimes a browser update changes the behavior. Unfortunately, the browsers that are the most sensitive to HTML errors are the text-to-speech systems used by the blind. The pernicious thing about HTML errors is that the page might look fine to you because your browser happens to handle HTML errors in a way that looks OK to you. It might also look fine to someone else using another browser but they may not see the same thing you see because each browser handles HTML errors in a different way. And a third person might not be able to see the page -- or perhaps just a part of the page -- at all.

These are undisputed technical facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

What you're quoting is the W3 wiki from 10 years ago. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Show me evidence that the basic technical facts have changed or that the W3C has changed their position since then. It was true when the foist web page was published, it was true ten years ago, and it will be true ten years from now. You want to argue that invalid HTML doesn't get treated different ways by different browsers and even different versions of the same browser? Prove it.' --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • Levivich, my second revert had the status quo and a weak prevailing consensus on the talk page as mitigating factors. Guy's second revert had neither of those things. I agree with you that VPT would have been an infinitely better forum. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

          @Sdkb: I agree, and those are basically the reasons 2RR wasn't ANI-worthy. Still, in the preceding edit (that your second revert reverted), Guy explicitly said in the edit summary that anyone who reverts this will be taken to ANI. (I'm too lazy to find the diff.) I don't really agree with making threats like that in edit summaries, but still, you shouldn't have reverted it: you knew (or should have known) that Guy would have made the escalation to ANI. Even if it wasn't a justified escalation, the escalation causes disruption... it requires other people to stop what they're doing and respond to an ANI report. I frankly wonder if you made the revert because you thought that if Guy went to ANI he'd get boomeranged (and you seem a bit keen to have someone tell Guy that he was wrong). That's not the best way to handle a situation like that, by "calling a bluff", as it were. It would have been better if you had let someone else revert Guy, which would have made a 3rd editor reverting, and possibly would have made Guy think twice about filing an ANI over it, and saved the rest of us some time. If no one else reverted Guy, then that should have made you think twice. Again, I admit I'm Monday-morning-quarterback-nitpicking and normally I wouldn't even bother with raising such trivial matters. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

          met with aggression? I invite anyone to review the talk page discussions/edit summary history and decide who was the main escalator. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

      • Uninvolved comment: if somebody is editing in a way that breaks pages, and they are asked not to edit in a way that breaks pages, and they continue to edit in a way that breaks pages, then yes, that is on-topic for ANI (and continued demanding comments that it isn't demonstrate a bad case of WP:IDHT). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

        The Bushranger, as I mentioned above, the lint errors were present on the page for eight months before anyone noticed them, during which time it received tens of millions of pageviews. There was never a single report of the page breaking for anyone, and that includes Guy, whose long-winded/bolded urgency above was purely speculation. Yes, there is a small possibility that users on very old browsers etc. might have been experiencing issues, which is why lint errors are never preferable and I pushed for a technical fix and am glad we now have one. But before we got the fix, the other editors at the page and I made a judgement call to prioritize the guaranteed harm over the hypothetical harm. You can agree or disagree whether that was the right call, but that's how consensus works. The only conduct issues were Guy repeatedly reinstating his edit after it was reverted to the status quo and then inappropriately escalating to ANI when he wasn't satisfied with the prevailing consensus at the talk page. I am happy to clarify anything that remains unclear, but I take on good faith that you all have read my comments above and that reiteration will be unnecessary. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Accidentally discriminating against the visually impaired for eight months while being unaware that you are doing it is not justification for purposely discriminating against the visually impaired on month nine. A rough consensus for an action that accidentally discriminated against the visually impaired for eight months with nobody being unaware that they were doing that does not establish that there is a consensus to continue the behavior after someone noticed that the actions discriminate against the visually impaired. You should at the very least have asked whether the consensus still held given the new information.

You keep ignoring the fact that your actions hurt blind people. You keep ignoring the fact that your actions made the page look different to different users. This has been explained to you in detail multiple times. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

My two cents as an uninvolved editor: I think if the uncollapsed version was extremely long or unweildy, sdkb would have a decent argument that the page would be broken either way, and thus we should prefer the version that's only broken for some people versus the version that's broken for everyone. However, the uncollapsed version, in my estimation based on the current state of the page, is not that long nor unwieldy, and thus I think that sdkb should not have done what they did.

I don't support any sanctions for this, however, because this doesn't seem to be a pattern of behavior and it's hard to argue that code that can't be proven to have actually visually broken the page for anyone is so egregious it demands sanctions on the first offense. Loki (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• This seems to be a content issue, not a behavioural issue. I recommend no sanctions and re-opening this at a different forum if an RfC hasn't already taken place (which by my reading, it hasn't.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that no sanctions are required. Instead I call for a warning cautioning Sdkb to not do it again. Right now they are convinced that it is OK to break pages.

I strongly disagree that this is a content issue, not a behavioral issue. Back when I removed the errors and was working as hard as I could to figure out a way for Sdkb to format the infobox the way they wanted to (something that I was not required to do; Sdkb is responsible for figuring out how to edit without breaking things) it was a content dispute. The moment Sdkb decided to go ahead and break the page anyway it became a behavioral issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: You have violated WP:LISTGAP in two completely different ways in this comment. --JBL (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

disruptive editing over sourced descriptors at Robert O'Neill (Navy SEAL)

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.

---

• Seiko888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Robert J. O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It's been a while since I've solicited administrative assistance, so please forgive me if this is the wrong forum, now.

At the page Robert O'Neill (Navy SEAL), Seiko888 (talk · contribs) has persistently ignored explanatory edit summaries as well as requests to discuss at that talk page. I warned the user once already, but they refuse to discuss the matter, continuing to revert in contravention of WP:BRD. I'm honesty not sure what can or should be done, but I think I've exhausted all of my editorial avenues at this point. Thanks. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 05:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Fourthords, blocked from article page, perhaps that'll get their attention, although I don't see that they've ever edited any talk pages, so if they just show up somewhere else, let me know —valereee (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the assist! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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

ClueBot NG

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.

---

Undo my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander The king (talk • contribs) 10:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

While your edits aren't vandalism, you seem to lack the necessary fluency in English to contribute here. An edit like this makes the article worse, not better. This edit is an attempt to improve the text, but is so riddled with errors that it is hardly helpful either. Fram (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alexander The king: TBH, I don't think your command of English is adequate for editing an encyclopedia. Is there not perhaps some language in which you are fluent? Perhaps you might edit the Wikipedia in that language? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Talk page abuse, removal of other editors comments, vandalism of pages, ignoring warnings

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

---

• 217.30.78.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

IP edits consist mostly abusing other editors, censoring other peoples edits without reason, vandalising pages and has not responded to any of warnings sent to their talk page over the years 143.238.131.234 (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. This has been officially noted. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Author reference spamming

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

---

Can someone have a look at the recent edits by user Nixnubix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) please? All edits by this user are links to work by a single author Karl-Eugen Kurrer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). That article was recently created by the same user. After the article creation, this user made hundreds of edits to articles, adding book references all over the place, mostly looking like refspam.

User was warned on their talk page by user NeedsGlasses but to no avail.

I have just undone one edit where text was copied word by word from one of the books ([247]) and gave a warning on their talk page ([248]). - DVdm (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a lie. I did not make hundreds of edits but a maximum of 50 edits in agreement with Dr. Kurrer, who is a good friend. And, importantly, I don't get any money for it and I don't want any money either. I just spoke to him on the phone and he says that if he wants to complain, he is always ready to give his permission for his quotes. That's all. If that is not what we want, then we just let it go. Again, it annoys me immensely when NeedsGlasses claims I made hundreds of edits. That’s a great lie. --Nixnubix (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

When I checked your edit to Galileo Galilei, which is on my watchlist, and noticed the copyright issue, I came to your talk page to warn you about that. There I noticed NeedsGlasses' warnings and your threat, and then I went to check your recent edits. I made a quick count, and I don't think that numbers lie: [249]. - DVdm (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I thought it was less, but hundreds weren't. I think I do my work in the German Wikipedia and save the trouble I have here. All the best. --Nixnubix (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nixnubix: from this [250], I can see 165 edits in the last 7 days and 270 during December. I don't know how many of these edits were adding Kurrer, but frankly even 50 is way too many.

Also, even though you may not be Kurrer and may not be getting paid for these edits, the fact you're close enough to be in phone contact suggests you probably have a WP:COI. In that case, it'll be best if you stop directly editing articles to add anything about their work. Instead propose changes on the article talk page.

In addition, permission given to you in private to use their quotes is not sufficient to allay WP:copyvio concerns. Kurrer will need to read WP:donating copyrighted material and go through the process there to do so. It's complicated process since their identity will need to be verified and in addition, they will need to agree to licence the material under appropriate licences. Simply agreeing for their material to be reused on Wikipedia is not sufficient. Also, they will need to make sure they are the sole copyright holder. For example, any material co-written with other authors may be a problem. And if the material was published in a journal or whatever, they will need to make sure they still retain the copyright rather than it being assigned to the publisher. Frankly, I suspect that most material they have isn't likely to be that useable for our purposes since it is likely written for a different purpose and audience than a general encyclopaedia article so it isn't worth the effort.

Finally, do note that all Wikipedias will have similar copyright policies to ours. Indeed the German Wikipedia is known for disallowing images under fair use since it's not a concept in German law. (Not particularly relevant except to demonstrate they are also strict about copyright.) They will also likely have conflict of interest policies similar to our. I will post there asking someone to offer you guidance.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually I couldn't work out someone to contact so Nixnubix, it would be best if you guidance yourself on the German Wikipedia on how to handle your COI issues and copyright concerns there. Nil Einne (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I will completely withdraw from the English Wiki. --Nixnubix (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive talk page posts

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.

---

2003:CF:BF12:D849:9BB:E9C8:EB1F:948C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is spamming long rants about "The Recuperation of Communist Confiscated Property Bucharest Romania" to various talk pages, and I can't be bothered to go through the levels of warnings so could someone block please? Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User Allopatric speciation

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.

---

Looks like Allopatric speciation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is runnig off track. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC).

Noted on talkpage: [251]

Problematic diff: [252] -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed. Requires zero further thought or attention. Not even worth warning, clearly not here. Keep and eye out for socks. Canterbury Tail talk 21:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I had already reverted all their edits, speedy deletion tags all related to UC Berkeley. Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Extremely mysterious finding in the early revision history of AN/I.

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

---

I was curious about some early Wikipedia history, so I decided to look at the first revisions of some famous pages: the first revision of WP:AN, for example, was 191 bytes, from Ta bu shi da yu at 2004-12-09, setting up the noticeboard and wondering how to notify people of its existence. But in the history of AN/I, I've found terrible and perplexing secrets.

Check this out. The first revision of AN/I listed in the history is from January 3, 2003, yet the next revision is two years later:

curprev 2005-02-01T22:56:27‎ Ta bu shi da yu talk contribs‎ 72,706 bytes +5,657‎ undothank [restore this version]
curprev 2003-01-03T16:11:21‎ Jayjg talk contribs‎ 67,049 bytes +67,049‎ →‎Reincarnation?: sockpuppet vs. reincarnation thank [restore this version]

The next revision (which involves a completely different set of threads) is from 2005. Now, this second revision looks like it was actually from February 1, 2005 (per the timestamps in threads), so we might be inclined to think: AN/I has the most revisions of any page on the encyclopedia, so a bunch of old diffs probably got dropped somehow. But the first revision is still a mystery.

Because the threads from that first 2003 revision are from March 2005.

What? This can't be true. Perhaps the timestamps were just encoded correctly, or parsed out of the database incorrectly. But no -- some of the comments on the page mention, for example, Back in those heady days of June 2004. So I decided to dig deeper. The last timestamped comment on that first diff is a comment from Dr Zen:

We are, after all, asked to walk away from conflict, not arm ourselves and get into it. Dr Zen 7:14 pm, 9 March 2005, Wednesday (15 years, 9 months, 9 days ago) (UTC−8)

From a 2003 diff. Yet we can also find this same comment being made by Dr Zen, hundreds of revisions later, on 9 March 2005. And, what's more: the section of history from 2005 covering March 8 to March 20 never include a revision with the size 67,049.

Now, searching for the actual comment that Jayjg made on that first "January 3 2003" diff, we find this truly perplexing timestamp, which utterly beggars belief:

I'm not following you. What is the "sockpuppet" charge separate from the "reincarnation" charge? --BM 4:21 pm, 9 March 2005, Wednesday (15 years, 9 months, 9 days ago) (UTC−8)
 A sockpuppet is a new userid created by any experienced Wikipedia user; it doesn't have to be the reincarnation of a banned user. Jayjg (talk) 4:11 pm, 3 January 2003, Friday (17 years, 11 months, 14 days ago) (UTC−8)

So, in conclusion, I have no idea what's going on. Did John Titor create AN/I? Is this the work of ancient aliens? Was this Q's gambit all along? I await an explanation from someone smarter than me. jp×g 00:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an artifact of an imported history; not every page from The Beginning survived the transition well from the first MediaWiki system to the MediaWiki system as implemented c. 2003. Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles has a reasonable discussion of it. --Izno (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting, but seems inappropriate for AN/I. Wouldn't it be better on AN or even VPT? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, most such revelations of our historic past end up at VPT one way or another. --Izno (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Everyone was on their best behaviour in 2004. Darkknight2149 01:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@JPxG and Izno: This has nothing to do with pre-MediaWiki history of Wikipedia and everything to do with server clock resets. See T4219 and my personal catalogue of these cases. Graham87 06:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Extremely mysterious finding in the early revision history of AN/I.

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

---

I was curious about some early Wikipedia history, so I decided to look at the first revisions of some famous pages: the first revision of WP:AN, for example, was 191 bytes, from Ta bu shi da yu at 2004-12-09, setting up the noticeboard and wondering how to notify people of its existence. But in the history of AN/I, I've found terrible and perplexing secrets.

