Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055

Two problematic accounts with identical behavior

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

---

• BillyGene100 (talk · contribs)
• OscarrrrMmm (talk · contribs)

I came across edits by BillyGene this afternoon, and found an inclination toward copyright violation and using non reliable sources (other Wikipedia articles, fansites). Then I noticed an overlap with Oscar; same pattern of edit summaries, same long term issues with editing, as can be seen at the talk pages. I don't know whether a second account was developed for innocent purposes or evasively, but after many months, both indicate an unwillingness to follow some basic guidelines. At best, this looks like WP:CIR, compounded by stubbornness. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

These accounts are  Confirmed to one another. Indefinitely blocking and tagging both accounts... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah. Happy new year, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You bet, and a happy new year to you as well, Bob! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruption from Japan IP range – British films listed as American

The following discussion is closed. 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 IP range Special:Contributions/240F:66:E6E3:1:0:0:0:0/64 from the outskirts of Tokyo has been causing problems in film articles by identifying far too many films as being American made. For instance, the film The Third Man was listed by this person as coming from the American production company Vanguard,[1] with a reference to AFI, but AFI says the film was made solely by London Films in the UK.[2] I was first alerted to this IP range after seeing a bunch of James Bond films marked as American. The problematic editing behavior has been going on for 14 months under this range, starting with this edit. Can we do something about this person? Binksternet (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet - I've blocked the /64 IPv6 range for one week. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by 2601:247:4203:9F10:6077:A89C:317:8883

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

---

• 2601:247:4203:9F10:6077:A89C:317:8883 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This IP editor keeps re-adding a certain record producer to the list of notable people at Peoria, Illinois. This Donald Smith does not have a Wikipedia page and the editor refuses to provide a reliable source establishing notability, but instead keeps insisting that the person's entry on Discogs suffices, even after having been explained why it doesn't.

• Started doing this from this specific IP in October 2019 (with this edit), then again in February (this edit), but did not receive any warnings yet and Donald Smith eventually remained in the Peoria article for a while.
• Then started in June 2020 to add unsourced material to The Who discography, edit warring to keep the material in while refusing to provide sources (for example, here and here, also using this IP). Gave up on this after receiving multiple warnings from User:Hzh.
• In July 2020, Donald Smith was removed from Peoria and the editor started re-adding it again, with edit summaries such as "you need to look it up or quit posting here!". Was then warned and informed about conflicts of interest by User:Closeapple, but no further action was taken and Donald Smith again remained in the article for a while.
• Later removed citation needed and disambiguation needed tags (the latter because they keep adding a link to the disambiguation page Donald Smith) with this edit.
• Then in December, I came across the Peoria article and removed Donald Smith. This was reverted by the IP editor, and after I reverted that edit, the editor posted on my talk page, saying "I don't think you know enough about Peoria IL or the people to be making changes." I explained WP:N, WP:RS and why Discogs does not suffice. After the editor re-added the material and responded that "Lists from Discogs are industry standard" (also including the personal attack "I understand you are trying to earn stars and praise"), I took care to explain why Discogs is not an RS, linking to Discog's entry in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The response was a rant including more ad hominems ("Are you an American? Would you know anything of which you are editing?") and disregard for the policies I had been citing, further exemplified by this edit summary saying "YES IT IS" in response to "Discogs is not a reliable source". I warned them a final time yesterday, only to find this edit today.

At this point I think it is safe to say that this editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and this disruptive editing will not stop unless action is taken. Lennart97 (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Done I have blocked 2601:247:4203:9F10:0:0:0:0/64 from the article and its talkpage, indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite - I'd consider lowering this from indefinite to maybe 5 years or another definitive time. IPs can change hands, and we should avoid indefinitely blocking IPs at all - even with partial blocks. Can we consider lowering this? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah, Am I reading correctly that this is a range block? If so, the time should be much shorter. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick - Yes, it's a block on the IPv6 /64 range. This block shouldn't be indefinite. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite - I've lowered the partial block duration from indefinite to three years. With IP blocks, they should expire at some point in time due to IP addresses usually being dynamic and changing hands over time. If you object to this, please let me know as soon as possible and we can discuss it. I didn't see that you were online, so I wanted to change it so that this wasn't forgotten about and expired into the archives. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Nah, no problem. I don't know why I didn't make it 3 years in the first place, as I never block IPs indefinitely usually. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Long term vandalism at Fantasmic!, Tom and Jerry and multiple disruptive accounts

• Fantasmic! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tom and Jerry and the Wizard of Oz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Tom and Jerry feature films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MjImax (talk · contribs)
• 108.34.186.165 (talk · contribs)
• 100.40.51.246 (talk · contribs)
• 100.40.20.198 (talk · contribs)

Persistent addition of unsourced content and/or vandalism from Westerly. My experience is that disruption is so endemic to Disney and toon articles that this may just scratch the surface. My concerns are two-fold; the first is cleaning out the articles, particularly the Fantasmic, which is laden with unsourced content and trivia; we don't know what's fact and what's fiction, with cast names being changed seemingly every edit. I'm happy to get started, but know that an IP engaged in mass deletion sends up red flags for some. The second order of business involves appropriate sanctions for the vandals. One account accrues a few warnings, and moves to another. I don't know if range blocks are practical. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, and locking the damn thing after the dross is removed. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please restore a deleted draft

The following discussion is closed. 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 restore Draft:Scarlet Sofia Spencer, I would like to Improve it. Thanks --154.158.130.94 (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Requests like this are better handled at WP:REFUND. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Tenebrae

The following discussion is closed. 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:Amanda Kloots (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tenebrae's activities toward editors that disagree with them in an RFC Talk:Amanda Kloots#RFC about including sons name and their usertalkpage have been downright WP:BATTLEGROUND. They apparently filed a retaliatory SPI against two of the editors[3] and continue to make comments and condescending strawman conjectures about editors who assert BLPNAME [4][5][6][7][8] after being asked not to.[9][10] The most bizarre strawman was the unsolicited mention of Trump and his supporters [11][12] as some sort of perjorative attack. I am actually a Justin Trudeau supporter. :) Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

e/c:

Retaliatory action by an editor who posted deliberately provocative and inciting claims such as that NBC News' Today show could not be used as reliable source since it — and the venerable theater magazine Playbill — were "pop-culture sources" and could not be cited for a WP:BLP. This editor also claimed an opinion essay was a policy/guideline that had to be followed. This editor has been uncivil and baiting, such as an edit summary that read simply, "Yawn." And now this — a last resort after none of his arguments have withstood logic and such reality as, literally, a textbook definition that he refuted because ... well, just because, apparently. I could tell you more.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Your continuing to mischaracterise my BLPNAME argument[13] just show that you just refuse to WP:LISTEN despite another editor making a very similar argument earlier.[14] You've been at this for at least 6 years and were even blocked over edit warring over the insertion of children's names into celebrity articles without gaining consensus[15][16] showing that you still don't understand WP:ONUS to this day.[17] Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup. IP named in Tenebrae's evidence-free SPI here (under a different IP - my ISP changes it frequently for no good reason). I recommend everyone to take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KyleJoan, and see just how silly it got. And note that this was the second SPI my IP had been raised in as supposedly connected to KyleJoan - Tenebrae knew even before he/she started it that there was no prospect of it going anywhere. It appears that simply disagreeing with Tenebrae is seen as sufficient grounds to make socking accusations. And that anything whatever done after that is further 'proof'. Editing occasionally as an IP these days (used to have an account - lost my password) I have come to expect the occasional accusation of socking if I show any signs of understanding Wikipedia policy etc, but this was beyond the pale. Anyone who thinks that e.g. starting editing within two years of another editor (a decade ago), and disagreeing with the person you are supposed to be a sock of [18] is valid 'evidence' for a SPI should probably be topic-banned from filing SPIs entirely. A total waste of time better put to use elsewhere. I was inclined to leave the whole thing behind me, but having seen how Tenebrae has continued their badgering on the Kloots talk page, I can fully understand why Morbidthoughts has called for something to be done. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This anon IP is telling blatant untruths. Plenty of evidence was presented in the SPI. The entire reason it's called "evidence" and not "proof" is that we don't know but have reasonable suspicion of sock activity. And as this anon IP itself notes, another editor had the same suspicion of this IP being a sock. (And to address this IP's italicized remark, in my 15 years here I have personally seen socks pretend to argue with themselves on talk pages as a way to try to throw off investigators.)

I will also say this anon IP and its predecessor have a record anyone can see of being hostile and aggressive, and is taking this opportunity to air unrelated grievances as payback for the SPI. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted that the editor responsible for the previous SPI involving my (then) IP has been blocked - for socking. As for hostility and aggression, see Talk:Amanda Kloots, and see for yourself where the aggression was coming from. And as for 'unrelated grievances', I haven't a clue what Tenebrae is referring too. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've presented my views about Tenebrae's conduct in an ANI report not too long ago, which you can read in full here. It should also be noted that in said report, an administrator asked both Tenebrae and me to stop making contentious edits at Amanda Kloots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'd call this edit contentious. KyleJoan^talk 03:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan filed false and malicious 3RR and SPI accusations against me that admins summarily threw out within hours: [19] and [20]. This is all tit-for-tat abuse of the reporting system.

And ohmigod, I've just looked at what KyleJoan calls a "contentious" edit ... and it's this absolutely straightforward and factual actor's credit: "...and was billed as Amanda-Kloots Larsen for the Broadway productions Follies (2011-2012) and Bullets Over Broadway (2014)." KyleJoan's claim is as bad-faith as anyone can ever get.

For perspective on User:Morbidthoughts, read his or her extended rant on my talk page falsely insisting The Broadway League — the producers organization that administers the Tony Awards and in that capacity maintains the official credits for all Broadway shows in its database — is not RS for Broadway credits. That is the kind of bizarre and deliberately argumentative mindset at work here.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

So, it's all "tit-for-tat abuse of the reporting system" unless Tenebrae does it? Fascinating... 109.158.199.97 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The malicious filings by KyleJoan, whom I believe you know, were each thrown out summarily within hours. See links in my post above. Whereas the SPI against you that MorbidThoughts falsely calls "retaliatory" was not; it warranted and received investigation.

MorbidThoughts' arguments at Talk:Amanda Kloots and on my talk page were so easily refuted that MorbidThought resorted to arguing that NBC News' Today and the venerable theater magazine Playbill were not RS for biographical information, and that The Broadway League was not RS for Broadway credits. I countered those claims, and with no coherent argument in response, MorbidThoughts comes here, apparently because someone countering his or her claims is "battling." This filing is unwarranted and, I believe, a waste of admins' time.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the false and malicious 3RR, Nil Einne wrote that calling it "false" seems a bit of a stretch; regarding the SPI against [109.158.199.97] that MorbidThoughts falsely calls "retaliatory", the closing administrator also called it retaliatory here. KyleJoan^talk 14:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I only 'know' KyleJoan to the extent that I've disagreed with them on Talk:Amanda Kloots. And the 'evidence' you submitted for the SPI amounted to nothing more than a claim that I must be a sock because I disagreed with you. It should have been self-evident to anyone who has been around Wikipedia as long as you have that it was going to convince nobody. You seem utterly incapable of seeing honest disagreement as anything but evidence for some sort of conspiracy against you. And while clearly you weren't the only one causing problems on that talk page (see e.g. the sock who got banned for filing the earlier SPI), your continued refusal to let the RfC take its course without engaging in endless argumentation, together with your repeated claims that being a journalist makes you an expert with the last say, is the prime reason that the Kloots biography has remained the poorly-written fluff it is. It would probably be better for the reputation of Wikipedia if the whole thing was scrubbed, everyone involved told to go away and do something useful, and new volunteers who understood how to read sources and then create an appropriate encyclopaedic entry per Wikipedia guidelines were to start from scratch. Wikipedia doesn't deserve this nonsense. Kloots doesn't deserve this nonsense. The readers don't deserve this nonsense. Not over a minor 'celebrity' that a year ago nobody had heard of. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

RE:"SPI amounted to nothing more than a claim that I must be a sock because I disagreed with you": I've hesitated to use the word, but you are now lying in the face of evidence that anyone can see for themselves here, including a lengthy list of time-stamps, two points below them, and two additional points added later. I invite anyone reading this to see for themselves that this IP is being blatantly untruthful.

This IP as well, here and on the contested page, continues to make remarkable and yet contradictory claims: Amanda Kloots is a cohost of CBS' major daytime talk show The Talk, and so clearly notable and not "a minor 'celebrity'" below this IP's standards for an encyclopedia. Yet the same IP wants to whitewash the article to not include the pertinent biographical fact of Kloots' child's name, which Kloots and her late husband released to the media and of whom Kloots has written frequently, with coverage by major programs like NBC's Today. Someone with so muddy a grasp on biographical writing should not be lecturing anyone.