Check this out. The first revision of AN/I listed in the history is from January 3, 2003, yet the next revision is two years later:

curprev 2005-02-01T22:56:27‎ Ta bu shi da yu talk contribs‎ 72,706 bytes +5,657‎ undothank [restore this version]
curprev 2003-01-03T16:11:21‎ Jayjg talk contribs‎ 67,049 bytes +67,049‎ →‎Reincarnation?: sockpuppet vs. reincarnation thank [restore this version]

The next revision (which involves a completely different set of threads) is from 2005. Now, this second revision looks like it was actually from February 1, 2005 (per the timestamps in threads), so we might be inclined to think: AN/I has the most revisions of any page on the encyclopedia, so a bunch of old diffs probably got dropped somehow. But the first revision is still a mystery.

Because the threads from that first 2003 revision are from March 2005.

What? This can't be true. Perhaps the timestamps were just encoded correctly, or parsed out of the database incorrectly. But no -- some of the comments on the page mention, for example, Back in those heady days of June 2004. So I decided to dig deeper. The last timestamped comment on that first diff is a comment from Dr Zen:

We are, after all, asked to walk away from conflict, not arm ourselves and get into it. Dr Zen 7:14 pm, 9 March 2005, Wednesday (15 years, 9 months, 9 days ago) (UTC−8)

From a 2003 diff. Yet we can also find this same comment being made by Dr Zen, hundreds of revisions later, on 9 March 2005. And, what's more: the section of history from 2005 covering March 8 to March 20 never include a revision with the size 67,049.

Now, searching for the actual comment that Jayjg made on that first "January 3 2003" diff, we find this truly perplexing timestamp, which utterly beggars belief:

I'm not following you. What is the "sockpuppet" charge separate from the "reincarnation" charge? --BM 4:21 pm, 9 March 2005, Wednesday (15 years, 9 months, 9 days ago) (UTC−8)
 A sockpuppet is a new userid created by any experienced Wikipedia user; it doesn't have to be the reincarnation of a banned user. Jayjg (talk) 4:11 pm, 3 January 2003, Friday (17 years, 11 months, 14 days ago) (UTC−8)

So, in conclusion, I have no idea what's going on. Did John Titor create AN/I? Is this the work of ancient aliens? Was this Q's gambit all along? I await an explanation from someone smarter than me. jp×g 00:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an artifact of an imported history; not every page from The Beginning survived the transition well from the first MediaWiki system to the MediaWiki system as implemented c. 2003. Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles has a reasonable discussion of it. --Izno (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting, but seems inappropriate for AN/I. Wouldn't it be better on AN or even VPT? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, most such revelations of our historic past end up at VPT one way or another. --Izno (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Everyone was on their best behaviour in 2004. Darkknight2149 01:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@JPxG and Izno: This has nothing to do with pre-MediaWiki history of Wikipedia and everything to do with server clock resets. See T4219 and my personal catalogue of these cases. Graham87 06:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Possible NPA and BLP issue at Henry T. Yang

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.

---

• Fbackman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Henry T. Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. When you get a chance, can somebody take a look at Talk:Henry_T._Yang#Possible_BLP_issue? I've been interacting with User:Fbackman for a couple of days and his behavior has been a little difficult. I think it has crossed a line and it is time to get an admin to weigh in on the matter. I have placed the ANI template on his talk page. There is also a long discussion on his talk page. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

At User talk:Fbackman, the editor wrote I’m actually going to hire a lawyer to ensure this post is maintained an meets all the requirements. Frederick G Backman 01:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC). That looks like a legal threat to me. This editor appears to be a person connected somehow with UC Santa Barbara where Yang is the long time chancellor. The editor is harshly critical of the university and wants Yang to be blamed for all perceived problems. There are major policy concerns related to WP:NPOV as well as WP:BLP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

these questions are also extremely troubling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

After poking through the article history, I reverted to the last clean version before the edit war started and protected the page for 48 hours. ...and then I went to the article talk page and saw Fbackman's commentary there. Um. I make a personal point of never swearing, but holy effing sheet. Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bushranger. Thanks for your help. He was a lot to handle. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

2601:246:B40:13FE ...

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

---

Can anything be done about the edits from this range to Frank Collin? Since July, but especially since the end of November, the editor (it appears to be one person behind multiple IPs) has made numerous edits to this article, and, as far as I can tell, everyone single one of them has been reverted by multiple editors and Cluebot NG. The edits are mostly POV-pushing.

Some sort of range block (or partial block to the article, is that now a possibility?) would be nice.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If it's helpful, the IPs used have been:

• 2601:246:b40:13fe:5802:ea51:200:23b9
• 2601:246:b40:13fe:7190:5f8d:b31b:627b
• 2601:246:b40:13fe:4934:4e1a:ecd5:45a2
• 2601:246:b40:13fe:cd28:73e:c3a6:3c41

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: (WP:/64 is usually helpful when dealing with ipv6 vandals on non-mobile ranges) This looks like it covers them all: 2601:246:B40:13FE::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) SQL^{Query me!} 03:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Great! Can an admin please apply a bock to that range? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like back in July Acroterion blocked that range for a week. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

SQL blocked them for a month. They seem to have a thing about a federal judge going as well. Acroterion (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's MEDICOLEGAL CONSULTANT (talk · contribs) evading an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I wondered about that. I should have mentioned that I noticed they appeared right after MLC was blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SQL. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Fake news in India

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.

---

Fake news in India is being vandalized and admins should do something about it. I requested to protect the page but no response yet. I have already made 3-4 reverts I think. I will not make any more reverts due to the Edit war rule. --Walrus Ji (talk) 07:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threat, personal attacks and edit warring

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

---

I'd report at WP:EW if this was just edit warring, but we're getting a legal threat and personal attacks too. Edit warring is at Bunt (community), dif 1, dif 2 (It's all about caste status yet again). Legal threat and personal attacks here. I'd act myself, but I've reverted twice after examination of the content change, so I'm a bit too WP:Involved in this one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Clear WP:NLT - indeffed. Cabayi (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Beshogur

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, the user Beshogur doesn't write a modification summary or respond to his discussion page. So I wonder how he get "Extended confirmed users" even as long as he doesn't respect the rules, Or perhaps his behavior has changed over time. But what matters now is how to act with the issue. I apologize if I accuse anyone, as I have nothing personal with him.Torivar (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Torivar, first of all, you haven't notified Beshogur on their talk page that you raised this report. You are told that such a notification is required in the big red banner that appears when you edit this page.

Second: have I understood you correctly, are you raising this report because Beshogur failed to use an edit summary, or is there more to it than that? This board is for urgent and/or intractable problems - using edit summaries is good practice, but a one-off failure is not something you need to report here. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Users are automatically added to the extended confirmed usergroup when they have made 500 edits and been registered for longer than 30 days. This user has in excess of fourteen thousand edits over the course of five years. It's not an endorsement of their editorial opinions (although using edit summaries less than 100% of the time is not often grounds for administrative intervention at any rate). jp×g 14:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit. True, I forgot that, even though I added a template "User link", but thanks for doing so. As for the issue, I submitted it because he's not responded deliberately even though he is active, and it cancels any amendment that doesn't correspond to the Turkmen in the Kirkuk article. So the problem isn't just writing a summary or responding to the editors. Also I have noticed just this, may he do the same in other articles so please check.--Torivar (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Torivar, as far as I can see, Beshogur reverted your edits twice in the last month or so on Kirkuk, without using an edit summary in either instance. That's a bit annoying, but it doesn't require a report here. You then left a message on their user talk page, earlier today, and they haven't responded to it yet - that's not a big deal, they aren't obliged to respond immediately, even if they're active doing other stuff. Go to the article talk page, ask what their problem with your edits were, and see if you can agree on what the article should say. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit:, His edit in Kirkuk doesn't seem right, calling Seljuks conquests an "invasion". Plus check his edits in Diyarbakir, nothing more than fringe theory about Kurds, and putting a section about Diyarbakir Eyalet which is already present. Beshogur (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, this isn't the place to discuss the content of the articles - please engage at the article talk page. It would be good if you could remember to use an edit summary when reverting anything other than obvious vandalism. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Thank you for communicating my message to him. But I ask how I can act if an editor doesn't intentionally respond or removed modification according to his ideas.--Torivar (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Torivar, you should act by going over to Talk:Kirkuk. I see that you have never edited that page, despite the fact that you are here complaining that Beshogur isn't communicating. That is the place to discuss the content and sourcing for the article, not Beshogur's talk page, and certainly not ANI. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Closing as a content dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Mirza Masroor Ahmed is not the caliph of Islam

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.

---

You puted the wrong caliph name in the wikipedia page, it's hurts muslims intentions. You have to change it to Hazart Muhammad S.A.W.W. He is the last Caliph of Islam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadiyya_Caliphate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.10.185 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss an article's content; administrators have no more power than any other editor in that regard. To discuss concerns about an article's content, please use its associated article talk page, in this case, Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• For anyone else here, is there any particular reason the Help Desk is getting flooded with questions/comments like this? 331dot (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  331dot, my guess is that it's one of the pages that new users are directed to, but I'm surprised that the Teahouse hasn't appeared to have received the same treatment. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 21:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm wondering why this particular subject. Is it in the news or something? 331dot (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The relevant news articles that my Google News algorithm is showing to me appear to involve a statement he made denouncing the beheading of Samuel Paty, and a greeting to the centenary of the Ahmadiyya Muslim centre in Dhaka. Maybe there's an event in the Middle East that hasn't been covered by Western sources yet? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 21:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe a certain television host/Youtuber posted a video on YouTube. I don't know much about the issue itself, but I think part of it was Google taking part of the article Ahmadiyya Caliphate out of context. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 21:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Dylsss is correct. When people search Google for "Who is the caliph of Islam?", Google falsely states that the caliph of the Ahmadiyya sect is the caliph of all Islam. The problem is that the Ahmadiyya sect is only about 1% of the Islamic population, is widely considered heretical, and is outlawed and persecuted in Pakistan. So, there is widespread outrage on Muslim social media sites, and Wikipedia is being blamed for Google's error. As usual. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

References

false info about islam

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.

---

ther is a page of ahmadies qadianis.. and it is leafing to false info about islam .. there is no caliph of islam right now.. and MIRSA MASRROS AHMAD QADIANI is a non muslim and he has nothing to do with islam.. if onw searches that" who is the caliph of islam today" his name come on wiki pedia searches .. it is blasphamy so please delete such pages as he can not deliver true face of islam thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.103.42.150 (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

The 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.

Reporting GSS for continuous bullying

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 just created an author page. First, GSS continuously moved it to draft giving the reason for fewer sources. I added more sources and moved it live. Then again they moved it to draft. At last, when I added more sources and moved it live they nominated it for deletion. After a little while, they removed most of the references from the page to make it look like a page which is lacking sources. I tried to add a small line and business insider link to the page but each time they are undoing it. I am trying to talk polite but seems like this editor is trying to show me that he is the boss. I don't know if Wikipedia works like this or not. But it has strongly discouraged me to edit further if editors like GSS will bully us. Millgh (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Millgh It is not "bullying" you to point out potential violations of guidelines. Press releases are not acceptable for establishing notability, for example. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• OP checkuser blocked. Shockingly. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

TheRedundancy125

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.

---

• TheRedundancy125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

TheRedundancy125 has edited for over 2 years and made over 9,000 edits, almost exclusively in music and film.

Despite repeated warnings ([253],[254], [255], [256], [257]) the editor continues to:

• Fail to respond to any concerns raised on user’s talk page [258]
• Remove warnings from user talk page rather than address them ([259], [260], [261], [262])
• Fail to provide edit summaries (A, B, C, D, E) despite repeated requests ([263], [264], [265], [266]) to use them.
• Misidentify about half of edits as “minor” (C, D)
• Remove sourced material without giving a reason (C, D)
• Change material without reason or reliable source (F)
• Remove Templates without addressing concerns (G,[267])
• Reintroduce articles that have already failed AfD ([268])
• Fail to provide a reliable source for additions (A, B, E)
• Use questionable sources such as (iTunes, YouTube, Self-published) (YouTubeband's promo tweet) rather than provide adequate secondary sources

• Restore (G) these sources shortly after I remove them making no effort to address the problem.

The editor was previously blocked for similar behavior.

I have repeatedly tried to engage this editor and like with everyone else who has engaged him/her, there is no response.

I have the feeling this editor may be being paid, and sees following our rules a waste of time (i.e. money). When I asked in January 2020 and again recently if the editor was being paid, I got no response. Perhaps the editor is just a bot run by the music or movie industry, because the edits seem almost completely automatic in nature.

I’m not sure why, but Huggle says this user is “whitelisted”—that seems like a bad idea given this editor’s behavior.

REMEDY REQUESTED:

I would suggest the editor be blocked indefinitely from editing until s/he is willing to engage in conversation about the problematic edits, commits to learning and following our rules, and answers the question about whether or not s/he is being paid or has a COI with regard to music/film.

--David Tornheim (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Notice to editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and indef blocked them as not compatible with a collaborative project. I suspect this would have happened a long time ago, but stonewalling and removing talk page warnings is a surprisingly effective tactic, since many won't notice that the warning they're leaving is actually the umpteenth time the editor has heard it. In any case, this is a collaborative project, so occasionally talking to people is a minimum requirement. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail constantly harrassing User:Chariotrider555 and User:Heba Aisha

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

---

User:OnlyTruthShallPrevail has been attacking User:Chariotrider555 and User:Heba Aisha on their talk pages [269][270] by accusing them of bullying, trolling, and sockpuppetry. He has also done so on his talk page and refuses to heed warnings by treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Firestar464 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

HebaAisha filed an AE report about OnlyTruthShallPrevail, and Chariotrider555 commented there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again, an editor with "Truth" in their name is reported for misbehavior on the noticeboards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWB #72 rides again. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. jp×g 07:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of inadequately sourced content at Matignon High School

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.

---

• Matignon High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Deanyoungblood1 (talk · contribs)
• 2601:18C:CC01:21A0:E92C:568A:D1CD:26C6 (talk · contribs)
• 2601:18C:CC01:21A0:2D67:7222:EA95:D6C7 (talk · contribs)

Multiple accounts adding non notable former students, and removing notable ones who weren't hockey players. Requesting page protection and/or blocks of the puppets. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:958A:EACE:C5B4:402A (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think the person has stopped. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Bizarre edits

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

---

I'm not sure where to post this, but could someone please have a look at the following edit history? The user has vandalized some pages, but most of their edits are bizarre changes to pages outside of the article namespace, such as the creation of a nearly blank talk page for a user account with no editing history, or an apparently random edit to a script-related page. I would not be surprised if some sockpuppetry is involved, but I'm only speculating. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The account is now globally blocked, since it's been active on multiple wikis. It might be an LTA, but I don't recognize which one. Antandrus (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Ringo Starr vandal from Brazil

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

---

Can I get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2804:D4B:9A10:C500:0:0:0:0/64? Somebody using IPs from Brazil has been vandalizing personnel credits related to Ringo Starr. The /64 has been active for one month, and every single edit is bad. For instance, this series of edits removed the co-writers of the song and falsely changed a direct quote. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sure thing. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Entire edit history has been disruptive redirect overwrites and unsourced changes in the same subject area: mostly children's television. One of the IPs in the range has already been warned of using multiple IPs. No discussion from the IP when edits are contested, either via their User talk pages or via article talk pages. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user:82.132.213.249

• Creately (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 61.216.157.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.132.213.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user:82.132.213.249 is violating WP:PA and WP:DE in this page. They are vandalizing the page with unsuitable tags. When reverted, they are reverting again. They accused me of sockpuppet which is never true and not willing to communicate properly at neither their talk page nor at the talk page of the page. Please intervene. --61.216.157.181 (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

And you have neglected to place an ANI warning at my talk page. See the giant, red notice at the top of the page, telling you that you must do that when you open an ANI discussion? And the giant, yellow notice in the edit dialogue here? 82.132.213.249 (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any response to the accused disruptive editing? (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 14:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a nonsensical accusation, by an editor who clearly has not read and understood WP:PA or WP:DE. I added maintenance templates to the article Creately, an article for which the anon editor has a quite singular interest. I also accused them of sockpuppetry for the article's creator, which I still believe is obviously correct, and which the article creator would "neither confirm nor deny" when asked.

On a separate matter, I did breach 3RR, having misunderstood 3RRNO, for which we've both already been warned. I was restoring maintenance templates that User:61.216.157.181 repeatedly removed on various flimsy pretexts, immediately following article creation, but I quit restoring them after the warning. 82.132.213.249 (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

On the ongoing discussion, I like to draw attention to the persistent vandalism going on the page Creately 1, 2, 3 210.3.160.226 (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

None of these edits are vandalism. The article is still orphaned, and you're not permitted to remove a speedy tag from an article you created. And once again, you've failed to add an ANI warning at my user talk page. Admins, may I suggest semi-protection for the page? I've asked User:Alexandermcnabb to judge whether the speedy tag they added has been improperly removed. 82.132.213.200 (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This IP appears very experienced (REALLY??) looking at their style of operation. They are dishonest and they cunningly game the system by saying I did breach 3RR, having misunderstood 3RRNO since they are habitual offender of edit warring thus can not remain unaware of 3RR. I will deal with their violating WP:AGF, WP:HA and WP:PA first- I have been reverting vandalism for a year or so now and I can say myself slightly experienced editor with good knowledge about policies. I never created an account as I never felt the need to for what I do. The IP said I never read and understood WP:PA but it should be with them who don't have any idea that personal attack includes Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. I have explicitly said that I have not created the article, but this user kept on accusing me of sockpuppet of User:Hareshamjadu. This Ip should know it is not allowable to keep on accusing false things without any proof? If I see some obvious disruptive editing from a persistent DE what will I do? I do revert the DE! They can not accuse me of sock just as I have reverted their edits. can they? Since they accuse me as a sock of User:Hareshamjadu and I have commented already I would like to ask User:Hareshamjadu to comment here. I don't know on what basis they are making the accusation but I am accusing these users - user:82.132.215.207, user:Alexandermcnabb, user:82.132.213.200, user:82.132.213.249, user:Prince of Azerbaijan as socks or meats based on behavioral evidence. Some more can be found per my intuition & will keep on adding as I get more of 'em. Anyone can see, their behavior is very impolite and uncivil violating WP:CIVIL. I demand blocking this IP with its socks and meats or equivalent measure as deemed by the admins fit for continuous lack of good faith editing, disruptive editing and habitual edit-warring with rampant speedy tags along with obvious harrassment of other editors. Let me show further how this user is creating troubles and wasting valuable time of experienced editors/admins by disruptive editing- you can find this user have a tendency to add speedy tag or prod tag in good articles which actually stays per community decisions later article1, article2, but contributes proactively on articles which are undoubtedly non notable and later found not suitable for main space. This is not the end. This IP and its socks try to deceive other editors. For example we get the edit comment - none of these mention the subject of the article. But we see the references this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this you can check more urself. If this is not disruptive editing then what is DE? Is such behavior helping wp? Its also a possible that they may be truly incapable of a simple google search for reference validating in case they're not deceiving. In any case they remind us WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE so pertinently. I have no interest on their agenda (which is very important question though) but it is for sure not compatible with Wikipedia goals. I never want to assume bad faith on others but for such an editor I must say we simply don't need these socks/meats in any form - IP or an account. They should be hunted and banned from WP. 103.152.151.20 (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I, or anyone else, has the time for this. I'm also drowning in IPs. The article Creately was tagged by me for speedy while doing new page patrol because it's promotional cruft about a non-notable SAAS app. Article creator User:Hareshamjadu removed the speedy tag. Turns out User:Hareshamjadu and what would appear to be a number of their socks have been removing any attempt to place tags on the article. Creately, its creator and their createlings clearly all need to go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool a123: multiple content edit warnings and misuse of Own talk

Cool a123 (talk · contribs)

Newish Editor is not using edit summaries,[271] article Talk,[272] or responding on own Talk.[273]

Specifically, the Editor is using User talk:Cool a123 as a sandbox, which clearly seems to be hurting communications per WP:OWNTALK ...the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user.. Editor has been asked to resolve the Talk issue (such as by moving content to /sandbox) including [274],[275],[276],[277],[278],[279]

There have been numerous content edit warnings, which continue to be blanked with "sandbox" type content then restored to their Talk: [280],[281],[282],[283],[284],[285],[286],[287],[288],[289],[290],[291],[292]

UW Dawgs (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

According to WP:UP#CMT, amongst the things that a user should not remove from their page is "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block." Now that was fairly straightforward when blocking was all or nothing, but should it apply to partial blocks (i.e. from one single page)? The issue doesn't appear to have been addressed as far as I can see, and there is currently an issue going on where an editor is removing such a declined unblock request and another one keeps restoring it. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• It's a type of Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, but other restrictions are logged, a partial block isn't logged, but other sanctions are not required to be posted on a user's page so why require a failed appeal of this type of restriction to remain, but such info is pertinent to removing the restriction/block. What if there was an edit filter that logs declined unblocks, and whenever a new unblock is posted the template links to the edit filter so an admin can review all unblock requests? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• I get why we don't allow fully-blocked editors to remove declined unblock requests while they are still blocked: the reason is that, more or less, the only edit a fully-blocked editor is allowed to make is an unblock request (or discussion about it), so if we know an editor's next edit is going to be an unblock request, it makes a lot of sense to require the previous declined unblock request to remain visible, to save admins the time of hunting through the page history. However, this reasoning doesn't apply to a partially-blocked editor. As such, I don't see a reason not to allow a partially-blocked editor to remove a declined unblock request. However, I think it would be a good idea to require partially-blocked editors, when making an unblock request, to affirmatively identify and/or link to (if it's not on the page) all previously-declined unblock requests; again, to save admins from having to hunt in page history. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Just my interpretation but the wording is pretty clear to me. It's "a currently active block", partial or full. If the block is active, and a request is made and declined, it stays there. An active block is an active block, partial or full. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Ignoring WP:UP#CMT as it is, what if the active partial block message stays but a record of denied unblock attempts is kept somewhere, per Levivich's suggestion? If someone makes multiple unblock requests that are declined, not being able to remove them when others are reading/editing their talk page for other reasons would be an eyesore. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  And a red badge of shame that will make partial blocks/unblocks become more of an emotional thing for the blocked editor, who will want to be rid of the red badge of shame. Turning up the heat on partial blocks by requiring declined unblock requests to remain on a partially blocked editor's talk page will have a significant negative impact on the entire project. It's really a terrible idea. A partially blocked editor is still actively and productively editing, and that makes a huge difference between a partially blocked editor and a fully blocked editor. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Rick. A block is a block, be it full or partial. Mjroots (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. And, quite frankly, if an editor doesn't want a "red badge of shame" on their page, they shouldn't have edited in a fashion that got them blocked in the first place. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  I've added a clarification to WP:UP#CMT to make it clear that partial blocks are included. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I think we should really continue the discussion of whether that's the way it should be. EEng 00:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

When I think over the technical innovations of the last few years, the two I've always thought the best are (1) the Thank feature (as someone pointed out, we had so, so many one-click ways of reverting and scolding people but no fast and easy way to give out atta-boys) and (2) page-level blocks. Vandals and trolls, who needs them? -- full blocks are fine. But for everyone else, a partial block is the perfect tool for getting an errant editor out of a bad situation without making them feel unwanted and rejected. How the editor feels about the block is key, and reasoning like if an editor doesn't want a "red badge of shame" on their page, they shouldn't have edited in a fashion that got them blocked in the first place is counterproductive. The question isn't what the editor deserves, but what will best help them get back on track. This needs to be considered from that perspective. EEng 00:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with EEng in this respect, as the amendment to the policy appears more punitive than remedial. The policy as written doesn't say that the partial block notice itself can't be removed, but it forces the user to either resign themselves to forever being blocked from that page range or pray they're lucky enough to have it appealed on their first request to not incur a buildup of denied unblock requests, as there shouldn't be anything stopping the user from making a new one every few months(?). I don't think it's unreasonable to mandate the presence of one denied block request, but how about just the most recent one to reduce unnecessary clutter? A link can be provided to a repository of previously denied unblock requests. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 07:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Not saying that my clarification to UP:CMT can't be changed or discussed, but as it stands, that is what our rules seem to say. Maybe a request for comment re Tenryuu's suggestion would be beneficial? Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it could be a worthy venture. Would you like me to draft a sample proposal somewhere? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Wikipedia talk:User pages is a good place for the RFC. There has been recent discussion there on this subject. Mjroots (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:User pages § RfC about unblock requests for partial blocks

Mjroots, I've started the RfC there. Looking for input from other editors who have had an eye on this issue as well. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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

KyleJoan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A friendly talking to has been administered. Hopefully that will be sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 20:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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

First, let me apologize for taking up admins' times with this. User:KyleJoan encouraged me to take this to ANI, which indicates to me this is the only way that this editor will heed others.

1. KyleJoan made a change through erroneously citing one other article's local consensus as a formal, Wikipedia-wide policy change, here.

2. An editor other than myself restored the status quo, explaining, "That RFC was for that specific case. It was not at all a project wide consensus. This is a very different case…" for reasons then given. Rather than follow WP:BRD, KyleJoan began edit-warring by reverting at 02:37, 6 December 2020 and at 02:55, 6 December 2020, and told the other editor to start an RfC. KyleJoan later made a 4th revision within 24 hours, at at 3:07, 6 December 2020.

3. The other editor could have reported KyleJoan to 3RR, but instead did indeed begin an RfC here -- which within two days trended against KyleJoan's contentious edit.

4. When I restored the status quo here, KyleJoan began edit warring again, at 14:37, 11 December 2020‎ and at 15:06, 11 December 2020‎, the latter with the edit summary "File the ANI report, then."

5. With the RfC trending against them, KyleJoan then went WP:FORUMSHOPPING at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources here. Amid everything else, this was the wrong forum -- no one was debating whether the source was reliable or not, but whether a primary source of straightforward fact was allowed to supplement a secondary source. In one of KyleJoan's multiple posts on my talk page about this, I pointed out WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So I'm not sure the motivation for continually debating a settled guideline.

6. Finally, they filed a false 3RR report, the full title of which says it all: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tenebrae reported by User:KyleJoan (Result:No violation, page fully protected for a week ). Since this is a longtime editor who knows better, it does seem harassing.