In any case, tomorrow is Christmas. I don't know about anyone else, but I have family. May I suggest we take a respite until after Christmas?--Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Your "lengthy list of timestamps" proved precisely nothing beyond the fact that I had been editing on the same day as KyleJoan, and your remaining 'points' amount again to nothing beyond further indications that you cannot respond to people disagreeing with you without seeing some sort of ridiculous conspiracy.

And if you really wanted to 'take a respite', you always had the option of not responding here yourself. But no, here as on the Kloots' talk page, you have to have the last word. Complete with personal attacks you seem not to want replied to. That isn't going to happen. Call me a liar and I'll respond as an when I like.

I'll wish everyone else here a Merry Christmas and/or other seasonal greetings as appropriate. And restate, as I already have, that ample evidence for Tenebrae's battleground behaviour can be found on the article talk page, and at the rejected SPI. And for that matter, here on WP:ANI. If anyone is looking for an excuse to hide from relatives, or wants to spoil their Christmas, they are welcome to read it all now. Otherwise, it might be better to do so when the festivities are over. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Well you did lie by saying I presented no objective evidence. And if you're going to be boldfacing your points, well, I guess I should as well , or balance/

I don't believe there are any ANI-level issues here. A couple of editors — one of them an anon-IP, now on his/her second anon IP since the recent SPI, who says they've lost their registered-ID password — are arguing their gut emotions over "right and wrong", and when faced with logic turn belligerent and now "go to the courts." It's no wonder I used a Trump-supporter analogy once — jocularly and tongue-in-cheek. I'd like now to suggest WP:BOOMERANG against the initial complainant for this misuse of Wikipedia resources and all of our and admins' time.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And yet again, you present yourself as sole the arbiter of what constitutes 'objective evidence'. While refusing to acknowledge that there has been absolutely no support whatsoever for your bogus SPI offered offered by anyone, either here or on the SPI itself: a SPI that User:Sro23 closed stating that "These are clearly two different people", and that "Maybe it's time to start handing out sanctions for bad-faith SPI's because I'm about ready to call it quits". [21] Your abject refusal to acknowledge that people can hold good-faith differences of opinion with you, and your subsequent endless attempts to present yourself as the final judge of who is right, who is wrong, and who is conspiring against you, on the basis of such ridiculous claims as a suggestion that beginning editing within two years of another editor - a decade ago - is proof of socking, while accusing others of 'Trump-supporter'-like behaviour is utterly laughable, and beneath contempt.

As for my account, I am clearly going to have to make further attempts to find the password, since the logical follow up, if this isn't settles satisfactorily here, may well involve ArbCom, and may possibly also include other aspects of your questionable editing history. You seem, as a prolific editor, to have some degree of protection here, but counting on that to remain the situation indefinitely would be entirely unwise. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Annnnd here come the threats. I have not asked for for ever even implied I wanted any "protection," as you call it. And I would suggest you look up the dictionary definition of "objective." A plain list timestamps is a series of objective facts. It was nothing to do with agreement or disagreement, but is simply neutral, objective evidence of a pattern showing you and KyleJoan's editing never overlapped. No one know how the admin ultimately will rule, but that doesn't mean we don't present objective, factual evidence.

I'll also note this piece of behavioral evidenceL how you both dig through years of the paper trail of an editor with whom you disagree, in an effort to uncover "dirt" to sling mud at him. I provided factual, objective links to concretely demonstrate that you and KyleJoan both took this unusual tack. Evidence doesn't have to be proof: It only has to be objective, demonstrable fact -- such as timestamps and links.

As the admin below states, "I'm not seeing behaviour here that needs admin intervention, so knock off the point scoring and please follow dispute resolution." I'm happy to follow Fences&Windows advice.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A list of timestamps may well be objective fact. Your suggestion that it constitutes 'objective evidence' for socking is however complete and utter bollocks. Nobody who looks at the so-called evidence presented at the SPI could possibly mistake it for objectivity. And if you really want to follow 'dispute resolution' I suggest you stop calling people liars.

And yes, I've been 'digging'. I didn't need to dig far, given that your block log made it clear that the gratuitous off-topic comments you made at Talk:Amand Kloots regarding the first bogus SPI for my (then) IP came from someone who had personal experience on the matter. It was you who started digging first.

If I was you (thankfully I'm not), I might well consider it wise to consider another alternative to 'dispute resolution', and walk away from the Kloots article entirely. Wikipedia has an article on the First law of holes: it is something of a stub, and could probably be usefully expanded. I'm sure that someone with your experience would be able to do so. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I see. You actually take pride in going back through years of an editor who disagrees with you in order to throw dirt and muddy the waters with attacks that have nothing to do with your own behavior. And you can't have it both ways: Something is either a list of objective facts or it's not. My timestamps showing no overlap between you and KyleJoan is objective evidence. I called it evidence from the start — not "proof." Anyone who present any SPI case can only provide evidence, not proof. That's how it works. One cannot say, "Oh, it wasn't objective because it wasn't proof." The timestamps and the similar dirt-digging behavior of KyleJoan were properly presented evidence.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't take 'going back through years of an editor' who brings up off-topic clearly bogus SPIs in a talk page discussion (contrary to WP:TPG) to look at a block log. A practice I'd freely recommend to anyone facing false socking accusations in such circumstances, given how often those given to making such false socking accusations seem to be caught socking themselves. Not 'proof', of course, but evidence. And furthermore, when someone repeatedly asserts, during what should have been a collaborative attempt to solve a content dispute that their profession - as a journalist - makes them the final arbiter of what an article should contain, it is entirely reasonable to look at what else said editor has been doing, in order to see whether they have actually disclosed who they are, and if they are indeed a journalist. Not that WP:IMAJOURNALISTSOIGETTHEFINALSAY is policy anyway. If you don't want people looking at your editing history, I suggest you try not engaging in behaviour that will actively encourage people to look into it. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

General advice - comment on content, not each other. I'm not seeing behaviour here that needs admin intervention, so knock off the point scoring and please follow dispute resolution: use appropriate noticeboards like WP:BLP/N, get a WP:3O, start an RfC. Fences&Windows 00:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

While I'd agree in general with your suggestion that dispute resolution rather than 'point scoring' would seem advisable, it is worth noting that as far as I'm concerned, the only reason I got involved at all was because I responded to an RfC. 01:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.199.97 (talk)

I have gone ahead and notified BLPN about the RFC per the suggestion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

How many times can an editor continue to make snide comments about other editors before it becomes WP:UNCIVIL and meet the WP:NPA threshold for administrator intervention?

• "An insurance salesperson or plumber or surgeon who doesn't know what The Broadway League is should not be writing about theater."[22]
• "It's about self-appointed censors trying to prove they know better..."[23]
• "For someone with no experience or background but instead a "righting great wrongs crusader mentality..."[24]
• "You hubristically think you know better"[25]
• "...read his or her extended rant on my talk page"[26]
• "Someone with so muddy a grasp on biographical writing should not be lecturing anyone."[27]

How are these ad hominem comments even acceptable in discussion space? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Like Fox News, you take comments out of context. If, instead, you would link to the entire particular post where these comments appear, and where readers here could view ent entire context, then that would be more conscionable and honest. Let's remember, you are the person who claims that The Broadway League — the producers organization that administers the Tony Awards and in that capacity maintains the official credits for all Broadway shows in its database — is not RS for Broadway credits. I urge anyone: Go to the context to see exactly what in Morbid's eccentric claims that I'm responding to with, I think, relative restraint.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The diffs were indeed linked to provide proper context. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, Tenebrae, you do seem to be insistent on continuing to cross a line in your posts here ("Like Fox News") so I am now specifically warning you, as you didn't take the hint to "comment on content, not each other" - outside of formal reports on the appropriate noticeboards, you must stop making ad hominem comments about other contributors, including IP contributors. You need to re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA in full to understand how your comments are breaching policy, because I think you've become too comfortable talking to other editors in this manner. Your arguments do not need to involve discrediting others. Fences&Windows 12:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with that with going both ways. Morbidthoughs, KyleJoan and the IP have all used aggressive, sarcastic, uncivil language toward me from the start, with Morbidthoughts in particular baiting me with nonsensical arguments like "the Today show is pop culture and not a reliable news source" and "The Broadway League is not reliable for Broadway credits." Would that not be fair and equitable?--Tenebrae (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What is not fair or equitable is your attributing quotes that I have never made to draw up a straw man. I challenge you to provide the diffs for those exact quotes. This misattribution is just another example of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure I already linked to your claim that The Broadway League wasn't RS for Broadway credits, here. What else was there? At one point you claimed an opinion essay as policy. Just let me know, and I'm happy to provide links. That said, I'm getting the impressions admins here are, understandably, a little tired of our back-and-forth.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The exact quote is not in that link. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Really. Because I see you saying "no" to it twice: "Naw." (Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2020) ... "Standard legal boilerplate that disclaims any accuracy of their content. I don't see that with newspapers, magazines, academic journals or even the unreliable IMDB, an Amazon company. Naw." (Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2020). Let the record show that I pointed out to you the same standard legal boilerplate at The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and The Television Academy.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You see the verbatim text "The Broadway League is not reliable for Broadway credits" anywhere? You do realise what a WP:QUOTE is, right? I shouldn't have to tell a "professional journalist" this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your denial and deflection is remarkable: The whole discussion was about you removing Kloots-Larsen's credit from Amanda Kloots, and then saying "naw," The Broadway League's Internet Broadway Database was not RS for Broadway credits. I shouldn't have to tell a "presumably literate person" this.

Your harassment of me is never going to end, is it?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just keep WP:GASLIGHTING. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Familiar: Accusing someone else of that which you are doing. Anyone can read the thread on my talk page and see for themselves.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's clear from that talk page, the RFC, the SPI, and this ANI that the differences in opinion over content were so "deliberately provocative and inciting" that they triggered a pattern of your making ad hominem comments and drawing up straw men to argue against. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I leave that to other editors. I think they'll see your comments and edit summaries were unnecessarily rude and dismissive ("Yawn." "Naw."), uncivil, ill-informed and, most of all, deliberately baiting ... as have been some of your comments above in which you tried to deny things you said. Your behavior I find to be textbook harassment, and I implore admins to end this.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Histrionic. "If an awful lot of people seem to be getting frustrated with you, the problem may be with you". (WP:CIVIL) Another recent example: [28]

Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

See below under "A small request": I have gotten along wonderfully well with responsible editors across more than 15 years, 150,000 edits, and all the acknowledgments in my user page's awards section.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

And incidentally, "like Fox News" aside, I think we should address the point of my statement, which is Morbidthoughts cherrypicking quotes out-of=context. Morbidthoughts' behavior, including this ANI, has been unconscionable.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A small request

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

---

If nothing else comes out of this (which seems likely at this point), can we at least get some outside comment, from admins or otherwise, on the appropriateness of Tenebrae making posts like these [29][30], where he/she seems to be suggesting that being employed as a journalist places someone in a position to be able to have the final say regarding article content?

To my mind, there are three problems with this. Firstly, as far as I'm aware there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that states that having expertise in a topic area gives automatic authority over content decisions. To be sure, someone with actual experience in a field directly relevant to a discussion should be better equipped to explain things, and to point to relevant sources to back up what they are saying. The purpose of doing so should however be to convince others, not to assert authority.

Secondly, it should be noted that what Tenebrae appears to be doing is asserting that because the sources being cited are from the mass media, a journalist is in the best position to determine their use. To my mind, that is a dubious proposition when discussing whether a particular source should be used, and to what use it should be put. The mass media don't include every last detail from every valid source in their own publications, and neither, I would suggest, should an encyclopaedia. Instead. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which affect such decisions over inclusion of content, and beyond that there will inevitably be times where contributors collectively arrive at such decisions after considering what they consider appropriate in the encyclopaedia, based on their own best judgement. Judgement of what they consider best for that situation, not for what a hypothetical journalist might have done in another context. Journalists aren't encyclopaedists.

Third and last, it should be noted that as far as I can tell, it isn't actually possible to directly verify whether Tenebrae is a journalist anyway. One could make a guess, from looking at their extensive output and the subject matter covered, but that surely isn't appropriate (and indeed is highly discouraged in as far as trying to identify individuals who chose not to make their identity publicly known). Making claims to expertise that nobody else is in a position to actually verify is surely not something that should be encouraged on article talk pages, if the object is to arrive at collective decisions in a collegial manner. Because that is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Consensus, not because-I-say-so assertions based on unverifiable claims to authority. 109.158.199.97 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Those types of arguments are indeed condescending, but the bigger concern is whether there are any conflicts of interests that Tenebrae may have with the subjects or sources being debated.[31] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel it is not appropriate for Tenebrae to make such claims of authority. I also have concerns about WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior from him, and going by his block log, I'd say it's time to end this. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you're looking for WP:EXPERT. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

First, Morbidthoughts' desperately false and completely non-evidenced claim of conflict of interest is just one more throw-everything-and-see-what-sticks attack. Why the uncivil, harassing behavior that Morbidthoughts has shown here has not resulted in WP:BOOMERANG astounds me.

Second, I've been here more than 15 years, with more 150,000 edits, and have created a couple hundred articles. If WP:BATTLEGROUND were an issue, I'd have been booted long ago. I get along wonderfully well with responsible editors, as evidenced by their acknowledgments here.

Finally, I never said only professional journalists and academic researchers should edit, or that anyone has "final say." But allow me, please, to use this metaphor, which is not to be taken a literally: When the editorial equivalent of an anti-vaxxer insists on making medical claims in Wikipedia that are just not true, but which other editors may believe, then any physician would present evidence to the contrary. And when the anti-vaxxers dug in their heels, any physician would say, "Please, listen, I'm a doctor and what you're claiming is not true." In more than 15 years, I have almost never had to say that, metaphorically. But anyone can see what we're up against when Morbidthoughts claims the Todayshow and Playbill are not RS for BLP because they are "pop-culture sources", and otherwise confidently makes claims about biographical research that are just untrue.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating. In order to counter suggestions of battleground behaviour, Tenebrae resorts to metaphors about 'anti-vaxxers'. In the middle of a global pandemic causing thousands of fatalities. Evidently the 'Trump supporter' stuff wasn't working... (N.B. This is the same person as User:109.158.199.97 and User:165.120.15.66 - my ISP has decided to reset my IP yet again) 109.156.239.119 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

First, you deliberately ignore the fact I said I was using a "metaphor, which is not to be taken a literally". That is highly bad-faith behavior on your part. Secondly, it doesn't surprise me that you would simply attack, rather than address the central content of my post: that among other things, Morbidthoughts claims NBC News' Todayshow and the venerable theater magazine Playbill are not RS for BLP because they are "pop-culture sources". (Note: I'd inadvertently left out the last 10 words from my post above, and have added them, but this point has already been made clear in this conversation. Why don't we discuss that substantive point, rather than your purposefully deflecting nitpicking about a metaphor.)--Tenebrae (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I'm not the slightest bit interested in lectures on 'bad faith behaviour' from someone who can, on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever, make completely off-topic personal remarks about my potential employment prospects. [32] Or do you really think such commentary is somehow appropriate for Wikipedia talk pages?

And yes, obviously your previous comment about anti-vaxxers was a metaphor. That would have been entirely clear even without you telling us that. As a journalist (or someone who claims to be) I would have thought that you should be able to write clearly and concisely, and respond directly to a post without bringing up off-topic metaphors relating to issues which are currently causing distress throughout the world. The metaphor was not only unnecessary (or should be, if you actually have a point to make) but utterly obnoxious. As should be entirely clear to absolutely anyone with an ounce of common sense, journalist or not.

And no, I didn't 'address the central point of your post'. Why the hell should I, since you didn't address mine, except by repeating the behaviour I was complaining about in the first place - personalising battleground behaviour making collegial discussions impossible. I have offered no opinion either way on the debate between the two of you regarding what is or isn't 'pop culture'. Not because I'm not qualified to do so (I'd like to think that in a small way I am, though unlike you, I don't see that as particularly relevant, in a Wikipedia context), but because it wasn't the issue that brought me here, and because WP:ANI isn't a forum for content disputes. What it is for, however, is for discussions over whether contributor's behaviour has been appropriate. So a simple question, do you think that such personal-attack commentary as "By your very own comments, you show you have no training or expertise in biography. If you were applying for a job at a magazine or a biographical reference publisher, the interview would not last five minutes: You are unqualified to write for a professional organization" is actually appropriate for a talk page discussion? Because if you do, I can only suggest that regardless of your (so far unverifiable) qualifications as a journalist, you lack the necessary judgement to be permitted to participate in such discussions at all. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You want COI evidence, Tenebrae? You had been leaving bread crumbs with your random comments. Weren't you blocked for using your IP address, allegedly to avoid scrutiny[33] for editing an article about someone you knew[34][35] and participating in an RFC about her birthname?[36] There's a COI accusation against you in that RFC[[37]] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As for WP:BATTLEGROUND issues with other editors in the last month even:

• [38] - Newimpartial (talk · contribs)
• [39] - Bodney (talk · contribs)
• [40] - Writ Keeper (talk · contribs)
• [41] - 74.67.45.185 (talk · contribs)

There is a pattern here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please. I don't remember if we discussed this earlier in this endless thread, but the admin who ruled on the SPI knew I had done it inadvertently and so gave me only two weeks. I'd started commenting on / editing one article after having forgotten to log in, and then didn't want to comment / edit the same article under a second name (i.e. Tenebrae). One day I forgot to log out and made an edit under Tenebrae.

And my attending a party with Peppermint and taking her photo for her Wikipedia article is COI? As you have continually, you make an unfounded accusation (COI; "avoid scrutiny"), exaggerate and cherrypick out-of-context. None of those editors you listed have come here to complain at this ANI, other than the one with ever-changing IP addresses. Indeed, Newimpartial and I are fine; they in fact voluntarily removed the comment discussed in that "battleground" link. Whereas you came to my talk page and harassed me endlessly about how Today and Playbill were "pop-culture sources" and unusable for BLP, and that we couldn't use Amanda Kloots' official stage credits because you wrongly insisted The Broadway League's official database — the one Broadway producers and everyone else uses for the League's Tony Awards — was not RS. I invite anyone to visit User talk:Tenebrae#RfC about Instagram and see the charred earth of your battleground behavior. And I could give other examples.

As for the anon IP, who has resorted to personal name-calling ("utterly obnoxious"; "with[out] an ounce of common sense"), I don't know how to speak with someone so literal-minded that, no, they clearly don't understand metaphor or else they would not have brought up "a global pandemic causing thousands of fatalities." Yeah, and one of them was a cousin I was close to, so if we're talking about not lecturing, I think it would be wise to take one's own advice.

Similarly, I was not in any way commenting about the anon IP's "potential employment prospects" in saying that their inaccurate pronouncements about biography would make a person last not five minutes in an interview for an editorial position. That clearly was not literal. And the anon IP evades the larger point that, yes, like an anti-vaxxer, some Wikipedia editors make inaccurate pronouncements as if they're the truth, then dig their heels in. That, to me, is a genuine danger to this encyclopedia. I think any responsible editor would be concerned about that.

I have seen more personal, vitriolic comment against me here than in anything I've said to anyone. I will put my contributions to Wikipedia, and the collegial collaborations I've had with many, many editors over the years, up against those of these editors anytime.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion expecting it to be closed as pointless bickering or moved to ARBCOM, but it just keeps going on. Tenebrae I understand from the comments here that you are a professional journalist. I think it might be helpful to resolve conflict of interest accusations if you clarify how that relates to your editing here. In your opinion, would it be a conflict of interest for you to edit the articles of people that you write about? Would it be a conflict of interest to use a magazine, newspaper, or other media as a reference if they employ you? Would it be a conflict of interest for you to edit the article of your employer or employers? Would it be a conflict of interest to cite yourself as a reference? Mo Billings (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the SPI block, Tenebrae writes "the admin who ruled on the SPI knew I had done it inadvertently and so gave me only two weeks". I'd have to suggest that this interpretation is rather at odds with how the SPI was actually closed, with the following statement:

"Tenebrae, I have blocked you for two weeks. The only reason it isn’t indefinite is that you directly admitted it once. Since that admission however, you’ve edited in project space logged out and have ignored Bbb23’s request for an explanation, which amounts to avoiding scrutiny, which is prohibited by our policy on use of multiple accounts. BH has disabled logged out editing for a year on your IP, which is appropriate given the policy violations. Your edits here show your account isn’t impacted. After your two week block is up, you’re free to edit using your account. I’m closing this case now. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)"

Likewise, the comments made by Berean Hunter in the SPI likewise don't come across as discussing 'inadvertent' editing while logged out. At least, that's my interpretation. Others are of course free to read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tenebrae/Archive for themselves, and make their own minds up as to whether Tenebrae got a two week block for 'inadvertent' editing while logged out. Something that would seem on the face of it rather harsh, if that was how it was actually perceived. I can't imagine that handing out two-week blocks for 'inadvertent' actions is exactly common. And I'd assume that warnings that a block for inadvertent actions might have been 'indefinite' would be even rarer.

And as for Tenebrae's suggestion that ""By your very own comments, you show you have no training or expertise in biography. If you were applying for a job at a magazine or a biographical reference publisher, the interview would not last five minutes: You are unqualified to write for a professional organization" doesn't refer to my "potential employment prospects", I'd have to likewise suggest that others might see it differently. And that regardless of whether it referred to "employment prospects" it is self-evidently a personal attack, and accordingly doesn't remotely belong in an article talk-page discussion. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"Whereas you came to my talk page and harassed me endlessly about how Today and Playbill were "pop-culture sources" and unusable for BLP". Naw, you really should reread your talk page[42] and stop gaslighting since I never discussed those sources on your talk page. Your block log[43] and ARBCOM history[44] demonstrates your collegial approach to editing. The reasons behind them continue to this day.[45][46][47] I don't believe anyone else here can you match you there.Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is beyond frustrating. I'm seeing two editors spending a remarkable amount of time on a personal vendetta. Look at the hours they have spent combing through 15 years of my edits in an attempt to "dig up dirt." Does this seem like typical, everyday behavior to anyone?

This sustained and possibly tag-team attack has been going on for almost two weeks now, with repetitive rehashings, exaggerations and now this common tactic of Moridthoughts: Trying to deny he said something incredibly ill-informed ... because I inadvertently said "my talk page" rather than "the Amanda Kloots talk page." Here are excerpts of the statements he or she is suggesting he never said and which shows Morbidthoughts' baiting and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior:

...parents cannot simply waive this through some social media post that gets repeated by popular culture media. ... Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Really? The Today show, part of NBC News, is "popular culture media"? It is literally a news organization. The venerable theater magazine Playbill is "popular culture media"? Theater wishes it were popular culture.... -Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Have you sat down and watch Today (American TV program)? It's a morning talk show with lots of fluff intermixed with news. Theatre, one of the major arts & entertainment fields, is part of popular culture despite your attempts to dismiss that. ... Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Despite your arrogant attempts to delineate theatre, it is a part of popular culture. ... Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I literally gave you a [link to a] textbook saying that theater is widely and for hundreds of years considered a fine art or a performing art, and not pop culture. Playbill is not a pop-culture magazine. Arthur Miller's The Crucible is not pop culture. ... --Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2020

Also note Morbidthoughts' personal attack with "arrogant". And this is only a representative example of the kinds of remarkably wild claims Morbidthoughts makes to buttress his/her arguments. My talk page was the venue where Mordibthoughts harassed me with false insistence that The Broadway League's official database of official Broadway credits was not RS to cite a performer's stage credit! Someone who believes that perhaps ought not to make theater-related edits. Incidentally, I don't edit medical or law articles because I'm not a lawyer/law professor/legal reporter or doctor/medical student/health reporter. I'm unqualified to make substantive edits on such articles. Everything I've said applies to me as well.

In any case, the point of this whole thing is moot — the RfC, where I haven't even commented in almost two weeks, is ended, and with any luck I never have to run across Morbidthoughts or that ever-changing IP address ever again.--Tenebrae (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No, the point of 'this thing' isn't 'moot'. 'This thing' is a discussion on WP:ANI regarding your behaviour in a discussion where you chose to personalise what should have been a content dispute through off-topic personal attacks. And if people are raising events that happened 15 years ago (I haven't, though I have discussed your block from last March) it is because there is clearly an ongoing pattern here. You attempt to bully people into agreeing with you, and when that fails, you resort to endless deflections, allegations of some sort of conspiracy against you (e.g. 'tag team' above - do you intend to accuse me of being anyone and everyone who has ever disagreed with you? It is beginning to look like it), and further personal attacks (e.g the repeated assertions in this thread that I had been 'lying'). This will be 'moot' as and when your behaviour and further questions regarding possible conflict of interest issues are properly dealt with. If not here, then at ArbCom. If I can finally locate my login details, I may bring this up at ArbCom myself (doing it as an IP clearly isn't practical, and I'd rather do so while illustrating that I'm not some random sock, but someone with a long, if now mostly inactive, editing history). And if I don't, I'm quite sure that someone else will, since it seems evident that this bullying behaviour is going to continue. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No, this is about two vociferous editors only, who, seeing their arguments adding up to little, now threaten ArbCom — over a normal disagreement that has involved no swearing or vulgarisms, no threats from me, as came from them, and no unsubstantiated claims, as those two have made.