I certainly don't believe any one of these things rises to the level of an ANI. But this harrying and not letting go of the stick -- it's a behavioral pattern. I'm not suggesting anything drastic, but maybe a topic ban on this one article only? And a friendly talking-to? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support discipline His behavior is unacceptable. He's quick to accuse people of edit warring, while ignoring his own blatant edit warring. This edit suggests that he has a very combative approach to editing, which is not appropriate. I am the other editor mentioned above, and he warned me, despite the fact that he was the one to make 4 reverts, not me. He also made a comment that to me sounded like he was claiming ownership of the article here where he says "Regarding what led her to getting [...] her own article here in the first place, I actually created the article without including any of the materials you included, and the article underwent a review successfully." Also, the positions he's willing to edit war over makes no sense to me. Why is it a big deal using a primary source in addition to a secondary source? Why is he so against including the widely sourced and covered fact that she received attention for documenting her husband's illness and death on social media? Also his tendency to bring up article issues on user talk pages rather than the article's talk page is bizarre to say the least. He also constantly justifies edits using the summary "per this discussion" which gives the impression that there is a consensus to include one way, when usually the discussion is just a comment left by him somewhere, or at the most, just a couple editors debating, clearly not reaching a consensus yet. See [293][294][295]. I feel this type of behavior deserves some form of punishment, or at least for him to make a statement acknowledging that he was wrong in his actions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• KyleJoan may or may not have been behaving badly (I haven't checked that he exceeded 3RR, but am willing to assume the report is correct and that he's been combative in discussion, also; he's certainly guilty of using the awful terminology "welcomed" for having a child), but in this instance I am positive he's right on the issue: WP:BLPPRIVACY is important, and I've both removed the specifics (and the superfluous social media reference) and argued in the RfC accordingly. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is no longer a privacy issue when the parents themselves announce it to the media. Our job as editors is to provide publicly available information. We are not here to accuse Amanda Kloots and Nicker Cordero of being bad parents. As parents, they made the decision that they were proud to announce their son's birthdate and name. That is their right. And with those facts out in print, Web and broadcast media, available to countless millions of people, it's not a privacy issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOCK - The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support discipline - As a previously uninvolved editor I support some type of action. KyleJoan stated "we now have a consensus not to include a primary source when a secondary source is already present per this discussion" but then asked "But is there a need to cite a primary source at all in a situation where a plethora of secondary sources summarizes said primary source in the exact same way?" which was the exact subject of the so called consensus. KJ seems to make a habbit of throwing out WP links and saying that whatever they think is correct when it's their opinion. KJ said "a previoulsy uninvolved editor has just undermined two out of the three content-related grievances you two raised, where there is no consensus as to the content (ie including a page's subject's child's name). The purpose of the Rfc is to make the content determination and there is no prohibition about including a child's name as there are many pages. That's the problem, KJ says the facts are a particular way and that the discussion is ended. No, KJ is not the final judge as to the facts even though they act as if they are. Now comes these Rfc's and KyleJoan makes extensive bad-faith, retaliatory" admin complaints all so the page will reflect their vision. Reviewing KJ's history shows extensive reverts to pages so that they look like they think they should. Also, I've reported KyleJoan for having a suspected sockpuppet here for using an ip that first made a contribution 7 hours after KJ started an Rfc and then two of the five contributions by the ip were on a related Rfc supporting KJ. Then the ip and KJ both respond to the sockpuppet inquiry within 3 minutes of each other. If the ip is a sockpuppet then all of this is moot, but even if not, some kind of sanction on KJ being limited to reverts on the same page seems warranted so as to prevent heated edit wars. SailedtheSeas (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Yeah, when I'm involved in a discussion, I check into Wikipedia to see how it is going. And accordingly, I see the notification when someone tells me I'm being accused of sockpuppetry. Evidently responding to such accusations is now further evidence of socking, is it? Anyway, feel free to checkuser or whatever, since I'm nobody's sock. Just a previously uninvolved IP (and long-term contributor) who happened to comment in an RfC (a request for comment) regarding an issue I happen to care about - the gratuitous way that information about non-notable minors is shoehorned into articles about other individuals. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment A previously uninvolved editor has just undermined two out of the three content-related grievances you two raised (i.e., the inclusion of a non-notable minor's name and a primary source), so let's not continue to discuss content. The two RfCs on Talk:Amanda Kloots have nothing to do with the WT:RS discussion, so there was never a FORUMSHOPPING violation. It's also interesting that Tenebrae gave credit to JDDJS for opening an RfC without giving me some for doing the same. That aside, unless my math is failing me, I never violated 3RR, as it requires four reverts; granted, neither did Tenebrae or JDDJS. I will welcome any form of punishment should an administrator believe my behavior has been chronic; if not, I'd like to ask them to read the discussions on the RS and Tenebrae's talk pages and advise me on whether I'm completely misunderstanding each one's scope. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 02:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• here 1234. That's 4 reverts. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I opened an SPI into Tenebrae and JDDJS, which was closed without action. The closing administrator wrote that I was acting in a bad-faith, retaliatory manner, which I do not accept. Any person is free to have their view about my motives for opening the SPI, but no view changes the fact that I supported my suspicions with a plethora of evidence, none of which contained falsehoods. All of that said, I do not believe I have been guiltier of not letting go of the stick than the two aforementioned users, so I hope any action out of this report reflects that. I also believe I've been respectful to every user in every discussion related to the content disputes referenced here, and I plan to continue conducting myself that way. KyleJoan^talk 09:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• KyleJoan Your report was ridiculously bad faith. Before Amanda Kloots, I don't even ever coming across Tenebrae before. I have been on Wikipedia for over 10 years and have made over 40,000 edits. Tenebrae has been on Wikipedia over 15 years and has made over 150,000 edits. The idea that one person can manage to keep both accounts active and sockpuppet with them and somehow not get caught is absurd. Your "evidence" that we both disagreed with you is pathetic. And us asking to be blocked as evidence was also pathetic because if we had a sock, blocking one account would do nothing. You cannot file bad faith reports and yet claim to be "respectful" in your interactions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 13:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • Just for the record, not only am I not JDDJS, I don't recall our paths ever even crossing before. I don't think it's unusual for longtime editors to both note when a third editor is behaving outrageously.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• A serious BLP violation can be an exemption from 3RR; KyleJoan, you would have been on firmer ground if you'd claimed that exemption in the edit summary when making the fourth revert and then reported it at AN. That said, I am very sympathetic to the argument that including the name of a minor child without multiple excellent RS as sources is indeed a serious BLP privacy issue and would justify violating 3RR. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Valereee You mean like these [296][297][298][299][300][301][302] ? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

  JDDJS, I'm not actually interested in the content dispute. I'm just saying that if the reversions are over including the name of a minor child, a 3RR exemption can be claimed while the content dispute is being worked out, ideally in the edit summary and via a report at AN. —valereee (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be noted, User:Valereee, that you yourself brought up the content dispute. So for balance, that needed to be responded to. Please see my side note in the sub-sction below. And User:KyleJoan was actually trying to remove a BLP reference!--Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for the sympathy, Valeree, but the sourcing of the non-notable child's name was never in question. The content dispute has to do with the inclusion of the name itself, which an ongoing RfC should resolve. It seems ironic, though, that I've been accused of FORUMSHOPPING when a large portion of this ANI–which was supposed to address behavior–includes other editors' content-related grievances. That aside, I'd still like to maintain that I did not violate 3RR; only two of these four "reverts" were actual reverts. KyleJoan^talk 14:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• @KyleJoan: You clearly never read WP:EDITWAR then, as it states " A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• This you? [303][304][305][306] KyleJoan^talk 14:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan I immediately undid one of those reverts myself because it was accidentally done without an edit summary. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan per the four diffs provided by JDDJS I see a removal of the child's name by you at 23:43 Dec4 and 21:37, 21:55, and 22:07 Dec5, is that incorrect? —valereee (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

That is correct. I do, however, would like to ask whether the edit at 23:43 on December 4 constituted a revert because I simply saw that the name was in the article and proceeded to remove it. I'm genuinely curious because it was not as if I saw the most recent edit on the article and undid it. To be honest, I didn't even see when or by whom the name was included. That aside, thank you for all of your help with this report, Valereee! KyleJoan^talk 15:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

So you're arguing it would have taken a fifth removal to qualify as a fourth revert because the first removal was simply an edit? :D —valereee (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, the first removal was part of a standard copyedit/cleanup, as I explained in the edit summary; I genuinely did not deliberately seek out something to undo. If said removal constituted a revert, then I would have never made the revert at 22:07 on December 5. I now acknowledge that this was a lapse in judgment on my part. I should have explained the situation in the edit summary and via a report at AN like you said, Valereee. KyleJoan^talk 15:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoanAs someone who has been blocked 6 times for edit warring, most recently in 2019 by User:NinjaRobotPirate (who then extended after your tried to evade it), I find it hard to believe that you were unaware that your first edit counted as your revert. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Side note

To clarify a misconception that some above have, Wikipedia BLP does not have any blanket prohibition on naming the children if relevant to the biography, particularly when the parents are celebrities who literally announce it to the media as a news item. The children of, for instance, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West have appeared on magazine covers; other celebrities literally have their publicists release the information to news organizations. And in this case we had a secondary cite and a primary cite of the parents themselves announcing. The dispute involves KyleJoan insisting on removing a pertinent BLP citation.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

And add a 7th cause for action

Already User:KyleJoan, who is not a newbie but a longtime editor who knows 3RR rules, deliberately filed a false 3RR. Now, as KyleJoan themself notes above, they filed a false and clearly retaliatory sockpuppet allegation that admins rightly shot down. This has reached the level of personal harassment and false accusations made through official channels. While my initial ANI statement asked for a small, measured response, KyleJoan's continued attacks on me in formal admin pages is inexcusable and crosses a line. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. The report was downright abusive. In over 10 years of editing, I think that Amanda Kloots is literally the first conversation that we both contributed to. When you compare editors with over 40,000 and 150,000 edits, of course they're is going to be some overlaps, but his claim that they were to an extreme level were completely ridiculous. He completely grasped at straws to find absolutely anything to use against us. And to claim that he has been respectful to us even after filing that report is crazy. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I don't think there's any merit to the latest accusation but, to be fair, you do have a history of sockpuppetry. You were blocked for it in March. Swatchdog (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the facts there knows it was accidental — once, after 15 years here — which is why the censure was brief. And it has nothing to do with KyleJoan's malicious false filing. Indeed, KyleJoan has just filed a false sock report against another editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Just to be clear, are you claiming that in your 15 years here you have only used sockpuppets once? Or just that you have only been blocked for it once? Swatchdog (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC) — Swatchdog (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Spoonkymonkey (talk • contribs).

@Tenebrae: this is a very confusing discussion since it apparently involves genuine socks of 2 different editors. I agree with you and the SPI admins that the SPI against you and JDDJS was clearly wrong. As for the EW thread, calling it "false" seems a bit of a stretch. It's not like there were lies about how many reverts there were or claims that the article was on 1RR when the editor knew it wasn't. Edit warring doesn't require violating 3RR as I'm sure you well know and while I don't think there was any justification for that report, that doesn't mean it's false. Admins can assess whether there's any justification for a block without violating 3RR, they correctly assessed that there was none. If EW reports keep continuing when there's no cause for action, maybe there will be cause for action against KyleJoan although frankly I suspect admin regulars at ANEW will probably take action without needing ANI. Anyway given all that, I don't think the ANEW complaint adds much the the problem SPI. You mention there is another false sock report. Where is that? The only other recent SPI by KyleJoan I can find is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikethewhistle-original which is apparently not false. (The next most recent SPI seems to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Actionfan365 on November 21.) I'm hoping you didn't falsely accuse KyleJoan of filing other false sock reports in your complaint about them misusing admin notice boards..... In any case, whereever this other false sock report is, I do have some sympathy with them considering the plague of socks that seem to be bothering this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I'm assuming user:Tenebrae mistook his latest sock puppet filing as another false report, since he was also involved here. It turns out that was an accurate report, but you can't blame him for thinking that after that ridiculous report he filed against the two of us. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I know this ANI report is to scrutinize my behavior, but I believe that it bears pointing out that Tenebrae has a tendency to join different content disputes about an article together as one big cluster and that they seem to be unable to separate content disputes from conduct issues. I also believe I have now learned the reason for this behavior, which is REDACTED The discussion I opened on WT:RS resulted in a clear consensus that favors the notion that it is not necessary to include a primary source in addition to a secondary source when the two say the same thing and that the latter is favored, despite Tenebrae's dissent based on a basic journalistic and biographical-research tenet. When I and another editor edited the article in accordance with this consensus, Tenebrae blanket reverted and cited the two ongoing RfCs on the talk page, neither of which has to do with the inclusion of primary sources. Dislike me all you want, but adhering to a consensus should not be based on one's issue with another's conduct. It's also odd for them to say we are not to make contentious changes that are the subject of RfCs until the RfCs are concluded; a third editor has just done so in accordance to multiple guidelines that do not mention anything about this, so I must question whether the basis of their point was journalism-related as well. That aside, the quoted user also alleged that Tenebrae was the creator of the article about themselves, which–albeit not very relevant–seems worth inspecting.

Tenebrae has also contradicted themselves in their conduct. They were terribly offended by the SPI against them, and yet they were quick to believe the SPI against me and went on to speak to the IP user alleged to have been tied to me in a dismissive way (i.e., Really, every time I think you've hit bottom, you go lower.). Not only that, but they objected to the IP calling the SPI nonsense while it was ongoing, and yet they called the SPI into SailedtheSeas–who is now blocked indefinitely–deliberately false and malicious while it was ongoing. Personally, I didn't realize SPIs were that offensive. I've been accused of being a sockmaster multiple times, and I didn't even trip once; I didn't even take offense to Tenebrae's belief that I was one, but at least have some consistency about it. And finally, you can't accuse someone of personal harassment and then call them out of control as well as somebody who is not reasonable or [rational]. KyleJoan^talk 02:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm away for a day, and User:KyleJoan tries the classic guilty-party deflection technique of trying to make it all about the accuser and not about their own behavior. KyleJoan has filed malicious false reports about me and at least one other editor, in addition to all the other poor behavior KyleJoan has shown — including now making contentious changes to an article's status quo over issue still being debated at an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, there is no consensus at the WT:RS link in KyleJoan's comment above. Anyone can go there and see for themselves. KyleJoan is falsely claiming a consensus in his favor where it factually does not exist.