They claim widespread behavior on my part that isn't true, like widespread voter fraud that isn't true, and listed editors they claim have issues with me, yet who haven't shown up to this tempest in a teapot. So in parallel structure, I'll list several longtime editors, some of whom went on to become admins after we first worked together, and with whom I have had wonderfully collegial and constructive collaborations ... and a couple of whom have thanked me for helping show them the ropes. The "pattern" these two are claiming is untrue, as these fine, longtime, responsible Wikipedia editors can attest:

• User:BOZ
• User:TriiipleThreat
• User:Mtminchi08
• User:Doczilla
• User:Starzoner
• User:Favre1fan93
• User:Gerda Arendt
• User:MarnetteD
• User talk:Betty Logan
• User:SummerPhDv2.0
• User:Ifnord
• User:Jhenderson777

I could list many more. The only pattern of behavior is two disgruntled editors who now appear to be making it their life's work to attack a longtime, responsible, collegial editor with whom they personally did not get along, and who now are determined to harass him in retaliation. I hate that this thing has reached a point where I actually have to list colleagues who can attest to my productivity, value and collegiality over the last decade-and-a-half of service, but evidently nothing else will quell these two's passion. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenebrae, as a (thankfully) uninvolved editor, I have to say that I am concerned by your list of character witnesses. I suspect that most editors would consider that an example of canvassing. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

But it's not canvassing when Morbidthouhts did it above, at 22:05, 3 January 2021? Let's have an even playing field, please.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenebrae, if that were canvassing, two wrongs do not make a right. An editor of your experience should know that. Reading through that edit, it seems as if they were listing the occasions that you had conflicts with those editors, while supplying their usernames. That is very different from listing character witnesses and asking them to attest to [your] productivity, value and collegiality over the last decade-and-a-half of service. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It is canvassing by Mordbidthought because if he or she were just listing names, there was no need to Wikilink them. He wanted to alert them. And of course two wrongs don't make a right, but we all have the right to defend ourselves, and have you seen the reams of vitriol, vendetta, exaggeration and let's say misstatements that these two editors have heaped upon me for nearly two weeks, attacking not any specific things but my character and who I am as a person. So I think I have a right to counter his "list of witnesses" with my own. (In any case, I don't believe a raw list is canvassing — no one went to those editors' talk pages and asked them for biased help.)--Tenebrae (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Posting about specific incidents involving them at ANI required that I notify them, which I also did on their talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, the two contributors on that list that have been blocked for sockpuppetry are unlikely to respond here ;) 109.156.239.119 (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There. Fixed. I'm afraid I did not obsessively comb through every editor's history, especially since I, at least, have a job and today have come to this page only during an occasional break.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You didn't 'comb through' their history before you described them as "fine, longtime, responsible Wikipedia editors"? Fascinating. Is that the level of research you think appropriate for someone who insists that being a journalist makes them an authority on Wikipedia biographies? And no, I don't have a job. Retired, thankfully. So I don't have to put up with this sort of crap, unless I chose to. Which I didn't, until you decided to make me a target for your off-topic personal attacks in what could so easily have been a simple discussion over a minor detail in a biography concerning a minor public figure. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

My goodness, your snideness never ends. Wikipedia is not my job. The time little time I'm stealing here today to defend myself is eating into my work and I'll have to stay late. But of course, you've got all the time in world to wiki-stalk someone's 15 years of edits because, from what you suggest, you have nothing better to do. And let's not play victim here: You and your friend Morbidthoughts made the mountain out of a molehill regarding what you call "a minor detail in a biography concerning a minor public figure."

And you can make your snide comments about journalists all you want. I'm also an author and have written biographies professionally. But someone who proudly doesn't know journalistic practices, standards and ethics is going to whitewash and censor a biography because of a "right-great-wrongs crusade" to show what terrible parents they are to announce their child to the media and put him on TV. Your personal beliefs do not constitute objectivity. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

And off you go again. Because multiple people disagree with you, they must be 'friends'. And what should have been a civil discussion over what content is appropriate in a minor biography instead becomes all about supposed 'censorship'. And I'm the one trying to 'right great wrongs'? By contributing to a single RfC, on a talk page for a 'TV personality' biography? I'd have though that was a rather strange strategy for righting wrongs, but what would I know... 109.156.239.119 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You and Morbidthoughts have made it very clear that you think you know better than the parents what's best for their child. Any responsible professional can see that Amanda Kloots and Nick Cordero, as many but hardly all celebrities do, thrust their child into the spotlight. They announced him to the media. His first birthday was covered by the Today show. He's mentioned by The Talk co-host Kloots on air and on social media frequently, and is written about in major magazines, newspapers and websites. He is not a secret. He is not private. One can look up his name and birthdate, which are standard biographical facts for any notable public figure. So you would censor the names of Beyonce and Jay-Z's kids? Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's? Is there an objective criteria or are we simply to follow your personal gut instinct? (And of course I know only a government, technically, can censor; I'm using the term colloquially, like "a basic cable TV-network censor".) --Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Naw Tenebrae, it didn't take me long to look up your block log and its corresponding history because wikipedia makes that process easy. Your rampant history of personally commenting on editors you disagree with over really petty ass topics in the big picture scheme of things makes it easy to pin the tail somewhere on the donkey. Your taking personal affront to my evaluation of the sources and dismissal of your position made me wonder if you had a COI with a very specific source, Playbill. Speaking of righting great wrongs, you also have a history of battling for the inclusion of information about celebrities' children since 2014 and knew fully well about the community's resistance to that.[48][49][50] So I believe you should be topic banned from editing or even discussing the children of celebrities because you cannot do this in a non-disruptive manner. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, brother, you and that mysterious anon-IP are going for scorched earth, aren't you? No one has ever accused me of COI in 15 years here, and you're only doing it now since none of your other accusations are amounting to anything significant or actionable, so why not throw more charges and see what sticks? You imply on your user page that you're a lawyer, and that is precisely the tactic a certain type of lawyer would take.

And please don't make up claims about "community resistance" — there is literally no prohibition against biographically including the children of public figures, particularly those that work with publicists to notify the media about them. I could point you to an RfC at an actor's page where the admin close was to allow it. I could also point to virtually any biographical book ever written.

Finally, your insidious mischaracterization of me is a blatant falsehood. Any editor across 15 years will get into disagreements, sometimes heated, with other editors. It's part of the landscape. But to act as if you can dismiss the 98% of my other roughly 155,000 edits that have helped this encyclopedia in myriad ways — that crosses a line into highly personal vendetta. My only wish for this insanity's end is that I never cross paths with your or the anon IP ever again. Whereas the two of you don't seem as if you'll ever be satisfied unless I'n thrown off Wikipedia, outed to the world and the ground salted where I stood.

I am imploring admins to please end this thing. Malicious prosecution, exaggerated and out-of-context if not outright deceitful, claims ... and for almost two weeks now. And now I'm hearing threats. With the RfC over, this feels, to me, like obsessive behavior on the part of these two editors.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I raised COI concerns about Tenebrae on December 13, 2020. Stuart.Jamieson did as well on January 9, 2012. KyleJoan^talk 00:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Your malicious claim went nowhere and admins saw right through it. And Stuart.Jamieson was admonished by admins for making things up and threatening to out me. Neither of these things was a credible allegation, and, if I'm not mistaken, admins went so far as to erase Stuart.Jamieson's false and intemperate claims.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to try to "dig up dirt." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you direct me to where admins admonished Stuart.Jamieson? You can also still access the diff I provided above, so I'm not sure how their false and intemperate claims were erased. KyleJoan^talk 01:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Right here. That was another unconscionable fanatic who didn't care who he'd hurt in real life.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Still not seeing where admins admonished Stuart.Jamieson. You also stated that you emailed the oversight team to suppress that diff because Stuart.Jamieson threatened to out you, so which is it? Were their claims false and intemperate or were they true, which warranted suppression? KyleJoan^talk 01:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you should know very well from that Brian Austin Green RFC and those later cited discussions that there must be a consensus for that information to be included. Your sniping at objecting commenters about their lack of qualifications to evaluate this issue and speculated motivations are disruptive to the consensus-building process. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The policy states no such blanket prohibition. Anyone is free to add that information. Anyone is then free to challenge it. But for you to say that each and every instance requires an RfC or similar before it can be added in the first place, that is completely wrong.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Your strawman inference is wrong. I am saying that it requires a discussion once that information is removed and a consensus to include must be met. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Motion to close

The above complaint has petered down to nothing but vitriol between the parties. I'm not seeing anything that rises to the point of blocks for any specific parties, just warnings & troutings. Thus, as an outside party, I'm suggesting this complaint be closed without action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

As an outside party I suggested (above) that it might be helpful for Tenebrae to address how his job as a professional journalist intersects with his hobby as a Wikipedia editor, but those questions were either overlooked or ignored. I don't think these concerns about conflict of interest will go away without Tenebrae clarifying his views about where those roles overlap. It's just going to end up here again. Mo Billings (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Or at ArbCom. Who will of course be open to the sort of privately-submitted evidence that rules regarding doxxing etc suggest would be inappropriate to post here. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You love to threaten people when you think you're not getting your way. Now you're threatening to out me. Stop with the threats. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not threatening to 'out' you. I have made it entirely clear that I have no intention of doing anything of the sort. What I may consider doing, based on the evidence I've seen so far (evidence, not at this stage 'proof' maybe, per our discussion above) is e-mailing ArbCom privately, in order to discuss what might be perceived as conflict-of-interest editing on your part. Whether ArbCom consider such evidence worthy of further action is of course down to them. Presumably if they do, at some point they will have to decide whether such action will require making any link between your account here and any otherwise-identifiable individual public. Any such decision likewise down to them. I'd imagine that the first thing they'd do if they decide to act on my evidence at all would be to contact you privately, asking the obvious questions regarding said evidence. If there is nothing to it, there is no reason to be worried about 'outing' at all. I may dislike you, but I'm also aware of Wikipedia policy in this regard. And agree with it. Nobody complying with Wikipedia policies should be 'outed'. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I see. You're Pontius Pilate. You're not threatening to out me, you're just giving the Romans all they need to do so.

As I mentioned to Morbidthoughts, I have never once been accused of COI in all my 15 years here. It's a hail-Mary accusation — for the record, false — and for no purpose other than to harass and "give payback" to an editor you dislike. The amount of time you and Morbidthoughts have devoted to attacking me borders, in my opinion, on obsession. And I caught the insinuation in your last sentence: "Nobody complying with Wikipedia policies should be 'outed'." But as you see it, I've violated "battleground" and who knows what else, to you I'm fair game.

Again, I am imploring admins to please end this thing. Malicious prosecution, exaggerated and out-of-context if not outright deceitful, claims ... and for almost two weeks now. And now I'm hearing outing threats. With the RfC over, this feels, to me, like obsessive behavior on the part of these two editors.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not Pontius Pilate. And for that matter, ArbCom aren't Romans (Or at least, not as far as I'm aware. And if any of them are, they aren't the crucifying sort). I am however someone who has read WP:OUTING "Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest..." As for 'fair game', I didn't want to get involved in this 'game' at all. And if you'd had the common decency to either not make gratuitous personal remarks about my supposed employment prospects, or at least to apologise afterwards, I wouldn't be. Not least because without your insistence that both your long editing history here and your career as a journalist makes you so much better than the rest of us, I'd never have looked at your editing history at all. And like I said, I see evidence, if not exactly proof, of a COI. I could be wrong. And for that matter, as the evidence for COI goes, it isn't perhaps as egregious as I've seen elsewhere, even if I am right. If it weren't for the gratuitous bullying that led to me coming into conflict with you, I might have decided to ignore it. Not really my problem, since I rarely edit Wikipedia much these days. All I did was comment. On an RfC. A request for comment. To be confronted with repeated socking accusations, and off-topic personal attacks. Leading me to wonder what else said bully might have been up to. I've drawn my own (tentative) conclusions. I should probably ponder on this further, after things have cooled down a little. I'm not here to 'right great wrongs', and if Wikipedia is prepared to tolerate what looks to me to be (low-level) COI editing from one of its most prolific editors, that isn't really my problem. The gratuitous bullying was my more immediate concern, and I can walk away from that too. Given your history, I'm sure that will come up again here at some point. And if anyone else has COI concerns (see Mo Billings comments above) they are of course free to act regardless of what I do. I've communicated nothing to anyone so far, and nor have I done anything more than look at publicly-available information here on Wikipedia, along with a couple of simple checks regarding a few sources cited. And like I said, I may be wrong, and I'm not going to do anything beyond what WP:OUTING explicitly permits, if I decide to act at all. Which again can only lead to 'outing' if ArbCom see it the same way. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

So, yes, it sounds like you are indeed threatening me, based on a scenario you've spun completely in your head. How has this monster you've painted me as helped destroy Wikipedia by creating so many useful articles, making so many grammatical copy edits, working with a multitude of fellow editors collaboratively to improve articles, advocating for BLP cites, etc. ... all while citing thousands of different sources in my nearly 155,000 edits? No ... at this point with the RfC over, you're just acting out of maliciousness and a desire to "get even" for perceived slights.