More significantly, though, KyleJoan posted a link, which I have redacted, to an 8-year-old discussion between myself and another editor who threatened to out me. Imagine the time and trouble KyleJoan must have gone through to find an 8-year-old post to now use as a cudgel. This is beyond the pale, this cannot be excused, and I'm emailing Oversight to have KyleJoan's posts with that link removed from this article's history. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan If a user is personally harassing another editor, out of control and not reasonable and rational is a perfect way to describe that editor. You can argue that it doesn't describe you, but the idea that saying one somehow negates the other is completely absurd. Also, you cannot deny the fact that an IP address immediately editing talk pages and seems knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies is highly suspicious, so even if that investigation was false, there is actually merit in believing in it. However, if you do not know how absurd your claim that Tenebrae and I are socks, you clearly do not understand sockpuppet behavior at all, and should not be filing sockpuppet reports. However, you seem to be knowledgeable on sockpuppet investigations and to be an overall intelligent editor. Therefore, the most likely scenario is that you knew that we weren't socks, but filed a retaliatory claim against us anyway, which is not okay. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Can all the editors involved in this long thread please agree to stop antagonizing each other, and to stop making contentious edits? How about everyone just quietly walks away and finds something else to do? Jehochman ^Talk 04:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Jehochman While I will respect whatever conclusion this comes to, I do not feel filing a sock investigation that you know isn't true is something that should just be ignored. Before that, his behavior was borderline disruptive, and while I wanted my opinion on the matter to be known, I was ready to walk away from this discussion after doing so, fully expecting for there to be no actual action taken. However, I don't see how someone can just file such an obviously false and retaliatory report and not face any consequences. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• • We don’t do punishment here. The question is what measure is needed to prevent further disruption? You’re all guilty of posting walls of text, feuding, head hunting. I’d rather just tell you all to disengage voluntarily. Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Jehochman The idea that we don't discipline users is simply untrue, otherwise temporary blocks would not be a thing. As far as I know, posting walls of texts is not against any policy, and I have not even done that. Can you please further elaborate on how have I head hunted? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You keep asking for this user to be sanctioned. Try leaving them alone. Hopefully they will also leave you alone. If they don’t, somebody will likely notice and take care of it. Should you need help in the future post a short request here with diffs and then walk away. I don’t do temporary blocks. Virtually all my blocks are indef. Jehochman ^Talk 00:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have great respect for Jehochman, who generously gave much time and effort in 2015 to stop a particularly concerning editor who was hounding me and others. I only want to say that my original post did not suggest a block — simply a topic ban for that one point in that one article. And this was even after User:KyleJoan had filed a false and quickly dismissed 3RR complaint against me. But KyleJoan's then filing a false SOCK complaint is continued harassment, and falsely claiming consensus over one thing and violating RfC procedure over another — I don't believe this kind of behavior can simply be overlooked. This person needs to stop doing such things. They're not right and they're highly disruptive.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for remembering that. How about this, KyleJoan is warned to stop this obnoxious behavior. Filing a frivolous SPI report is not good, but I wouldn't block them for that without a warning first. So long as they do stop, we will let it go. If they continue, bring it to my attention on my talk page. KyleJoan, do you think you can disengage from this dispute, or do you want to continue? Topic bans are not my favorite because they infantilize editors. We should all be smart enough to stay out of areas where we can't keep our cool. Jehochman ^Talk 18:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOCK - The Bushranger One ping only 22:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Repeated disingenuous retaliatory admin complaints KyleJoan has just opened a sockpuppet inquiry about me after having opened another against two other users that was closed with "bad-faith, retaliatory SPI with no action." There is the other above mentioned edit warring complaint by KyleJoan in which it was actually KyleJoan that violated the revert policy (as discussed above if I understand it correctly) and not the user KyleJoan reported and as such was closed with "No violation". This has the appearance that KyleJoan must have all WP content conform to their opinion and anyone that disagrees must be punished. The user appears to have a history of warring and other complaints against users that disagree with their opinion. See here and here among others. This user is engaging in bogus complaints all to control the content of pages and trying to punish those that disagree with their opinion. I don't even know what is appropriate, but some type of action is clearly warranted. SailedtheSeas (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Note: SailedtheSeas has been blocked indefinitely for suspected sockpuppetry. KyleJoantalk 20:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User:DonkeyPunchResin

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.

---

• DonkeyPunchResin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• For an explanation of the username, see Donkey punch
• "Take your tampoon out"
• "I have a hard time resisting the urge to say ‘take yer tampoon out’ when the opportunity arises regardless of tampoon appropriateness."
• "Have you ever tried telling someone to take their tampoon out? That's one urge I haven't learned how to control yet."

Can we help this editor control their urges? (There are also UTP warnings but I haven't looked into them.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not saying our user name policy needs to be work safe, per se., but this one does it for me. So, I soft blocked. I'm actually surprised that they have been allowed to edit with that user name thus far. Weird. Anyway, if someone else wishes to convert it into a hard block, that's fine with me. I've given this matter a cursory glance only. El_C 17:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

DPR, I'd recommend you not only choose a new username but stop using such a childish phrase. It's the kind of thing that makes you look very immature and makes other people think you're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. —valereee (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User:GeorgeWilkins260

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.

---

• GeorgeWilkins260 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

GeorgeWilkins260 has been attacking other editors for months on end in edit summaries. I have been the target of some attacks ([307] [308]), and have warned them twice ([309] [310]).

They have been attacking other editors in edit summaries since April 2020 ([311]), and I can’t deal with it anymore. They have gone as far as telling people to "shut the f*** up" and using other defamatory language ([312]). Too many of this user's edits contain either rude language, swearing or attacks. Examples: [313] [314] [315] [316] [317] [318] [319] [320]. On top of that, they have been warned about their language and attacking for a year now. (User talk:GeorgeWilkins260#December 2019, User talk:GeorgeWilkins260#April 2020, User talk:GeorgeWilkins260#Edit summaries)

I also told them that it was their only chance to fix their behaviour in November of 2020 (User talk:GeorgeWilkins260#November 2020 (CLOSED)), stating The next time you do this I will be reporting you. We had a talk, and as of today, they are attacking other editors and using defamatory language...again ([321], [322])

I think this user needs to be blocked for a good amount of time considering the number of times this has happened coupled with the five warnings they have received to halt this behaviour. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Doggy54321: User blocked indefinitely. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Vandalism and nonsense from Thelinkster2141

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, Today, there was a now-blocked user, known as Thelinkster2141, who was making pages about certain people doing a weird action of "licking flashlights". There were articles about individuals licking, the exact incidents and even a list of people. Most pages counted as either attack pages, patent nonsense or vandalism. Shinyedit (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Shinyedit, the account is already blocked. My suggestion to use this noticeboard was meant for future cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ohhh. Sorry. Shinyedit (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Safety and firearm-related 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.

---

The image at the top-right of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_carry_in_the_United_States&oldid=786375669 lacks context and depicts a manner of open carry that many would consider dangerous if practiced in public (see my section in the current talk page for details), but from June 2017 until today when I removed it, it was the first image in Open carry in the United States. It is currently the first image that appears when I search "open carry" in duckduckgo. I believe this image was chosen for its shock value but aside from the NPOV issues, it's more troubling that this was Wikipedia's "exemplar" of open carry for such a long time. For the sake of both encouraging safe firearm handling and maintaining a neutral point of view, Wikipedia should keep a closer eye on firearm-related articles, which tend to be frequent targets of POV pushing, often by editors who push against the ownership and proper use of firearms. AP295 (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

TPA revocation

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

---

Can someone revoke TPA for User talk:Sabertoothtiger52? They're indeffed, so there is literally no point in notifying them of this. Thanks, Giraffer ^munch 14:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive talk-page behavior from 85.140.0.0/16

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.

---

85.140.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Since November 9, this IP range is on a daily basis making nonsense comments in Russian on talk pages. The comments are nonsense; the most recent (at Talk:Fire [323]) includes a sentence that translates to "In the village, every woman knows how many eggs are laid by any other chicken." I see at least 10 different /24s in this range making the edits. There are a few acceptable article edits as well; I'm not sure if a partial (Talk-space) range-block would make sense here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I see a small smattering of constructive edits, but they're overwhelmingly overshadowed by the recent talk page disruption. Rangeblocked from the talk namespace for a week. We can reblock for a longer duration if it immediately resumes on expiration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Repeated/disruptive unsourced claims to Sao civilization and Sara people by User:Rtamdji

• Rtamdji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Sara people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sao civilisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Rtamdji is persistently adding unsourced claims to the Sao civilization and Sara people pages regarding the origins of those groups and misrepresenting existing refs (inserting their preferred unsourced theory, along with misleading and mislabelled images). (They claim without sources that said groups descend from the Medjay culture of ancient Nubia while removing actual sourced information on their ethnolinguistic origins and histories.). I have reverted their edits (I believe once on each page yesterday, and once on one page today) with explanations citing Wikipedia policies, but they have ignored me and continue to edit war. I warned then yesterday that if they continued I would report them. When they continued today, reinsating similar edits, I warned them again, but realized that they were unlikely to listen or engage (they seemed unwilling to do so), so I am filing a report here.

Some of their diffs:

To Sao:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993851354

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993852763

To Sara:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993659090

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994014309

And here are the pages' full edit histories for reference:

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

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

Skllagyook (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Materialscientist - If you are from the Sara Tribe - We would love to have a discussion. Please send us your email for further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtamdji (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Rtamdji This is not the place to communicate with Materialscientist; you should do so on their user talk page, User talk:Materialscientist. Wikipedia matters should be discussed on Wikipedia if possible. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The fact the only interaction these editors have had was a revert in 2016 makes this even weirder. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: Rtamdji also posted on my user page (here [[324]]) attempting to engage me via email (which is of course against Wikipedia policy) but still reinstated their edit, contining to ignore my notes, and made no attempt to discuss on a Talk page, as can be seen in their recent edit to the Sara people page. (here: [[325]]) which was reverted by User:The Bushranger (here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994041004). Rtamdji seems to be very unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, but nonetheless seems to ignore explanations and insist on reinstating disputed edits without discussion. Skllagyook (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: @331dot: and @The Bushranger: After everything, User:Rtamdji is still edit warring, and has just now (yet again) made another unsourced WP:OR edit to Sara people (here, [[326]]) They seem entirely unwilling to listen. Thier only response to me has been (after my several attempts to explain the problems with their edits) never to engage with the issues, but rather to suggest that I am editing from a "European standpoint" and to ask irrelevant personal questions about my ethnic background on my user Talk page (here: [[327]]). To avoid edit warring, I have not reverted their latest edit (nor their edit before). Can something please be done? Any help is appreciated. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced content by IPs on List of Mumbai cricketers

• List of Mumbai cricketers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While I was performing pending changes review, I came across the article List of Mumbai cricketers. Several IP addresses (and one registered user: WIKIIND27) were adding "Parag Moily" to this list of cricketers, without providing a reliable source. Ohnoitsjamie brought to my attention that this specific cricketer was being added so much by IPs that it constitutes long-term abuse. I would like to ask to see what can be done to prevent this article from being disrupted by IPs. So far, Jamie states that he may create an edit filter that prevents this name from being added. If that is unavailable, we can just semi-protect the article. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment). There's no Parag Moily in CricInfo, which is pretty suspicious - it isn't totally reliable, but is comprehensive; including for the cricket-mad Subcontinent. The only person by that name I could find is a NN manager at InBev, with a LinkedIn profile. Narky Blert (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Lord Belbury constantly reverting my edits

I would like to bring Lord Belbury to administrator attention. They keep reverting my edits, despite me only re-implementing guidelines and previously agreed consensus which were gone against, without permission, earlier this year and then allowed to remain in this way. Justgravy (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Justgravy - when discussing another editor here you are required to notify them with a post to their Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If you check their talk page you will find the notification which I copy/pasted from this page.Justgravy (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Last week Justgravy changed "Greater London" to "South East London" on five articles, citing the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages: an RfC that was still ongoing at the time, so I reverted the edits as premature. Justgravy restored one of those edits today, which I also reverted: although the RfC has gone stale, it still hasn't been formally closed, and I assumed it was still premature to say that these edits had consensus. (In fact, as I say in the edit summary, the most recent two comments on that project page are two editors explicitly opposing the removal of the word "Greater".)

Those six lead changes are the only edits of this user that I've reverted. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Admin, if you check the page in question, you will find the RFC has now been removed by the RFC bot i.e. closed. Also, it does not matter if "two editors explicitly opposing the removal of the word "Greater"", these are the previously established guidelines and a previously reached consensus by many editors over a very long discussion, please check the archives of the aforementioned page. Earlier this year a brand new editor took it upon themselves to go against this, edited the leads of a great number of these articles and then quickly disappeared. All I am trying to do is fix what they damaged according to the Wikipedia guidelines / consensus of said pages. Going against this amounts to vandalism in my book. Justgravy (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Justgravy, whatever it is, it's very clearly not vandalism - it's a disagreement about content. Perhaps the RfC could be unarchived in hopes that more people will comment and someone will close it? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello GirthSummit thank you for taking an interest in this. The issue is, they are going against established guidelines and consensus which is a violation of Wikipedia's policy. If editors go against Wikipedia's policy they should be reprimanded. Justgravy (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Justgravy Administrators do not settle content disputes; if you are unable to resolve this between the two of you, please make use of dispute resolution channels. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again for your timely response. Dispute resolution is already in progress regarding this matter, but this is separate to my qualm here. I was reporting the conduct of Lord Belbury. As an administrator do you believe Lord Belbury has violated Wikipedia's policies?Justgravy (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Justgravy, people violate policies all the time - sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. For example, you violated our WP:NPA policy when you implied that Lord B was vandalising - you probably didn't realise it, but that is an accusation of bad faith and therefore a personal attack. What we normally do is offer advice, rather than reprimand people, which is what I am now doing. Don't edit war about it - either of you - just continue discussing it and try to get a consensus on the best form of words to use. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I find this a bit of a liberty. I have been temporarily banned from editing many times in the past, and although I am now a reformed character, what was done to me was reprimand. Maybe what I meant was not vandalism, but going against long established guidelines and consensus is bad faith in my book. Justgravy (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Justgravy, blocks come out when it's clear that advice and warnings aren't working. If edit warring persists after advice has been given, we will look at other solutions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Abusive editing

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

• •Accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism with no evidence whatsoever: 1 2 3 4
  
• •Reported me twice to administrators in under 24 hours with no evidence here and here
  
• •Ignoring a discussion which took place here by making this edit
  
• •General failure to engage in constructive debate and discussion (providing evidence, threats, refusal to do any work themselves regarding proposed RFC) here and here.
• •Reverting valid edits without any reasonable explanation, the latest being this

I've repeatedly afforded the user the opportunity to apologise for their accusations and allegations made against me, on their page, to no avail. Their last comment on their talk page to me is actually hurtful in many instances. ItsKesha (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