And since, as you say, you're retired, you have all the time in the world to "build you case" and post walls of text — knowing that I either can't be here all day to respond or I have to take time off from work to defend myself from you. That's quite a thing. And I'm sure you're enjoying it. Why do I think that? Because you're not stopping and in fact gaining momentum. And when this ANI eventually ends, you've already said how else you're going to keep up your attack. Please ... would some admin please do something.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenebrae, you flatter yourself. You really aren't that important to me.... 109.156.239.119 (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

What is truth on Wikipedia, anyway? Dumuzid (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it has 'petered down'. I am entirely unsurprised, since it is self-evident that as I noted earlier, long-term contributors get preferential treatment here, and are permitted to engage in the sort of behaviour (e.g. accusing people of 'lying') that would routinely result in a block for anyone else. 109.156.239.119 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Man, anon IP, you can't even let disinterested editors discuss a closing without putting your two shillings in. Let it be.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

'Do as I say, not as I do...' 109.156.239.119 (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I let it be. I let the closers discuss things. Then you come in and blatantly try to "shame" them into doing something you want. I find such behavior highly dishonorable — and as a clear attack on me, I have a right to defend myself against it.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit interested in what you consider 'dishonorable'. Particularly since it was your clear and unambiguous personal attack on me at Talk:Amanda Kloots that led to my involvement here in the first place. So yes, 'Do as I say, not as I do...' seems a perfectly valid response. If you don't like it, tough... 109.156.239.119 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"If you don't like it, tough"? What are we, 12-year-olds on a schoolyard? Your behavior has been horrible, and your hubris unimaginable.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You know, if you'd had the common decency to apologise for making obnoxious and off-topic comments about my supposed employment prospects, none of this would have happened... 109.156.239.119 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm showing common decency holding my tongue and not responding to that comment.

As I've said, I am imploring an admin to end this nearly two-week torture. User:Fences and windows, you've popped in occasionally and are familiar with the lay of the land. Perhaps this is something you might be willing to take the time and do? For my part, all I want is to never cross paths with Morbidthoughts or that anon IP ever again.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like Tenebrae to answer Mo Billings' questions as well. KyleJoan^talk 00:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Who the heck is Mo Billing?--Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenebrae:, I guess you missed my comment in the section above. I think part of the issue here is that since you are a professional journalist there are concerns about conflict of interest from editors who do not know how your roles as journalist and Wikipedia editor overlap. I posed some simple questions which I think will help other editors better understand your role here. Since the above section is now closed, I will repeat them here for your convenience:

• In your opinion, would it be a conflict of interest for you to edit the articles of people that you write about?
• Would it be a conflict of interest to use a magazine, newspaper, or other media as a reference if they employ you?
• Would it be a conflict of interest for you to edit the article of your employer or employers?
• Would it be a conflict of interest to cite yourself as a reference?

I didn't think of it at the time, but are you a "notable journalist", and if you are, would it be a conflict of interest for you to edit your own article. I suspect answers to these questions might help to alleviate other editor's concerns about conflict of interest. Mo Billings (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behaviour by User: DePiep

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

---

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

I regret being here again.

Members of WP:ELEM have recently been editing the periodic table article, as an exercise in continuous cooperative editing.[51]

I politely raised some objection to some of these edits and notified my intention to revert some of them.[52]

Some discussion ensued over the following days, including some items to consider in going forward.[53] The only person to comment on these items was User:Double sharp.[54]

Subsequently User:Double sharp withdrew from the discussion. In doing so he said, "…you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish."[55]

I today started editing the periodic table article. My edits included reverting one of Double sharp’s edits,[56] as I had previously flagged. This one reversion restored content that had been deleted by Double sharp.

Subsequently, all of my edits were reverted by User: DePiep, on the basis that I had not established consensus.[57] In so doing, DePiep reverted my revert, in breach of BRD.

Discussion at my talk page ensued.

In summary, DePiep responded with, among other things, "Yes in a 16k revert some comma might be reverted unintentionally"; TLDR [58]; I do not have consensus [59]; I should ask Double sharp beforehand [60]; and I am editing without discussion [61].

I have politely reached the end of my tether with this disruptive behaviour by DePeip, which has been raised in this forum on multiple previous occasions.

Hence I am here, requesting DePiep be disavowed of this behaviour, in a suitable manner, so that I may complete my current round of edits, consistent with previous discussions.

Thank you, — Sandbh (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I saw this thread after I had posted to Sandbh to raise my concerns with him. It is my impression that Sandbh has been a significant factor in YBG and now Double sharp stepping away from WT:ELEM, which is a problem.
• Sandbh's announcement of his intention to revert drew objections / requests not to revert from Double sharp, DePiep, and YBG. R8R suggested that Sandbh and Double sharp step back, an idea which Double sharp was willing to try but to which Sandbh objected. I posted some thoughts and ideas, also encouraging Sandbh not to revert, and the discussion continued. I do not think the suggestion that only Double sharp was commenting is accurate.
• I also think it is worth considering how much input one can expect around Christmas Day.
• I think that the discussions at WT:ELEM (which are difficult to follow being in multiple places and with very large reorganisations having been made by Sandbh and discussed at his user talk page) show that there are issues where all contributors except Sandbh have a generally consistent view. That being the case, DePiep's request for consensus is not unreasonable. A discussion about OR on the project talk page had very consistent views from all editors except Sandbh, who chose not to comment. In this talk page section, Sandbh would also not accept that a statistical analysis he carried out was an example of OR, despite the wording here that Summarizations based on statistical methods, however, are original research by synthesis, as they involve the reinterpretation of data, and decisions about which statistical methods and significance levels are appropriate.
• I do not see any sanction against DePiep as warranted at this time, even if he is not a model of politeness at all times.
• I do not think trying to argue which edits count as "B" and which as "R" is that important. It depends on time frames and perspectives... and, in any case, the bigger problem is that "D" either doesn't happen or becomes dysfunctional or swamped. The WT:ELEM history shows that 2020 has seen its size more than double from its previous high, to now over 600,000 bytes. It has seen 8,203 edits in 2020, the previous high point being 2,050 edits in 2013.
• I see Sandbh's discussion style as much more of a problem. The use of old sources that are not appropriate except for history, primary literature, and OR are not helping. EdChem (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I feel EdChem’s statement has several misrepresentations and errors. I’ve asked him, at his talk page, to please address my concerns as he sees fit. Sandbh (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• "misrepresentations and errors"?: then reply and refute those here. I will ignore this multi-page threading. By itself, this illustrates bad discussion discipline by Sandbh, which is one of the amplifying factors of the ELEM editing problem at hand. -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbh posted a list of 9 misrepresentations that he requested I correct.

• 1 and 2 concerned opinions that I expressed. After reading his post, my views have not changed, though I again emphasise that my impressions and opinions are mine alone and that ANI readers should look at the evidence and form their own views. As always, ANI's attention may focus on the topic raised by the OP, on the OP themself, or on others who comment, etc. I am open to scrutiny for my comments and actions, just as is everyone else.
• 3: Sandbh notes that he paid heed to the requests not to revert while there was a discussion. My point was that he has gone on to undo Double sharp's change, returning 16,000 bytes to the article. Reverting after a discussion where objections were raised is still reverting. Arguing Double sharp said it was ok when others had raised objections does not make going ahead ok. Pointing to WT:ELEM, a 600,000+ byte discussion page, is hardly helpful for other editors.
• 4: On R8R's proposal for Double sharp and Sandbh to step back, Sandbh is correct that DePiep objected. It is also true that Sandbh did not formally object, instead suggesting a drafting in your own user space approach. This did contrast, in my opinion, with Double sharp's willingness to try R8R's approach.
• 5: Yes, there were many posts on 19 to 24 December. The reversion was on 26 December and I maintain activity around Christmas (and on 25/26/27 December given time zones, etc) is atypical.
• 6, 7, 8, and 9: All raise WP:IDHT concerns, and 6 and 9 both reply to points that I do not make. No matter how many times Sandbh states that the policy OR does not apply to talk pages, he seems unable to accept the view that talk space is not an OR free-for-all. Further, he disputes what original research actually is, leaving aside the WP policy on handling it. Sandbh notes (point 7) that he did comment (though not !vote), and that I made a mistake here, which is correct and I apologise... but looking at the relevant discussion and the preceding !votes, there seems a clear consensus and Sandbh's view is in a minority of one.

This whole user talk post to me feels like a reply that seeks to score debating points for minor issues while ignoring the key aspects of my ANI post. To be absolutely clear:

• Sandbh, DePiep is not the problem here.
• In posting at ANI, you invite scrutiny and you, Sandbh, are a source of problems at ELEM, one that requires some action.

EdChem (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• I quickly looked at the link in "Subsequently User:Double sharp withdrew from the discussion" above. I might be missing something but reading the comment in context appears to confirm EdChem's above "Sandbh has been a significant factor in YBG and now Double sharp stepping away from WT:ELEM, which is a problem", at least as far as Double sharp is concerned. Further, Double sharp's comment appears to an ignorant onlooker such as myself as an authoritative response to Sandbh. Is there any chance of getting opinions from people who understand the topic (hello Beetstra)? Given that the current situation is untenable, what remedy is recommended? Perhaps Sandbh should be topic banned for a month to at least give people a break during this holiday period? If anyone wants to comment on my statement, the place to do that is here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Elements, 12-28 November 2020, and WT:WikiProject Elements/Archive 55#ArbCom Case Request (Nov 2020), 15 November 2020. Narky Blert (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Here we go again! See here for slow moving edit war. I see nothing in Depeip's editing in terms of admins needing to do something. Sandbh I think has a case to answer EdChem's comments in an appropriate way. Other than that I see nothing but a close the thread down ASAP before walls appear demand! Sandbh you really need to pick more wisely before coming here. Games of the world (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• Not this again... I have been following the developments at WT:ELEM (project member), but only been more active the past two weeks (RL matters). I do not believe any sanctions against DePiep are warranted, for it is very true that many threads are unreadable and clearly have not led to any recent, substantial, and uncontroversial improvement to articles. I agree with EdChem that WT:ELEM has become unreadable, especially since there is no major progress to show for it. On the other hand, OR and lack of consensus have been persistent problems, and this is exactly why the changes to periodic table were reverted and the project has nothing to show for these unwieldy threads; it would contradict fundamental WP policy to build arguments and consensus around original research and the opinions of editors rather than established, undisputed facts. It seems that nobody at WT:ELEM (to name a few, myself, YBG, DePiep, and Double sharp) agrees with Sandbh on some of his proposals or matters related to group 3 and the periodic table; this blowout led to past ANI threads and the ArbCom case that have been judged as inappropriate by uninvolved editors and have not resolved the problem in any case.

Regarding BRD, the objective should be for DePiep, Sandbh, and any other involved editors to engage in civil discussion so that no edit wars erupt and the article is not the victim of a dispute. In this case, though, this is not the first time that Sandbh has made major changes with which someone at WT:ELEM has disagreed, and indeed Double sharp has taken a step back in order to not engage in heated discussions. I have not taken part myself because I do not want to edit war or repeat myself to no avail.

Also, BRD states explicitly: In general, BRD fails if: (1) there is consensus in the community against the specific change you'd like to make. (2) there is a dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus.

The first is probably stretched because WT:ELEM does not override broader consensus, but at least holds true for the failed group 3 RfC. The second, though, accurately describes the current situation at WT:ELEM, as this is the same matter that megabytes of text have failed to resolve (i.e. stalemate, and a textbook case of TL;DR). Consequently, I'm not even sure if BRD is the correct way to approach the problem.

As far as solutions, my main recommendations would be to (1) establish clearer project guidelines to avoid these TL;DR threads and blowouts, (2) to redirect focus to articles on which there are no disagreements, so editors can use their energy and skills to actually improve the encyclopedia instead of reaffirm a stalemate. ComplexRational (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• In my post in the ARBCOM thread, I identified WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT as an incomplete list of the issues which I had seen in WT:ELEM. I should have included WP:SEALION, WP:OWN and WP:TL;DR. Narky Blert (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  At this point it's easier to just transclude {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  You have a point. Narky Blert (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Reply by DePiep

• (ec) Where to begin? I thank and compliment all responding editors here for their careful and well-describing replies. The replies show insight and understanding of the complicated recent history of the issue (five weeks?). In this, fellow-WP:ELEM members EdChem and ComplexRational are reflecting my thoughts in this (with more patience and eloquence). I note that two members, higly valuated by ELEM and with warm cooperating memories by me, have retired & blanked their userpages: YBG and Double sharp (a deep sigh over here, and a curse). If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN.