ItsKesha, to be honest, I'm seeing an awful lot of warnings at your user talk and its history. Are you sure this is where you want to be? —valereee (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you really think a grand total of one warning is "a lot"? ItsKesha (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I have given the entire explanation here that ItsKesha has been removing and blanking WP:RS in these two discussions: [328], [329]. i have repeatedly requested him to start a WP:RfC as he is blanking/removing valid WP:RS info, leaving WP:NOR and unsourced materials. He has been warned before by other users, but he removed those warns like [330] as he did with my request for him to stop these disruptive editing. Just check User talk:ItsKesha: Revision history. And look at the removal of all Wp:RS in WWE Music Group discography in the name of fixing overlinking, which is clear Wikipedia:Gaming the system. And the reason for the sock acquisition is the similar manner and edit summary "see ya" which this user used: [331], bot accounts made in 2020 around the same time and similar edit summary. Even if I am wrong about sock, it is clear WP:Vandal to remove and blank [{WP:RS]] contents which have been there for years despite being requested to give proper explanation, which he didnt, and despite repeatedly being urged to seek Wp:RfC from senior users of WP:PW, just see the two discussions where I rationally explained to the two 2020 accounts: [332], [333] and you can check their revision history of mine and the edit history of 2020 registered users User:Dory Funk, User:ItsKesha. I agree I breached WP:Civil, I apologize, but why after I repeatedly requested these two ids to seek Wp:RfC and let senior editors decide the outcome by voting they refuse to do so? And it is User:ItsKesha who is repeatedly blanking/removing Wp:RS and removing talk page warns (the latter allowed, but it just shows he doesnt care about the policies, doens't want a rational discussion, doesn't bother to hear comments from other users through RfC). He is blanking/removing Wp:RS and structural changes to established articles that have been that way for YEARS before he joined, and its a=only rational to request him to seek WP:RfC to get approval from senior WP:PW users before making those changes, but he doesn;t bother doing that despite infinite requests. Just see the Talk:The Streak (wrestling), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling, User talk:Dilbaggg, I have repeatedly requested him to go for WP"RfC and seek consensus before removings such crucial WP:RS and WP:RS contents, destroying formats, and in the name of removing overlinking he is removing all Wp:RS from some articles like WWE Music Group discography: [334], [335] which is clear Wikipedia:Gaming the system leaving the page without any source/citation at all which is purely against Wikipedia guidlines, and if he gets questioned/warned for such behavior not just by me but other users too, he removes the warnings. User talk:ItsKesha revision history still records those. He said I dont explain myself, just check the discussions of those pages I repeatedly did, and above all whats his issue with seeking consensus by Wp:RfC instead of removing/blaninking Wp:RS contents that have been well accepted for years based purely on his personal views? I just want the opinion of senior users on that matter and thats why I kept telling him to seek RfC but he never does it and says things that "I won't bother to read", if he doesnt read my explanation why accuse me of not giving an explanation? I admit breaking civility and if I get blocked for that, I have no issues, but at least prevent the vandalism of those articles, that may be my last request here. Judge yourself. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

ItsKesha, you have four warnings on your user talk right now, starting with the one headed August 2020 (talk page sections headed "Month Year" are generally warnings generated by Twinkle), a section headed 'Some thoughts from an administrator', and a couple more recent that you've deleted. Yeah, that's a lot in less than five four months for someone with under 1000 edits. —valereee (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The "comments from an administrator" were regarding my username, which had received a complaint and was subsequently dealt with. The warning about Jason Orange was probably correct to be fair. The "warnings" you're counting regarding edits I made to Joe Cole, Laurence Fox, Billy Mitchell and Boris Johnson are not warnings, rather marked very clearly as "information" regarding why the edits were reverted, as demonstrated by the blue/orange question marks. So, one warning. I'm certainly not counting the warning I received from Dilbag. ItsKesha (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

ItsKesha, "information" is the kinder, gentler term we use when we give a warning to a user whom we believe is not trying to be problematic, especially if they're newish. —valereee (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) @ItsKesha: The substituted templated warnings are from the {{uw}} family, which is short for "user warning". As Valereee pointed out, the lower user warning levels use information icons as a sign of assuming good faith and are there to gently nudge the user away from the inappropriate behaviour, while the higher warning levels escalate to a more traditional warning icon. Please be aware that when filing a report here, the reported user and the filer's behaviour will be looked at, and I have seen many times where administrative action has boomeranged and been enforced on the filer. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 20:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Those are all warnings, and you should listen to an admin when they tell you so instead of arguing, which isn't going to help your case here. Grandpallama (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me? ItsKesha (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

ItsKesha pretty sure you received clear disruptive editing warning with warning icon and warning message from User:Mattythewhite here: [336], despite you claiming you did not receive vandalism related warning before mine, the evidence is there always recorded on your talk page history. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hence me asking "Do you really think a grand total of one warning is "a lot"?" Well done. ItsKesha (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You claim I disrespect you, and you disrespect my valid warning of you literally destroying sources and citations, leaving totally sourceless non WP:RS pages without any citations at all and requesting you to seek consensus from senior users through WP:RfC? Let admins judge the validity of my warning, it doesn't matter if you consider it as such or not. Let admins review the whole matter themselves and give the decision. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, not sure your hands are clean here, either, so I'd stop now. ItsKesha, you can back out of this now. Both of you, I'd highly recommend you both take the chips off your shoulders, start assuming good faith of the other editor, and stop being truculent with one another. ANI should be an absolute last resort for behavioral issues that haven't been resolved after exhausting other attempts. —valereee (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

—valereee I will take your humble advice, i admit misdeeds from my part like with civility issues, i will try not to break that, I just request ItsKesha one last time to go for Wp:RfC before blanking/removing WP:RS and removing established info that have been there for years like that, I just want the views of the senior editors (which i am not either, nor is ItsKesha). I hope it is not to much to ask to resolve the matters through a clean vote on consensus. I won't say anything else here and respect the decisions of the admins. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, lol, you don't have to grovel quite that much. :) Seriously, though, I'm only trying to get the two of you to sincerely try to put aside your clear annoyance at one another and have a sincere discussion of the issue. If it's a content dispute, ask for a third opinion. If it's a sourcing dispute, use WP:RSN and WP:RSNP. If you need help from someone expert in...what is this, football or something?...check who edits a lot of those articles and ask for some input. But I don't actually see evidence IK is being intentionally disruptive. They just...well, need to learn, and need to take the chip off their shoulder. —valereee (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I will check out WP:RSN and WP:RSNP, since it is abuot multiple articles and multiple sources, not just one and are PW related, I have sought the advice ofWP:PW before taking the matter there. Also I promise not to show anymore annoyance and try to resolve the matter maturely. Thanks. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Good to discover Keir Starmer is an administrator on here. ItsKesha (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::Ignorant Yankee here, did I just get called a fascist? —valereee (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Says it all that your instinct isn't to find out who he is, but instead to presume somebody's said you're fash. ItsKesha (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, nobody is being called fash. ItsKesha (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

What "says it all" was your original statement which is very very borderline and I would suggest you strike it. (also, "fash"? Good grief.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

If you don't know who Keir Starmer is, how can you possibly know that it "says it all"? Keir Starmer isn't a fascist, he's the leader of the Labour Party. He's been described as "forensic" and "the grownup in the room" within British politics. But you know, rush to take it as an insult rather than as the compliment it was clearly intended. Thanks. ItsKesha (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As a further explanation, Starmer is a knight of the realm and a former human rights lawyer. Again, no fascism insult intended. Sorry you thought that, wasn't intended! ItsKesha (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

ItsKesha, when I checked our article, it was circumspect, as it should be. Googled, and up came fascist on multiple hits, and I thought wut? My mistake, and I apologize for ABF assumptions. Especially to Starmer. :) Can we start over? IK, I recommend you and Dilbaggg try to resolve this in another way. This is the last place two newish editors want to be hashing out their differences. —valereee (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

ItsKesha I extend my own apologies - I'm very used to that sort of "X here is Y" being used as an insult or dogwhistle to the point it's too easy to just assume nobody uses it as a positive thing. I'll smack myself with a {{minnow}} and pledge to do better! Still think 'fash' is silly but I'm not a fellow kid. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Fashionista? EEng 00:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Even worse. I'm anti-fashion. —valereee (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

ItsKesha Could you please stop the :I do not explain" part, as I am literally having to copy paste my explanation that you deleted from your talk page here: [337], and when you say that you won't read the explanation anyway [338]. Anyway taken matter to WP:RSN as per admin suggestion here. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that these two have been engaging in something of a rivalry. As far as I can tell, it started two days ago at The Undertaker[339] and then spilled over to its sister article, The Streak (wrestling)[340]. Recently, there was some WP:HOUNDing at the unrelated Wednesday Night Wars article.[341][342] Dilbaggg also took issue with Kesha's edits to WWE Music Group discography and engaged in a bit of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by raising it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#WWE Music Group discography's WP:RS blanking and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Primary Source wwe.com and WP:PW/RS acceptability? And a user blanking every source leaving non WP:V pure Wp:OR contents without ANY citations. Allegations of sockpuppetry have been raised, but as far as I can tell an inappropriate report to WP:AIV was the only report filed.[343]

It's been over two years since professional wrestling articles fell under sanctions (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling), although clearly it hasn't done much to curb this behavior. Can an admin step in before this enters another day and spills into other articles?LM2000 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

LM2000, I was hoping this wouldn't require admin action. Dilbaggg has opened a discussion at RSN, but I'm not sure that wasn't a mistake. I am really firing on all cylinders, here. —valereee (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

LM2000 the RSN was as per suggestion here, and the recent Wednesday Night Wars article.[344] has nothing to do with any personal issue, I questioned the notability tag to a well sourced and neutral editor, I would have done had it been any user, I did not specifically target ItsKesha. We did have disagreements over the The Streak (wrestling) which has been resolved, and I have left RSN to judge the fate of WWE Music Group discography which now after removal of all sources is a pure sourceless, citationless article that fails Wp:V on every ground and appears as a WP:OR due to removal of evry single sources. The issue was brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#WWE Music Group discography's WP:RS blanking, but I have left it to RSN to judge it now, so I have 0 issues with ItsKesha at the moment, and every single interaction between editors cannot be taken as a personal issue as with the recent case in Wednesday Night Wars, hope that resolves your worry, peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

One of the editors I accused as a Wp:Sock has infact been outed as one [345] and User:ItsKesha sure uses a lot of policy for a 2020 user seems to have so much knowledge, although I am sure its Wikipedia:Gaming the system, a clear review of edit history, removal of warnings by multiple users including a recent one by admin [346], LM2000 suspects me of socking and filed a report I am fine with it, let investigators determine, but it is undeniable the behavior of User:ItsKesha, not to mention personal attacks on me: [347], and clear borderline edit warring as more than one user disagreed and I am sure more will disagree in the coming days: [348], [349], [350], (if you think I am linked to those guys you can most certainly check) and he is removing sources listed reliable on WP:PW/RS leaving WP:OR contents, as with Bleacher Report which from 2013 can be cited and WWE.com, and as per policy ""Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them" and "Note that primary sources make no exception to the general rules regarding sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR,...) before they can be used as a source in Wikipedia. That are basic requirements, not further discussed in, nor modified by, the current guideline (proposal). This guideline concentrates on how to use primary sources most appropriately in Wikipedia." [351] And It is far better to use primary sources than leaving WP:OR contents as User:ItsKesha is doing. And when asked to seek consensus from other users about making such Blanking, illegitimate and Format Change, never doess it and just goes on editing based on personal agenda. A lot of WP:RS he removed arent unreliable in the least, anyway that's just what I have to say. If he had been more experienced users making such big changes I would have had 0 issues, but he is new so I rightfully requested him to WP:RfC but that he will never do. I am not clean I broke WP:Civil multiple times, I accept punishment, but I want [{User:ItsKesha]]'s edits to be investigated now after his personal attack on me with the talk page insult one of the guy I suspected as a sock who indeed got outed as one, I had dropped the matter entirely after giving it to WP:RSN but now after that insult I just want admins to judge the changes he is making and if they approve by all means continue. Furthermore this is my last edit on Wikipedia until User:ItsKesha case is solved, if he is clean fine go on you can improve and build Wikipedia better than, I will stop editing for good, but if he is not I want his disruptive behavior stopped [352]! Dilbaggg (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's me, attempting to discuss the change made to the Wednesday Night War key demographic edit. Here's the user, removing my question 90 minutes later before blanking his page. Here's me having a discussion about the mass removal of content regarding a music label discography, an edit you complained about and claimed was illegitimate, but never attempted to discuss. And what does Bleacher Report have to do with anything? I removed it, it was reverted, the sources are still there, unremoved. Are you ever going to stop lying about me and spreading smears? ItsKesha (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

ItsKesha you are discussing on talk page only after I pointed out your mistake, and still you do not WP:RfC from senior editors before making such big changes, and actually, falsely claimed you did, linking a consensus of a different article (relating to football) to justify your edits to another article (wrestling), as here: [353] using some consensus from Arsenal article to justify the wrestling artilce. Also if your edit is challenged it is always your job to start talk page discussion and gain consensus through WP:RfC, so don[t put that responsibility on me as I am not the one changing all those established edits. Also you recently removed a source from Uproxxx [354] which is not listed unreliable on WP:PW/RS, they have a list of what constitutes unreliable, Uproxxx is not listed as such, and as per the advice of a senior 2007 WP:PW user NikiMaria: [355]. Also The Guardian is listed as one of the most reliable source ever Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but you removed that too [356] , among numerous other sources that are well established [{WP:RS]]. And your edit here was not constructive in the least, just because you "feel something is not special" [357], even though there are listed special per WP:RS, thankfully a senior editor fixed the issue [358]. You removed sources even from ESPN which have extreme reliability, listed a mainstream RS in WP:PW/RS. Its WP:RS that matters, not your personal WP:OR. Anyway you have left ANI to judge the matter, good job, if they approve your edits and removal of [{WP:RS]], (even if Uproxxx is questionable, though not unreliable, you did previously remove some reliable sources like WWE.com (I explained the primary policy in bold above incase you didn't read), Bleacher Report and others that can be viewed on your edit history), then I will have 0 objections. As long as senior users/admins agree then who am i to say anything? But don't say you did Wp:RfC without actually doing so. Take care. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

lol ItsKesha (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

203.247.28.33

203.247.28.33 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing to add unsourced/poorly sourced information onto British train articles past a Level 4 warning given on 2 December. Examples;

• Using a Flickr image as a reference for a train repaint on British Rail Class 90 1, then adding it back after being reverted 2
• Changing the status of a unit on the same page to "in service" with no source, with a generic source given in the edit summary "(Source: wnxx site)" 3
• Changing the status of several units on British Rail Class 373 to "All fleets were scrapped" without providing a source, and removing sourced information in the process 4

While they have made several sourced edits on other articles, it appears they have not fully learned from the warnings on their talk page. SK2242 (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Would they need a Warning 4IM? that might make them add sources to their articles. --Toaster9 (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Toaster9 needs to stop adding unsourced, speculative, and contrary dates of birth to articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

United States of Banana

Has anyone else noticed that a lot of references to United States of Banana have been removed today? The reason given is that it is not a notable work. An example is here [359]. I don’t know anything about the work so the reason given could be valid. However, the number of deletions indicates something else may be going on. Burrobert (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For quick reference, the article in question is actually Hugo Chavez, not United States of Banana. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 10:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Given we have United States of Banana, and its talkpage has already had a discussion on that found sufficient independent notability to sustain an article, the rationale for removal fails on its face. Are any editors other than User:Carchasm (whom I have notified of this ANI discussion, per policy) involved? Ping User:Lettherebedarklight and User:DocFreeman24 who had undone some of these edits. I have mass-rollback'ed the rest of them. DMacks (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

...and typo'ed Carchasm's username in the ES; well, at least they won't receive a ton of pings. Let me know if I should do a dummy-edit to fix that. DMacks (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I should have notified the editor involved. Mass-rollback is a useful superpower. Burrobert (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea why I am pinged here. h 04:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was doing recent changes review and noticed this as well. I had the same reaction as others, namely that some of the removals seemed legitimate (i.e., its not really clear why the content fit into the article in the first place), while others were relatively unexplained blanking. I only reverted the latter. It sounds like you all are sorting this out above but feel free to ping if you need me for something else! DocFreeman24 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Whilst simply mass-removing references is unhelpful, I do wonder if United States of Banana, whilst an important work, has been pushed into too many articles. Its very nature, where it features famous real, historical and literary characters, means that it is easy to do so, but I am unconvinced that at least some of the target articles are particularly improved by it. Black Kite (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This was my intention - the references had almost all been added at roughly the same time by an account that was circumventing a block for the same behavior (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LatinCultureTodat/Archive). I initially noticed it because it seemed out of place - on e.g. Alcibiades or Laches (or Hugo Chavez) which aren't closely related to Puerto Rican literaturecarchasm (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Those are definitely valid concerns. My mass-rollback is without prejudice for re-doing selectively with more-nuanced explanation, or a central consensus to remove more broadly. DMacks (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll go from there then and only selectively re-do pages where I think there's an uncontroversial case that the subject material isn't signficantly closely related enough per the in popular culture guidelines. Thanks for being understanding - I'm still getting used to the procedures here! I'll watch this page and not make any of those changes for at least 24 hours or until I get guidance otherwise that it's ok - please let me know here or my talk page if I'm off base in doing so! carchasm (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between being a notable work, and so worthy of an article, and being notable with respect to a given topic. Just because a topic happens to be mentioned in that novel does not meant that that novel is worth mentioning in that topic's article. Paul August ☎ 22:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems like borderline spam to me. Over 100 incoming links is a lot for a run of the mill book. Removing the superfluous links is good editing. AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

From a spot check, many of the references to this book are unnecessary and the removals are justified. In some cases the entire "popular culture" section it is included in is problematic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Farce is a perfect example where the problem isn't that this work is listed, the problem is the fact that the article is pathetic (just a lede and a massive unsourced list). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like this is being handled so I didn't dig too deep. I do a lot of maintenance and have a disdain for severely under-sourced (multiple entire sections with one source each), unsourced, and a small amount (dictionary style) lead, with a massive and sometimes elaborate unsourced list, that bothers me more if a search gives nothing substancial. If the links are not relevant in many of the cases it seems to be promotional and even spamming. I think mass adding a link to many articles a red flag to look closer. If that is the result here, and an editor is making good faith edits to correct it, I would think an ANI turned barnstar in order. A good edit summary is a great idea and I even sometimes add (See talk) with a note on that page. Of course it seem to have turned out that being brought to ANI resulted in some extra help the editor likely did not consider. Good job on the edits, good job on looking into the suspicion of mass removals, and great job for all the help in removing clutter. I was just wondering though, if a "first step" should not have been to initiate a discussion with the removing editor? Otr500 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

BlameRuiner

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

Zero response to the message in the User talk [360] about canceling an edit. At the same time, the user continues to perform their activities in Wikipedia. - 93.191.77.248 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Please read the prominent instructions at the top of this page, particularly: This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Also prominent in those instructions: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat from IP spamming his self-promotional books

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

---

An IP [361] who has self-identified as self-published author Karl Coyne [362] has been spamming his own books on the Vince Gironda article in the "further reading" section. The problem is that he is trying to promote his own books which are self-published, and he is trying to add 5 of them which is spam. All his books are either self-published by Lulu.com or himself [363] (Publisher: Karl Coyne) etc. His has threatened possible legal action on his talk-page [364]. I don't see how it is "defamation" to remove his self-publoshed books from Wikipedia. Any idea what to do here? Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A block per WP:NLT is what we do first; that's been done. Also I see that they don't understand the difference between WP:SPS and "further reading", and also seem to think that lots of reviews equal reliability... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this, I believe the issue has been resolved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Rudeness towards me and vandalism against the 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.

---

Addictedtohistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He called my article a fantasy, despite the fact that any source and article in the article did not go beyond the rules of Wikipedia. This: Everything from links to images and content is a fiction. Please investigate the purpose of this user and take the necessary action There: [365] Altun Ahmedov (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Altun Ahmedov! I went thru the link and found it to be a discussion of the article rather than of you. Have I missed something? Vikram Vincent 09:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my notice so quickly. For this user, this article is a complete fantasy. I wrote to him that the article would be corrected soon (and I corrected it in part later) and he called the pictures and links in this article so imaginary. That user called me an anti-Armenian provocateur. I politely told him that we did not have such a goal. Maybe I don't understand right? Altun Ahmedov (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Altun Ahmedov I could not locate the phrase "anti-Armenian provocateur". Could you provide the diff please. The other comments are related to the article rather than a reflection of you. Vikram Vincent 11:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Would this article fall under WP:AA2 discretionary sanctions as a "related ethnic conflict, broadly interpreted." If so, perhaps all parties should be notified, in case things get out of hand? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. The article is as stated a fictional revision of Khachkar. There is not a single example of so called Albanian crosses. It uses unrelated khachkar images (click the images in article to read the description), trying to relate images of 13 and 16 century cross stones to Caucasian Albania that ceased to exist in 8th century. It introduces alternative links to existing wiki articles, i.e. Dadivank monastery vs Khudavang monastery complex, Gandzasar Monastery vs Ganjasar Monastery, Armenian Principality of Khachen vs Albanian Principality of Khachen. Khachkars are unesco inscribed armenian cultural heritage, see [[366]]. The article is nominated for deletion [[367]]. --Addictedtohistory (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• We may not make it to DS, BMK. @Altun Ahmedov: Please provide diffs for your statements regarding Addictedtohistory's behavior. You've been blocked previously for personal attacks and if you cannot substantiate your contentions here more sanctions will follow. Tiderolls 14:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) @Altun Ahmedov: Please also notify Addictedtohistory on their talk page about this report as is required by policy posted at the top of this page and when you were submitting this report. You may use {{ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 17:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominating an article for deletion and stating a reason is personal attack? On contrary, such baseless accusations might be considered as s personal attack. Stick to the facts Addictedtohistory (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Abushal spreading virus misinformation

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.

---

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

They are extremely obviously WP:NOTHERE. All their edits over their 8-year existence on this project–and I mean literally all of them as of this writing–are only to spread misinformation about viruses and/or to promote a website or YouTube video for that cause. They should be blocked immediately because of the extent of this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Blocked. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Please disable talk page access

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.

---

• 163.116.133.116 (talk · contribs)

Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• • Thank you, Drmies. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content to WP:BLPs

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

---

• Williamgregory213 (talk · contribs).

No response at user talk page. The recent thing is to drop in membership to Phi Beta Kappa among career achievements, but this is a long-term concern, with no indication that the user understands or intends to follow guidelines. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Durifon keeps blanking my User pages

Since 12 December, Durifon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blanked 7 times my personal pages without asking, even my Sandbox!

See Special:Contributions/Durifon.

Pure harassment.

I asked him to stop on User_talk:Durifon on 15 December but he answered he would continue, arguing that my pages were accounts settling with Wikipedia FR I was not allowed to keep.

I disagree. My two archived pages are mostly “comments on Wikipedia matters”, in the light of my 12 years history on Wikipedia, perfectly fit regarding the rules about personal pages WP:UP.

Can my archives be protected from vandalism? Can User:Durifon be disabled to vandalize my personal pages?

--Cvrx (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am mainly a WP:FR user.

I saw on a comment on the FranceSoir website [368] (against Wikipédia) that Cvrx, a long time banned WP:FR user, was using his WP:EN pages to attack WP:FR.

I believe that it is not what those user pages are for.

Talk pages are made for talking, not for this [369] (absolutely not a talk page, just a very very long monologue....).

User page is to present itself and what you want to do in the Wikipedia project, not for this [370]

I believe those pages are against WP:POLEMIC: "laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately"

Obviously, is the WP:EN community believes otherwise, I won't touch those pages again.

I, however, think that Cvrx should be blocked on WP:EN, because he doesn't contribute to this project, and has only modified his userpages since 2017... Obviously, he isn't here to contribute, but to cry because he was ban from WP:FR... Durifon (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Durifon: That does not explain your deleting their user talk archives. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Durifon: Mind explaining THIS. Looks to me like you've come to harass Cvrx. I will block you from their user space pending the outcome of this discussion. As always, any admin can reverse or modify as needed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

HAving said that, @Cvrx: @Durifon: is correct about the content removed from your user page. However, the thing to do would have been to civilly ask on their talk page and then bring it here or to WP:MFD. I don't know what they do on the French Wikipedia, but your behavior in this natter has not been acceptable. I will refrain from partial blocking you unless you persist. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I admit that I may have been to fast to act. I will obviously refrain for modifying again those pages, and let admins decide what must be done. For the talk page archive, it was not really an "archive" of his talkpage, but mainly an attack against WP:FR users [371]: See the title "Azurfrog et ses soutiens violent en toute impunité chacun des cinq principes fondateurs de Wikipedia"... I saw that there was some talk, but is was really a small part of this so-called "archive". Durifon (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps too late. ANI threads can take on a life of their own. Cvrx, Durifon has a point. Have you made any constructive edits to the English Wikipedia since 2018? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Since my painful ban from fr.wikipedia on 20 June 2017, I contributed a mere 8 time on articles, among which Lilianne Ploumen and Order of St. Gregory the Great, in January 2018. This is very little, I admit…

Please note that out of goodwill, I archived everything of my User pages. I propose that we leave it this way and move on. --Cvrx (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Durifon, Except in cases such BLP vios, copyvios, individuals should almost always refrain from editing/deleting someone elses comments. If a user specifically asks someone to refrain from alterting their page, this needs to be respected and any issues should be brought to WP:ANI, WP:CSD or WP:MfD.

Cvrx and Durifon, It's a very poor choice to continue disputes from one wiki to another. If you are here to contribute to en wikipedia, do so. If you are here to continue a dispute from FR, then you are WP:NOTHERE to build en wikipedia. En wikipedia has enough conflict/disputes without importing more from other wikis. Unless you can get along well enough to build en together, you should both decide to stay away from each other. If this continues it will not end happily for either editor.

Cvrx archiving the content in question is a step in the right direction. Thanks :)

Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  15:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Noname JR

• Bouïra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Noname JR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Noname JR keeps adding unsourced and (when challenged) badly sourced content to the article, while also deleting easily attributable content[372] (to make a point). When asked to explain their edit, they simply ignored my comment on the talk page and violated the 3RR rule in the process. M.Bitton (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I have added tamazight (one of two official languages of Algerie) name with a source, however, there is no source about arab name of bouira.[373]--Noname JR (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you edit warred over original research (for which you have been warned in the past) and removed the Arabic name (easily attributable to thousands of reliable sources) just to make a point. When asked to explain why, you ignored my request and violated the 3rr rule in the process. M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Why did you add a source about the Amazigh language to Moufdi Zakaria's article? Since it clearly does not support the fact that he was a Mozabite (easily sourced), which statement is your source and its questionable title meant to support?

Why did you remove the Arabic transcription from Issad Rebrab's article? M.Bitton (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Note: Please make note of the fact that Noname JR has shown no interest in answering the questions and is is now edit warring on Algeria (using the same modus operandi). M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Why do you remove tamazight language (official language same for Morocco) about Algeria, Issad Rebrab is a kabyle man, so add Tamazight transcription is more important, same for Moufdi Zakaria who has wrote some poems in Mozabite (at this period, speaking an Amazigh language was forbidden)--Noname JR (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

In other words, you are here to set the record straight and right great wrongs (regardless of what RS say). M.Bitton (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• In the best case scenario, I think we have a language issue here. When told that the speakers= parameter in the infobox of Standard Moroccan Berber is for the number of speakers, they edited the article to list the quantity as "Amazigh speaker". [374] —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-Hounding by Eti15TrSf

Eti15TrSf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Back in September, an image was replaced on New York City Subway. Eti15TrSf decided to step in and revert it three months later with accusations of self-promotion, along with "you are not entitled to have your pictures used everywhere". The image replacement in question is subjectively better at first glance. The issue being had here is that instead of going to the talk page to discuss said image, Eti15TrSf persisted in their accusations of bad faith. @GeneralPunger:, can you add your context to this? Cards84664 03:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

How is a single edit supposed to be WP:HOUNDING? Regarding the question of which image is better, that's a question for the talk page. (They seem equivalent to me.) There does seem to be a clear 3RR violation by Eti15TrSf, though, so it is edit-warring (and Cards84664 is arguably also edit-warring). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute which another editor has now split the baby with and added both images to the article, which may be a good solution, not hounding. However as noted Eti15TrSf has roared past WP:3RR and accordingly is now blocked. I'll note this is not the first time they have been blocked for editwarring. Cards84644, you are at 3RR, do not further revert. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