I am pondering to add a bulleted reply here too, more factual and less descriptive. For example:

• "Too bold". I started thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements § Too Bold (Dec 10):

1. [62].

2. re by Sandbh: 'Bold edits don't require consensus'

3. my reply: Not one [of Sandbh's] bullet is about 'time to talk'.

• re "continuous cooperative editing": I call BS. Repeatedly, since mid-November, Sandbh (and Sandbh only) refers to some editing process labelled "continuous cooperative editing" [63][64]; first link names four subscripted editors. Also in the OP complaint here. I have not met any description (let alone definition), of this. To me, obviously kept an outsider to the concept, this is either (a) standard Wikipedia process or (b) a cult-creating process of preventing critique, as in: 'If you don't agree with this edit, you are breaking a secret bond'. Two of the four adhering editors have now blanked their userpages, indicating frustration.
• re "DePiep ... in this [ANI] forum" (in original complaint; search for 'behaviour by DePeip'): A good opportunity to reply to this jab. First, it is disingeneous for invoking (a) unspecified BF talk and (b) unrelated and/or finished business. ("You are bad now because you were bad yesterday"). Anyway, let me remind Sandbh and others to this recent ANI thread (Sep 28), ignited by Sandbh. Closure: "No evidence of disruption on DePiep's part has been presented". Also note that multiple editors confirmed a staight BRD issue. IOW: Sure I am present at ANI. Vindicated. Time for Sandbh to read and digest.
• "Source handling": WT:ELEM has not solved the issue of source handling. A discussion + polls about WP:TERTIARY > WP:SECONDARY > WP:PRIMARY > WP:OR(!) (wp talk NOTAFORUM, poll 2) went nowhere; I note the negative response by Sandbh showing evasion of commitment (8 members engaged). Then, a talk about doing DUE/UNDUE, FRINGE had not even started.
• Overall, my opinion is that this situation floats into sight the running problems in ELEM discussion process & productivity into better articles. Interaction is still re editors not the edits. The discussion problems started early this year, then the ArbCom Case request paused the problematic interaction—synthetically, as we learn now.
• Maybe more later. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Second reply by DePiep

About article Periodic table

• To describe the extend of current issues, this is an overview of edits to article Periodic table (PT). Period Nov 15 (closing ArbCom request) – Dec 28, 2020 (current version).

Periodic table (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.

Earlier, Oct 17: EdChem had written a longer critique re article content and quality [65] (in Archive).

Nov 13–16: Discussion opened on FA-status and EdChems' critique [66]+[67]. "fresh energy" claimed, but no cooperation nor content discussion ensued.

Nov 15: After ArbCom Request was put on hold/denied, Sandbh started completely turning around the article es:'WP:BOLD step towards bringing the standard back up to FA: see WP:ELEM talk---Fresh energy for the periodic table: A bold start' (−7.5k); removed section "Overview" w/o replacement; group 3 rewrite (rm 4 section titles)[in next diff, R8R's edit. DePiep]. No talk at talkpage. Not referenceing the original EdChem critique (while using 'back to FA' as a statement to make these changes).

Nov 15: R8R es:'continuing the spirit of bold edits. ...' (-15k)

Nov 30: a 3-editor discussion in userspace [68] decided major changes. Double sharp changed dozens of PT-templates [69] [70], affecting hundreds of PT-articles. [71]

+Announcement at WT:ELEM: [72] "in the spirit of WP:BOLD".

+DePiep: asking for reasoning behind the edit [73];

+Rationale afterwards, as provided by Ds [74].

I note that of the three user-talk editors, two have left. In total four editors had some side-agreement [75] (Sandbh, R8R, Double sharp, YBG); two have left and one has had not enough time to engage here (R8R).

Nov 15–Dec 28, all changes: before – after; see for example change of the TOC. (diff: 131 revisions by 15 editors, 155k → 86k).

Meanwhile, at WT:ELEM: Various issues and issues discussed, skipped here. Some went nowhere (a good impression is in § Comments by YBG).

I specified some in my first reply above, Where to begin?-bullets.

Dec 22: YBG announces Wikibreak [76], [77] see also § Comments by YBG [78].

Dec 25: Double sharp left [79].

-DePiep (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

More replies by others

Brief comment by Sandbh: What brought me here was a breach of BRD by DePiep i.e. he reverted my revert. Even so, rather than re-reverting and bringing myself into breach of BRD, I attempted to discuss my concerns with DePiep, on my talk page. That led nowhere. If this kind of behaviour, i.e. reverting a revert, thereby breaching BRD, is deemed to be acceptable, then I have no business with ANI, and I will withdraw the post. I note am pleased to see that DePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."

To prevent the walls of text phenomenon I have posted my thoughts at the talk pages of EdChem, Games of the world and ComplexRational. My simple ANI post took up 276 words. This thread, not counting this brief note, is approaching ten times that size. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Plus your WT:ELEM side-discussion. I ignore these off-ANI multi-page discussions. Might be considered WP:CANVASSING. Evades idea and intention of concise arguing. Still creates wall of text. All this is exemplary of current practices that frustrate and blunt discussions at WP:ELEM. -DePiep (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, your 'please to see' comment [80] is quoting me out of context. This gives a false and harmful presentation of my statement [81]. Please correct this in situ or strike it. -DePiep (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• DePiep, I changed my post from…a

"I am pleased to see that DePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."

…to:

I note am pleased to see that DePiep wrote above, "If someone can convince me that it was me who caused this, I'll voluntary take a TBAN."

--- Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sandbh: When I wrote 'out of context', I refer to: you left out the preceding sentence, where "me who caused this" refers to. Still missing. Also, I don't think it was necessary to repeat the sentence you corrected, uncorrected. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I can find no way to escape the conclusion that something needs to be done about Sandbh.
• Sandbh's comments at my user talk page (which I will address separately have now addressed above)) and those to Games of the world (user talk page thread) and ComplexRational (user talk page thread) lead me to conclude that Sandbh sees no issues with any of his editing (talk or article space) and that he truly believes the only problem is DePiep and BRD – as Sandbh put it the main hold up with respect to the PT article is that DePiep, in breach of BRD, reverted my revert.
• I am not sure that posting replies to user talk pages as a means of avoiding walls of text is appropriate as it fragments the discussion. Avoiding walls of text is best achieved by posting what is important and leaving it for others to decide. And yes, I recognise that this post is quite long.
• Consider this thread, which Sandbh characterised (to ComplexRational) as a discussion with DePiep that led to a "non-result." I posted at the end of it at about the same time this ANI was launched. I wrote that the request for revert-free editing as the best use of [Sandbh's] time when [Sandbh] have posted an intention to revert others certainly strikes me as seeing your contributions as worth more than those of others. DePiep saw an implied threat (to edit war, if I am interpreting him correctly). I can't read this thread and see one blameless editor being stymied from editing by another who should be taken to ANI to be "disavowed ... in a suitable manner" (whatever that means) – and yet, it appears that this is how Sandbh sees it. Even after past ANI threads, an ArbCom case request, and yet more discussion at WT:ELEM, Sandbh still seems to me to be unable or unwilling to recognise his actions and approaches that are contributing to the problems at ELEM.
• In that same talk page thread, Sandbh asked me how Double sharp's comment So, you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish reads to me. My view was in the post to which Sanbh was responding, where I wrote:

  Sandbh, YBG is taking a break. Double sharp is stepping back and my reading of his comments is that he was expressing frustration at the editing environment. His withdrawal did not read to me to be an endorsement that you should go ahead with what you think is best; I read it as giving up having lost the will to continue discussing. DePiep is expressing frustration even more clearly, in my opinion. ... Editors leaving a project is never a good sign. My observations and the comments I have read lead me to suspect that you are a significant factor in both YBG's and Double sharp's choices. These are not good developments, in my opinion.

Sandbh characterised Double sharp's comment as Double sharp said I could do what I felt appropriate, subject to comments from others. Readers can draw their own conclusions on Double sharp's meaning – as I have said, I cannot speak for him – but I am concerned that Sandbh appears to read it quite differently from me.

• YBG's final post (edit summary: No, it is not acceptable) in the Rearranging threads at WT:ELEM thread at user talk:Sandbh make clear (at least to me) his frustration. Sandbh has noted that YBG and Double sharp have taken breaks before and will likely return. Hopefully this will prove correct, but it does not diminish the problem that both departures appear to me to be significantly related to Sandbh. Further, his comment that they will be back and that Project membership counts; contributions count more strikes me as dismissive of the significance of two departures from the small ELEM group, and appears to me to be coupled with the implication that Sandbh's article-space contributions somehow excuse any connection between himself and the departures.
• Sandbh has considerable knowledge to share. He has published in the primary literature and (IMO) struggles to differentiate between original (be it OR or by SYNTH) and encyclopaedic writing. Discussions tend to become long and repetitive as he sometimes adopts interpretations of policy that are problematic and his views do not take on board the perspectives of others – at times appearing like significant points have been forgotten / disregarded. I don't know if it is possible for him to contribute collaboratively and constructively so that our readers can benefit from his expertise without our editors being frustrated by constant disputes and / or stepping back.
• Sandbh, do you see how you are causing problems for ELEM editors? Is there a way we can help to minimise the problems while retaining your expertise? Because if there isn't, I fear ELEM will end up with no editors but you, or back at ArbCom, or with you topic banned by ANI. EdChem (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Note on BRD: It is my impression that the BRD cycle was broken when Sandbh proceeded with the revert on periodic table after several editors objected to his "notification of intent to revert" at WT:ELEM. The discussion between 19 and 25 December had a rough consensus in favor of Double sharp's removal, thus objecting to Sandbh's intent to reinstate it, yet he proceeded to do so despite this discussion. DePiep then most likely reverted as part of a new BRD cycle, since the "new consensus" was formed after Double sharp's removal was endorsed. While it may be a revert of a revert in the edit history, DePiep's revert would ideally lead to a new discussion (with Sandbh's edit being the "bold" edit) that would either support or oppose Sandbh's proposal. Instead of this content discussion, though, we are here at ANI. BRD is a rough guideline, so it should be roughly interpreted and adapted to specific situations, rather than applied as a strict policy with immediate consequences in case of violation. Although not the main scope of this ANI, the fact that discussions tend towards TL;DR makes this aspect of the cycle all the more difficult, and is causing editors to distance themselves from ELEM (which is a shame) or comment on contributors rather than content. That said, DePiep's revert was not part of the BRD cycle starting with Double sharp's edit, so it is not a breach. ComplexRational (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

EdChem, thank you. I'm reluctant to comment as it just adds to the wall of text, and my "complaint" was simple enough. DePiep reverted my revert in breach of BRD. Is that or is that not a breach of BRD? Subsequently, the scope of this threat has expanded to mention everything but my simple complaint. As I said, "If this kind of behaviour, i.e. reverting a revert, thereby breaching BRD, is deemed to be acceptable, then I have no business with ANI, and I will withdraw the post." The end. If there are remaining issues with respect to my conduct, I ask that these please be raised elsewhere. Is this too much to ask?

By disavowing DePiep I meant, could I please have some clear, revert-free, editing space, so that I can restore and edit the content (in the context of concerns raised at WP:ELEM) deleted by Double sharp, and in the spirit of his comment, "…you can do what you want, and I'll let people who actually are going to be active comment on it if they so wish." Once I've finished my editing, interested WP:ELEM members can comment. That is the normal way editing occurs, as I understand it.

I had already done this with respect to one part of the restored text, before it was all re-reverted by DePiep, in breach of BRD as I understand it. Sandbh (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandbh. It's not about me, we know. It's, you are chasing away good editors. Now teach me, about BRD. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by YBG

As I have been mentioned extensively, I believe the community deserves to hear from me.

Regarding my long term assessment of ELEM and Sandbh

• I value the friendship I have with my fellow ELEM members, and consider Sandbh to be my closest friend among that group, in part due to our FtF encounter several years ago.
• In my opinion, Sandbh's style at WP have changed significantly since he began pursuing publications in peer reviewed chemistry journals. IMO, he does not seem to do well distinguishing the "hat" one must wear to contribute to such journals and the very different "hat" one must wear as an editor at WP.
• Meanwhile, others at ELEM are, I believe, becoming better at wearing their WP-editor hat than we were a half-decade or more ago.
• This has meant that in many areas about how best to contribute at WP, the editors at ELEM fall into two groups: Sandbh and everyone else.