My angle as requested by Cards84644: As The Bushranger said, this is only one example of the edit warring ways of Eti15TrSf. Let me start from the beginning. Back in August, I replaced the R160 Z train picture on the J/Z page (currently, the old image is displayed). I did so because I found it better than the old one, which was blurry and was also compositionally similar to the R179 J train picture directly above. Mine was a different angle, better quality/resolution, and I felt it spiced the page up a bit by being underground. A few days later, Eti15TrSf reverted my edit saying the new one "wasn't any better." I poked fun and undid his revision. Ever since then, he's been reverting and edit warring many of my picture-related edits, accusing me of "promoting myself" and "treating Wikipedia as my personal album," which I found a bit hypocritical since he seems to edit war with anyone who disagrees with him about what makes a 'good photo' (his personal collection, as I'd describe it). He reverted my pictures for the L and the R143 also, edit warring me there as well (both also currently display the old image). He also accused me of personal attacks (which he promptly withdrew). I attempted to reason, basically saying that I was only doing it because, based on many factors, I (as well as some others) found my pictures to be better than the ones already there, as well as suggesting bringing it to the talk page, but all he'd do was ignore my words, revert, and basically say "it's not good and doesn't show the whole train" (for instance here). Now, not only do I find that an arbitrary and inadequate criterion, I also found (despite him coming to my talk page to "school" me on what makes a good picture, which he also didn't follow up on) he didn't follow it himself, for instance when he replaced the picture on the R46 page (which I hadn't touched, I should note) with my R46 W train image, or when he replaced in this most recent skirmish on the New York City Subway page my R46 W image with one that "didn't show the whole train." Thus, I've come to the conclusion that he for whatever reason has a grudge against me (perhaps because of my joke comment back in August) and wants my pictures in as few places as possible on Wikipedia. Sorry for the delay. GeneralPunger (talk) 04:23 (Edited 1:34), 15 December 2020 (UTC)

We need more evidence for a pattern but Eti15TrSf very clearly targeted GeneralPunger's image here based on an unsupported claim of "self-promotion" (how, exactly?). I don't know that you can call it a content dispute; GeneralPunger's image is clearly better than the one it replaced (in terms of exposure and color). It's not remotely a close call, and no else agreed with the edit. Eti15TrSf themselves knew it was a good image because they added it to R46 (New York City Subway car) in July. Fundamentally this is a user conduct issue because Eti15TrSf is targeting GeneralPunger, and he should probably stop doing that. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added some links to revisions as evidence in my text above. GeneralPunger (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

One way interaction ban requested

I wish to request a one-way interaction of GiantSnowman-DrKay. I have repeatedly asked him not to reply to, comment on or mention me on wikipedia,[375] but he just won't stop. I don't know why he's so keen on this one-man campaign but as he refuses to desist (e.g. replying and pinging immediately after being asked not to) I think a formal sanction is required. DrKay (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You posted on my talk page (out of the blue) and then have immediately taken me to ANI when I replied? Your stance and comments are entirely unsubstantiated. Where are your diffs? Where is the evidence that I "won't stop"? We disagree on interpretation of naming conventions for footballers, another editor simply raised the same concerns I have raised about your interpretation, you responded by accusing them of harassment, I replied to say it was not harassment. That was the first interaction we have had for a month. GiantSnowman 21:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Diffs are in the opening comment. The fact that you are continuing a feud a month later demonstrates that you are a long-term grudge-holder. The only question I cannot answer is what caused the original grudge. I have repeatedly demonstrated support for disambiguation by birth year when required or opposition to nationality where fluid[376][377][378][379][380]. Both you and the other editor are aggressively misrepresenting my opinion. DrKay (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no feud! GiantSnowman 21:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Then, please leave me alone. Do not reply to me. Do not comment on me. Do not ping me. Do not mention me. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@DrKay: I think many here may know I'm fiercely critical of those who intentionally ignore requests to stop pinging or to stay away from an an editors talk page but I'm having trouble seeing anything here close to worth of ANI. Okay I'll give it was completely stupid for GiantSnowman to ping you in their reply saying they would respect the parts of your request that were reasonable. But hopefully that was a one time thing. If GiantSnowman kept at it after that one time, then yes maybe there would be something to deal with here but you've presented no evidence of that. Note that while you can ask someone to stop posting on your talk page and to stop pinging you, you cannot ask someone to stop replying to your comments elsewhere without pinging. Likewise while someone shouldn't bring you up unnecessarily, if it's relevant to the discussion e.g. if referring to your comments in a reply, then it would be reasonable to mention you. Nil Einne (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Currently, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) states that nationality should be used before birth year. This was changed from preferring birth year without discussion or comment in November 2019 by KingSkyLord (talk · contribs) [381]. I suspect it may have been inadvertent, as that user immediately thereafter moved Chris Turner (footballer, born 1959) and Adrián González (footballer, born 1988) to birth-year disambiguations. As the "feud" appears to simply be that both people are accusing the other of lying about what the naming conventions are, resolving what the naming conventions are seems key to determining what action is needed here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: - it wasn't really changed - the 1 to 3 list there is not order of preference, it is just a list of options. GiantSnowman 22:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not dispute the naming conventions nor do I accuse GiantSnowman of lying about it. The convention is not to use nationality before year of birth. It is use whichever disambiguator out of nationality, year of birth and position in the case of goalkeepers is the most conclusive. It is very often the year of birth. DrKay (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. So what's the problem, other than we have occasionally disagreed in discussions where you prefer nationality and I prefer year of birth? GiantSnowman 22:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Should we reverse the IBAN as a boomerang? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I think this is all unnecessary, from all perspectives. I have no issue with DrKay and would not support any form of sanction against them. We can just drop the drama. GiantSnowman 22:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

My view is drop the drama and have an RFC about whether to use nationality or year of birth as primary disambiguator. This was what I suggested in the diff of mine linked here. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: I tried raising an admin problem on User talk:DrKay concerning IP disruption[382] and the possible need for an SPI report, hoping that DrKay would give help.[383] DrKay had made edits to Grand Duke Alexei Alexandrovich of Russia but ignored obvious repeated IP disruption there. He has not so far not made any attempt to respond on his talk page, so I am responding here. I have read his report here, which seems OTT and unhelpful. Could an administrator advise on whether the relevant IP ranges should be blocked (IPs from the Melbourn area an Zurich in talk:Frédéric Chopin); an SPI report does not seem to be particularly useful, since only one registered editor is concerned. Mathsci (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  Extremely unhelpful post. DrKay has asked GiantSnowman to leave them alone. No matter if this is warranted or not, the worst thing you could do is then take some unrelated issue you have with DrKay, and specifically ask GiantSnowman to look at it. As you did this in this very thread, you were clearly aware of this background. No idea why you are trying to stir things up here, but it doesn't look good. Fram (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

BigBoy75 Disruptive editing

• BigBoy75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user systematically and over a long period of time makes edits with violations of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV in the article East StratCom Task Force. I also have every reason to believe that when editing an article, this editor promotes his own point of view. He adds only critical information and removing orpositive from the article; violates WP:RSUW. All of his Wikipedia activity is tied exclusively to this article, which makes it easy to track his actions. He constantly marks his edits as minor when they are not, especially edits that might raise questions from other editors. For example, there is a consensus on the article's talk page, that one section of the article has neutrality issue (because of the text he added) and instead of fixing it he just removed the template and marked it as a minor edit. He constantly adds unreliable propagandistic sources like RT (TV Network) (RT America) and Sputnik (news agency). And constantly reverts edits that fix issues in the article in Criticism section.
Revert of revert, considering the fact that the source used the exact wording - diff
Revert of constructive removal - diff
Reverted the same material (it contained OR) again - diff
Added OR, violates WP:V (Berlingske says nothing about StratCom producing the document, but he still adding that and claims it was StratCom) - diff
Reverted OR material again - diff
Added unreliable source - diff
Added the exact same source to make it look like its different - diff
Reverted again with no explanation. And previous removal was absolutely justified - diff
Added copy paste from a single unreliable source ReframingRussia.com - diff
Added sources that do not supports the text and some of them even unreliable (Channel One Russia, Sputnik (news agency)) - diff
Again copy paste from that ReframingRussia.com source - diff
"Minor" template removal and unreliable source addition to push his POV - diff
Some of his destructive edits are hard to show here, because they include minor citation manipulations, OR wording and so on. I see no useful activity from actions. I just wasted hours to verify text to source integrity and remove his OR. Also I noticed that he uses blogger Jesper Larsen's opinion all of the time, gives different attribution to his words, so it misleads people and at first I thought it was the opinions of different people. And he also adds self published sources of Larsen where this blogger calls himself in the third person and calling himself investigative journalist and researcher. And then this editor uses the same characteristic in the article.--Renat (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• I looked at a half a dozen diffs and I don't see why you want us to step into action. A bunch of them are disagreements about content. If something is an unreliable source, as in this edit, why wasn't that brought up on the talk page, or on the user's talk page--which is completely empty? The instructions on the top of this page are clear: ANI is the last resort, not the first. Did you ever take this up with the editor? And that edit with the unreliable source--that was from January. I don't see what you want us to do if the examples are so "subtle" you can't give diffs of them; the diffs I have looked at show no disruption that admins need to act on. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • But this edit, accusing you of copyright violations is at least strange. The Banner talk 13:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Talk:East StratCom Task Force is filled with heated discussions between BigBoy75 and other users, including the OP, regarding the issues raised here. At first glance, the OP has a point regarding some of their complaints about POV pushing and the use of unreliable sources. I know that admins almost always prefer to avoid enforcement actions in these types of disputes unless somebody starts cursing or edit warring. But I think that in this case at the very least the page should be tagged as subject to the discretionary sanctions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe case. Then, if the problems there continue, a report could be filed at WP:AE where remedies such as a topic ban or a page block can be requested. Nsk92 (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Nsk92, that article, I hadn't really read it and it was pretty bad; it's only now, after I made some minor copy edits to the lead, that I see what it is about. I agree with you and just put the note on the talk page. I guess I should notify every active editor too: BigBoy75, RenatUK, PaleoNeonate, these notes are pro forma. I do not know, Nsk, if AE/DS are really the best solution here, with a localized problem in one article, where the disruptor is essentially an SPA. Because yes, I think I see BigBoy as the disruptor, in part because I do not think they are fully aware of Wikipedia's guidelines. RenatUK is wrong in not having sought other avenues of communication, but seems to have a better grasp of content and guidelines. PaleoNeonate is, I think, functioning as a kind of mediator, explaining policy and finding ways forward, which I appreciate.

      The Banner, I'm not sure I understand your comment, but I have just responded to BigBoy's comment: it certainly was a copyright violation. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Potential copyright issues in articles created by a fringe conversion therapist sock

At perhaps our most backlogged area, Contributor copyright investigations, I noticed a familiar name, Freeknowledgecreator (formerly FreeKnowledgeCreator), who was listed for persistent copyright issues that I believe the user never addressed or showed signs of changing from. The name was familiar as someone who I interacted with at Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, where they were attempting to get a fringe-pushing article on conversion therapy through GA. The user was blocked for sockpuppetry, a real long-term abuse case documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal/Archive. The user has a positive view of conversion therapy, a Christian evangelical view that homosexuality is a choice and an incredibly specific and intense hatred of Frederick Crews. They create articles on books with names like Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life?, Homosexual Behaviour: Therapy and Assessment, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Homosexuality: An Annotated Bibliography. Almost none of these articles have significant contributions by other users, based on spotchecks I've done.

Due to the user's extensive copyright violation issues, we now have a choice to either assess these articles in excruciating detail for copyright issues, POV issues, FRINGE sources and claims etc. or to mass delete them. I'm unsure why this problem has gone unaddressed for a couple of months since the sock was blocked. I attempted to CSD five such articles (checking none had any non-trivial contributions by other users) but was reverted by Genericusername57, doubtless for a sensible reason, but as the user has not been active for a week, I'm treating this as a sign that the CSDs are not uncontroversial and we need further input. I assume we can establish consensus here to speedily delete all articles and redirects created by Freeknowledgecreator under G5, as the person behind the account was blocked before the account was created. I believe that is 369 pages in total, mostly (around 300?) redirects, but if someone could work out the exact figure that would be good. I'm coming here rather than doing a bulk AfD because this is more a sock/behavioural issue than a content one. — Bilorv (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support mass speedy deletion of FKC creations as described in proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support either this or presumptive deletions per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The latter will see about 15 articles blanked as Wikipedia:Copyright problems and deleted after a week if a rewrite is not offered. MER-C 20:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, Thanks for your efforts at CCI! I could carry this out over the next few days; as someone who worked on the CCI there are a good deal of violations that mostly consist of 1 or two sentences from every one of the sources cited; given that the sources are academic journals and books and the larger articles have 15+ citations, figuring out what comes from where is kind of a waste. Note that FKC claimed to have cleaned the violations up on a few different articles and got an admin to revdel after editing some articles to "remove the violations", (User talk:Swarm/Archive 16#Thanks, and a request) yet I still found one left over at Natural Law and Natural Rights. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 22:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, Moneytrees, even without the copyvio issues I think we should still be uncomfortable with these unchecked G5 evasions with potential FRINGE / extremist POV issues. There aren't many articles which have received non-trivial scrutiny and one such is Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, which there was consensus to redirect. — Bilorv (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support deletion of most but not all. Freeknowledgecreator was indeed a POV pusher for views about sexual orientation being learned and I've argued with him multiple times. That said, I've worked on both Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why and Sambia Sexual Culture to make them balanced. They are good now. I wasn't previously aware of the article One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, but it actually looks good and I have watchlisted it. These three, at least, should be exempted. Others, especially about books that are old (with outdated reviews) and/or by conversion therapists, should be deleted. Giving such length and isolation to fringe and outdated views violates NPOV. Possibly if any other articles are about books that are not very old and by mainstream experts, they could be stubbed instead of deleted, but that's just an idea. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment, Crossroads. I'd be happy if we exempted those two articles you've worked on (and I think they'd actually be exempt from the scope of G5 anyway) and though I'm not convinced about keeping any of the articles that only FKC worked on as a matter of principle, I'd definitely agree to keep that and any others that people can independently assess as acceptable in the view of getting this matter dealt with by and large. — Bilorv (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

:Comment: I'd be willing to do a review of their created articles, but they don't seem to have any contributions, or even be registered on this wiki. What's going on there? jp×g 13:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Figured it out, the name is all lowercase, the link from the CCI page is just misspelled. It looks like they've only made 369 articles total (and that number includes pagemoves + redirects). It wouldn't take me that long to run them all through a copyvio search. Would be happy to do that instead of just nuking them all pre-emptively. jp×g 13:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Not mispelled—the user later changed their username (diff). Copyvio is not the only potential issue. — Bilorv (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

JPxG, the sources this user copied from can’t be scanned by earwig. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 18:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I listed the first batch of articles at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2020 December 16 for deletion on the 24th. The CCI needs to be updated with the sock contribs. MER-C 19:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)