Regarding my attempts to resolve what I perceived as one of the main problems at ELEM

1. I noticed that the volume of material shared at WT:ELEM seems to be WP:OR > WP:PRIMARY > WP:SECONDARY > WP:TERTIARY, the exact opposite of the order in which we should consider these things.
2. I thought that this might be an underlying cause of our difficulties at ELEM.
3. I started an informal poll to see if others agreed with my assessment and perhaps nudge our project toward consensus.
4. Some agreed with me (with minor differences, many of which I agreed with.
5. However, Sandbh did not see a problem
6. I tried to explain the problems as I saw them, including the fact that there seemed to be wildly differing ideas about the use of WP:PSTS sources.
7. Sandbh replied that he saw no wildly differing views on sourcing.
8. So I started a 2nd informal poll about the potential harm of (a) reasonable limits, or (b) extensive use, of PRIMARY and OR at WT:ELEM.
9. Eight ELEM editors - everyone who !!voted -- agreed (with some minor caveats) that Editors should use 1RY/OR on talk pages only sparingly. Extensive use of such is harmful to our project..
10. Sandbh alone demurred. After much coaxing, the closest we got to an answer was The use of 1RY/OR as editors see fit may or may not improve our project. Limiting 1RY/OR to sparing use may or may not improve our project.
11. I then tried to get an answer as to what would distinguish problematic from non-problematic limits on or use of 1RY/OR at WT:ELEM, but I do not believe there has been an answer to this.

From this I draw the conclusion that not only does Sandbh have rather different ideas than the rest of WT:ELEM, but that he seems to have difficulty perceiving those differences.

Regarding the immediate cause of my wikibreak

• I generally follow the discussion at WT:ELEM by checking the diffs from my watchlist.
• Sandbh's extensive refactoring of WT:ELEM (which continued with several other changes), prevented me from continuing my normal routine
• I tried to patiently work out what the changes were but after spending an enormous amount of time, I was unable to.
• This seemed to me to be yet another case of Sandbh boldly doing something without taking others into consideration
• I considered several options (1) reverting the refactoring (but by that time there were other contributions) (2) raising the issue at ANI and (3) asking a question at teahouse.
• When I went to Sandbh's talk page, I found that EdChem had already commented. I added my own (stronger) objections.
• The ensuing discussion not only increased my frustration level, but convinced me that this was another example of Sandbh editing boldly without taking others into consideration - with no advance notice.
• I remain concerned that such major talk page reorganizations without the permission of (or even advance notice to) other editors could be a violation of WP:TPO.

This interaction seemed to confirm my impression of the differences between Sandbh's ideas and style and others' ideas and style, and his difficulty perceiving those differences. In the end, I opted for a wikibreak.

Regarding my wikibreak and future

• It is true that I have taken wikibreaks in the past.
• My prior wikibreaks have been intentional and seasonal, with my break and return planned in advance. Anyone can see that my breaks in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 were all at the same time of the year.
• My previous wikibreaks have never been to avoid problems encountered while being online, but to avoid problems caused by being online too much.
• I have never before been so frustrated, even during ELEM's previous visits to ANI and Arbcon.
• I have not yet decided whether, when, and to what extent I might return to WP, much less ELEM. I have other productive things I can do with my time.

I will continue on wikibreak for the forseeable future, receiving only weekly ping summaries. I invite editors to interact with me at my talk page - or if you want to reach me sooner, by email. YBG (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I thank my good friend YBG for giving his account and setting out his concerns about my conduct, which I acknowledge and commit to changing. To clarify, I undertook the housekeeping at WP:ELEM IGF. The way ahead wrt housekeeping was then discussed and concluded at the WP:ELEM talk page, in order to avoid future incidents of this nature. Sandbh (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: a 6-month topic ban for Sandbh

Proposing: a 6-month topic ban for User:Sandbh from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed. I looked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#Notification of intention to revert and, IMO, EdChem's description above of the events there is essentially correct. The problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements have been endemic, and with Arbcom recently almost accepting a case on the matter. Clearly, things are still not working out. One of the principal participants in the prior disputes, User:Double sharp, has stepped back, but the other one, User:Sandbh, has not. Another editor, User:YBG, has recently left as well (appparently Wikipedia and not just WikiProject Elements), and, again as EdChem notes above, and it appears that frustration with Sandbh has been a significant factor in that decision[82]. This ANI report, while filed by Sandbh in good faith, is substantively very much misguided and thus far has all the makings of another interminable unproductive ANI thread on these matters. The other party in these disputes, DePiep, although with some record of problematic behavior (mostly, as far as I can tell, on topics unrelated to chemistry), appears to have been essentially in the right, at least in terms of procedure, in relation to the recent issues at WikiProject Elements. User:Sandbh, although a long-term and well-intentioned user, is essentially an SPA with a narrow scope of editing interests concentrated exclusively around the periodic table. That rarely bodes well when getting involved in difficult/intractable content disputes. Sandbh has been at the center of the recent disputes at WikiProject Elements, and remains so, even after the departure of Double sharp's from the scene. Clearly, some radical external action is needed to relieve the situation at WikiProject Elements. IMO, giving User:Sandbh an enforced 6-month wikibreak from the topic of chemical elements would give everyone else at WikiProject Elements the room to work out the issues there in the meantime. Nsk92 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support, as the proposer. Nsk92 (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Nsk92, what's an SPA? Sandbh (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• A Single Purpose Account. See WP:SPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Nsk92, contrary to what you wrote above, YBG has not left WP nor has he left WP:ELEM.[83] He is still contactable via his talk page, and email.[84] Sandbh (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Considering support See also other posts in this. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Updated, after seeing behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Alteratives proposed unacceptable to me (Sandbh Self-regulation, EdChem tban-excempt page in userspace), as explained elsewhere. (Would leave open door to reoccurrence). Below is my Question to revert article Periodic table to pre-Nov 15 status (I support). -DePiep (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Not only did Sandbh dispute whether Sc and Y should be placed above La or Lu, they also used OR to argue that the former would also mean placing B and Al above Sc! Then they talked about how Be and Mg used to be placed above Zn and how some chemists (mostly those who study noble gases) even argue that He should be placed above Be instead of Ne because its atomic properties and crystal structure are more similar to Be, and the history of the placement of H due to its properites being a mix of an alkali metal and a halogen. This has not much to do with the fact that there is a very real dispute about whether Y should be placed above La or Lu. (See Group 3 element#Composition of group 3 for more information.) Then we can hold an RfC in peace.

  I also wanted to discuss how the current category color scheme fails WP:A11Y, but it got drowned out in this trivial argument. Pastels, anyone? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: LaundryPizza03, the discussion you refer to took place at the WP:ELEM talk page. All such discussion is freely entered into or ignored. The technical content you refer to has a long historical, and ongoing record in the literature. WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. The so-called OR I am alleged to have engaged in could be done by a ten-year old. In any event, you will not find any so-called OR in the article space. You can hold an RFC at any time, as I did and failed. You’re free to raise concerns about the colouring scheme, at any time, at the WP:ELEM page (as you have done, thank you) where this is a major topic. I see R8R has updated you as to where this is up to. Go the pastels! Sandbh (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per proposal. This is a complete mess which seems entirely to land on Sandbh's shoulders. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The disputes at WT:ELEM have spilled over into ANI several times and once into ARBCOM, and have taken up the best part of 1Mb. Two good editors have left WP, seemingly in frustration, and this complaint is directed against a third. It alone is 48Kb (by my count (29 December): 24% by Sandbh (10 posts), 13% by DePiep (7), and the balance by 12 other editors (27)), and it verges on vexatious. This is WP:SEALIONing (don't overlook the original Wondermark cartoon). Sandbh's attitude is incompatible with WP:TALK and collaborative editing.

This incident struck me. On 2 November 2020 (WT:WikiProject Elements/Archive 53), Sandbh wrote (1) 'Consistent with WP:IAR, there is no "absolute" prohibition on anything at WP' and (2) 'I should've quoted WP:IAR, which is derived from WP:5P5, in full: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." So it is not the case that anything goes at WP per WP:IAR, per se. It is more subtle than that. So, if e.g. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, or WP:BLP prevents you from improving WP, ignore them, per WP:IAR' (emphasis in the original; Wikilinks added). Those statements are preposterous, and no editor should have to waste time refuting them. Narky Blert (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Narky Blert, contrary to what you wrote above, neither Double sharp nor YBG have left WP. Both still belong to WP:ELEM.[85] Double sharp is more in lurk mode. As R8R wrote below, "Double sharp… admitted to me earlier in this month he wouldn't have too much spare time for Wiki in 2021 anyway, and now seems to be more certain to be gone, at least for a while, so that disagreement is not on the table."[86] YBG is still contactable via his talk page, and PM. Both Double sharp and YBG have taken breaks in the past, and returned. As for WP:IAR, in nearly 10 years of editing I cannot recall ever relying on it to justify an edit in the article space. Sandbh (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Storm in a teacup (acknowledging residual concerns by EdChem). Per WP custom and practice policy, a ban is a sanction of last resort: WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME. Nobody has in fact left WP or WP:ELEM. Six consensus proposals have already been posted at WP:ELEM.[87] In making this vote, I note DePiep just reverted some content I posted to this board.[88] He has no right to revert how I choose to answer a question. This was my content (including content copied from another post by EdChem). I did not change any other editor's content. What he did represents the kind of disruptive behaviour that was the subject of this complaint, which I attempted to withdraw. The last time he and I were here he asked me not to interfere with his content. I adhered to his request. I've reposted my content. @EdChem and Levivich: fyi. ​ Sandbh (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Please see my request for help.[89] I recognise my problematic conduct and am ready to work with EdChem, and other members of WP:ELEM to address this. I have already posted requests for consensus at WP:ELEM.[90] Sandbh (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The sealioning, wikilawyering, and self-righteous disruption on this page alone says that WP:ELEM -- and maybe Wikipedia as a whole -- needs the break. --Calton | Talk 06:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support Sorry but this appears to be the only way to get some calm and stability into the area. Good editors don't leave (or almost leave) without reason. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - causing too much disruption, over a long period of time. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support although I'm not optimistic that Sandbh will suddenly "get it" during those six months. EdChem said Sandbh still seems to me to be unable or unwilling to recognise his actions and approaches that are contributing to the problems at ELEM and I'm afraid that will still be the case down the road. There seems to be wide recognition that Sandbh has valuable expertise to contribute to ELEM; it's how Sandbh approaches collaborative editing that needs improvement. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Adding: I've seen the two comments added by Sandbh today (Help request and My last post). Asking for help in meeting WP expectations is a positive step, although it's disappointing that it took so long to happen, particularly after the incredibly long and painful ANI discussion last month. But then Sandbh says I've acknowledged my problematic conduct; I haven't seen that. I've seen the realization that this time there might actually be a ban. I understand that Sandbh does not want a topic ban. I sympathize. But in my view, the two comments today are too little and too late. I stand by my support. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I recognise and acknowledge it took to long, and that I engaged in IDHT, among other things, to my cost. Sandbh (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Subject matter experts are a great help to building an encyclopaedia. However subject matter experts who struggle to adhere to our relatively simple guidelines for improving content can become a major problem. It's only six months. Take a breather and reflect. The periodic table article will still be here when you get back. Maybe try your hand at some other topics. I don't know, its up to you. It can't continue as it is though and this has gone on long enough. AIRcorn (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Request: (now completed) added by EdChem (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Sandbh made a request for help below and at my user talk page and those of DePiep and R8R. Given the current state of !voting, it appears that this topic ban will be imposed soon. I have replied to Sandbh and I ask that this thread not be closed and the ban not implemented for a day or two so that Sandbh and I can discuss how I / we might be able to help without the restrictions of the topic ban interfering. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I will shortly propose a set of 6-month editing restrictions and conditions that I will propose to follow, to DePiep and EdChem. Thank you, EdChem. I hope 2021 will be better than 2020. Sandbh (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Update: I've put my proposed 6-month editing restrictions and conditions to DePiep and EdChem, and will await their advice. A copy can be found at the top of my user pape. I hope 2021 will be better than 2020 (for everyone). Sandbh (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• As he has noted above, Sandbh has posted a proposal on his user page. I posted some ideas for him on my user talk page 2 minutes prior to his making his post. I have now posted some thoughts for him on his proposal on my user talk page. ANI readers will see that they are quite different as I am considering a single user-space page be exempted from the tban whilst he is suggesting editing restrictions short of a tban. I hope for productive discussions shortly. EdChem (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• I thank EdChem for his thoughts, and his help. I acknowledge the strong likelihood of at least six months of editing restrictions. Subject to EdChem’s availability I hope to wrap up our discussions tomorrow. I won’t be online for the next 12 hours. I thank Johnuniq for their thoughts. Sandbh (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to all at ANI who have chosen not to close this thread, and I am posting here to say that I now favour this ANI thread being closed whenever an uninvolved admin sees fit. Sandbh and I have contributed at my user talk page, as all can see from the post starting in the section user talk:EdChem#Request for help and in subsequent sections. DePiep has also made some comments on my suggestion (I won't speak for him but my interpretation is that he is opposed), there have been further posts at WT:ELEM, and YBG has commented above. Sandbh has made a proposal on his user page and subsequently here at ANI in the section #Proposal: Self-imposed editing restrictions and conditions. Everyone can decide for themselves whether the discussions, including Sandbh's most recent comments, influence their positions. I have added "(now completed)" to the "request" bolding in my post, for clarity. I will add a formal !vote in my next edit. EdChem (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Unfortunately, it appears that Sandbh is trying to play it both ways. First Sandbh files a complaint against DePiep, and then, when multiple editors say that Sandbh is the problem and should be topic-banned, Sandbh tries to close the case. That gives the appearance that Sandbh wants to use WP:ANI when it is to their advantage and to run away when it is not. When this dispute was pending before ArbCom, I said, and I was speaking as a subject matter expert, that the multiple disputes were all matters of convention, and not of scientific correctness. It appears that Sandbh is the one who wants to "win" the content disputes. We don't need winning; we need collaboration. A topic-ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that the parties and ArbCom were all too optimistic in thinking that this dispute would be resolved after the last ArbCom request. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment only to clarify. I lodged my request to withdraw after one editor proposed a topic ban, rather than mutiple editors. I hope I have interpreted Robert correctly. I will revert this post if that is not the case. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Sandbh: (non-admin comment) I advise you to not delete, revert or refactor any posts on talk pages or noticeboards. That makes the discussion impossible to follow. If you want to withdraw something you've said, WP:STRIKE it. That happens at WP:XFD all the time, and works very well. Narky Blert (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I have commented elsewhere in this thread on problems as I see them and that action is needed. I am disappointed that the point has been reached where a knowledgeable contributor (who I believe is contributing in good faith) warrants a tban... but it has. I believe that a topic ban is needed at this point and I think the consensus here is clear that a topic ban is a suitable remedy – Sandbh and ELEM need some time apart, and I hope that will prove to be of benefit to both. I understand Sandbh's preference for a voluntary restriction rather than an ANI-imposed ban but I do not believe that would be appropriate either in the face of the above consensus or as a suitable declaration that the editors at ANI have collectively concluded that formal action from the community is necessary and appropriate. I have discussed with Sandbh at my talk page and in a section below the idea of ANI allowing a single page, say in my user space, where discussion is permitted without the tban restrictions in place for the purpose of helping Sandbh to better understand the problems that have occurred and how to avoid them in the future. Such a page could be protected or even deleted if it was misused. Based on this recent post to ANI, Sandbh seems willing, though he would clearly still prefer to be allowed some involvement in the ELEM project. My suggestion is opposed by DePiep (if I am interpreting him correctly, and not in any way seeking to speak for him). There has been little other comment, a fact that is open to multiple interpretations. I ask that the closing admin consider the suggestion, and also to provide some clarification on the extent of any tban imposed as "the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed" (Nsk92's words in the proposal) could be functionally the same as a tban from all of chemistry... which would be an overbroad sanction and disproportionate to the relatively small part of chemistry article / talk / project space where problems have occurred. Perhaps a form of words along the lines that Johnuniq suggests below, such as "the topic of the periodic table and its presentation and representation anywhere on Wikipedia, broadly construed"? Boundary testing could be easily dealt with by expanding the ban to something closer to Nsk92's form of words. EdChem (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

EdChem is citing me correct. I'd oppose a backdoor-entrance to the Project because it would keep the cause & undo the purpose of the tban: reintroducing problematic discussion flows + their effects. We'd still encounter prohibitive policy-hairsplitting talks, one-topic/two-place talks, source-handling questions, which were so energy-consuming and improductive. (Reading this thread, looks like it is not my personal perception only). -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: per proposal. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I'm sorry it had to come to this, but especially following the most recent comments here by YBG and EdChem, this seems to be the only viable short-term solution, and in my opinion, one that can benefit all involved parties. I would also support a narrower TBAN only encompassing periodic table-related articles, but would oppose anything offering a "backdoor entrance" to the project. In fairness, I would also recommend that no involved editors make substantial changes to periodic table in the immediate future; I wouldn't oppose FAR or a collaboration with uninvolved editors, but it must be clear that this TBAN will not be used to favor the POV of other editors. The purpose of the TBAN should be to restore a balance at ELEM and allow Sandbh to understand the roots of the problem and take necessary steps to prevent it from occurring again (which would mean, among other things, keeping WP writing and journal writing disjoint). As such, I hope that the TBAN proves constructive, because Sandbh's work (at least prior to these conflicts) is valued and it would be a shame for him to leave the project permanently. ComplexRational (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion ELEM

• Question to Nsk92 as the proposer of this TBAN, and to anyone else willing to comment... where are the boundaries of a topic ban "from the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed"? As a chemist, I can imagine a lot of territory that I could argue was connected to the topic of chemical elements, broadly construed, and I can also imagine a lot of places where I would see such an argument as an unhelpful / inappropriate stretch (from a WP point of view). I know that boundaries are hard to define and are a matter of judgement, but given all chemical reactions involve chemical elements or compounds of chemical elements, that all substances consist of chemical elements, their compounds, and mixtures, and that chemistry deals with matter, energy, and change, does this TBAN extend essentially to the entirety of chemistry? Does it cover much of biology and medicine and pharmacology, at least in so far as the chemical elements are relevant? For example, would editing cisplatin be a problem if mentioning its action of binding to the N7 of guanine bases in DNA? ANI will impose a ban on whatever scope it sees as fit, I accept that, and I can't argue that one is not warranted in the circumstances... but in fairness to Sandbh and to all the ELEM editors who may see him in other parts of the encyclopaedia, I do think it is appropriate to have some degree of clarity on where this ban is meant to cover. We all know how edits that are perceived as attempts to test the boundaries of a TBAN are treated at ANI. In my dealings with Sandbh, I have learned that he can adopt quite literal interpretations at times. While I think that he needs to work on that, I think it would be unfair of ANI to set him up with a TBAN that is unclear in extent and where he would see a topic as outside his ban (and certainly outside the areas that have been contentious) but which could be interpreted differently here. EdChem (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would support the minimum required to ensure peace and quiet for at a few months in the hope that others will settle whatever this interminable dispute is about. I think it involves details of how the periodic table should be presented and I believe one comment I saw mentioned that sources differ regarding those details. That issue needs to be resolved, even if the outcome is sub-optimal because a never-ending dispute is corrosive for the community. That is, I would be happy if Sandbh were restrained from editing or commenting regarding that issue, broadly construed, but I know of no reason they shouldn't work on other chemical matters provided there was no boundary testing. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• As a chemist, I don't read "chemical elements, broadly construed" as extending to ionic or covalent compounds, or even to industrial applications of the pure elements (e.g. in alloys). It might extend to ions, but only in circumstances where any editor would fall foul of e.g. WP:DETAIL, WP:OFFTOPIC or WP:UNDUE. Narky Blert (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have been following the below for the last few days and I have to say that we finally have something positive from Sandbh and I am enthused. However Sandbh your proposal is too late, even if it is welcomed by most here. Given how Sandbh has interpreted comments both here and at ELEM, I would agree with EdChem that it would be better if the closing admin was specific in their meaning so that there can be no argument of gaming or winning. Narky I'm sorry I cannot agree with that might extend to stuff, that is a recipe for disaster, given what has gone on over the last few months (a lot of point scoring), it either does or does not. For starters it is clear that Sandbh is prohibited from Periodic table article and all associated files and table pages of the article along with the ELEM project talk page and any subpage talk page (note not actual articles talk pages) within the project (I note you want to tell people about articles, do it else where, not on the project, since you're not banned from user pages). He should also not go near any article that is up for DYK, GA, FA or FL, if he wants to participate and collaborate in that area, on any chemistry article apart from to comment on MOS issues or plain up spelling or grammar issues, until it is proven (at least 3 months) that he can provide worthwhile comments without having the issues that we have seen in regards to sources, owning pages, detail and POV in that area etc. I am uneasy about Sandbh having a draft user page for the PT article, as I am very concerned in what he wants to achieve and how it will go down once his restrictions expire. He says that there will be no fight, so what is he going to do? Edit in a way to bring it to FA status, following the consensus of the group and using published sources (not peer reviews or a preview articles as many have noted before) or edit to his own POV? Sandbh can you give some intension of what you aim to achieve on this and how and we can consider the proposal and whether this ban needs to include draft pages. aluminium collaboration sounds good to me if others are happy to allow him to edit this (I admit seems some what gaming of the proposed ban). Sandbh, I would not lone wolf nonmetal whilst you are under restrictions (again seems somewhat gaming IMO of the proposed ban). Do it in the user space and bring over once you are free we want to see collaboration and a change from you, not a Sandbh did X (in good faith) and a, b and c (negatively) resulted from it. It doesn't have to be an overarching restriction, but it does depend on how far people want to take it with Sandbh. Games of the world (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Games of the world: I think we are almost on the same page. IMO "chemical elements, broadly construed" is clear and unambiguous, and appropriate. I very much doubt that more than a few physical chemists would even know how to begin disrupting a page about organic chemistry. Narky Blert (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• I support EdChem request to clarify the T in TBAN. Topics: (1) WP:ELEM: {{WikiProject Elements}} (Category:WikiProject Elements articles; includes WP:ISOTOPES b/c is merged into WP:ELEMENTS); (2) WP:TBAN is clear, e.g. lists parts of other pages (all ns's) about the Topic. For example "TBAN Weather" includes "California § Climate". (3) Not included is WP:IBAN, which is a different approach. So far, clear enough I think. About WP:CHEM or WP:PHARM articles, like for example guanine or {{Therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals}}: IMO the "parts" criterium in WP:TBAN cover these. Any more bordercases to look at? -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Question. I added § About article Periodic table to my original reply. It illustrates that the article was treated rough, under the (now disapproved) editing & discussion processes. Since it has an FA star, would it be reasonable to revert to status ex-ante (pre-mistreatment i.e., as of pre Nov 15, 2020) [91]? I'm sure improvements can be added or re-added, based on sound discussion, esp since EdChem provided good first criticism (unused so far). As a detail, we could consider keeping the category changes, provided the Rationale, sourcing and copyediting is acceptable. -DePiep (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Supplementary note: I had intended to cease commenting, however my case, and related matters are still being discussed.

• EdChem posted an apology to DePiep regarding "triggering posts" and "emotional triggers," and the pain and anguish associated with such.
• I'm a very recent survivor of long-term medically diagnosed clinical depression. This included bouts of considering how to kill myself. The picture by van Gogh says it all. I'm OK now, having obtained help from professionals. I'm still on medication. Among other things, editing WP gives me purpose and meaning. I suspect I'm now resilient enough not to lapse into depression during my topic ban. That is why I proposed a voluntary ban, to maintain at least some connection with WP:ELEM collegues, and the meaning and purpose of WP:ELEM goals. I was not going to mention this. However I saw EdChem's post to DePiep, so there it is.
• I will not be posting to WP:ELEM, part from interesting publication alerts, and consensus requests (which I will not be discussing further), unless I am pinged, questioned, or invited.
• Re the question from Games of the world, I'll answer shortly. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ouch. Ouch. Hard to read & learn this. I wish you have good caring people around nearby, by miles or by bandwidth. For now, I think I cannot comfort you. Many bests, DePiep (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you DePeip. Staying and seeking to be connected with others, largely got me through it. Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
    • +1 Sorry to hear that. I strongly encourage you to stay connected with others as you say you have been. And, following the rules of the TBAN, you are still free to communicate with us outside project space or via email. ComplexRational (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Although I sympathise and empathise with Sandbh's statement, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Narky Blert (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Games of the world: As you say, "It doesn't have to be an overarching restriction." It depends on the good judgement of the closing admin. I presume the objective is the minimum required to achieve calm at WP:ELEM. I’ve proposed the scope of the ban as "articles marked as being of interest to WP:ELEM" as that is black and white.

On drafting a polished periodic table FA in my sandbox, I propose to seek consensus from WP:ELEM, subject to how they want to play it, on a section by section basis. I propose to draft the whole thing, since all the parts are interconnected. I propose the same approach as I have done with my nine current requests for consensus, at WP:ELEM, where consensus or not will not be called by me. I will not comment on these requests for consensus unless I am pinged, questioned, or invited to do so. None of this will prevent anybody else from editing the PT article. If that happens I'll take these edits into account in my polishing sandbox article.

The categorisation scheme for nonmetals was recently agreed by Double sharp and I. Allowing me to bring the current nonmetal article into conformance with that scheme, and subsequently up to FAC status, will allow me to demonstrate that I can meet WP:ELEM expectations. Anybody else is welcome to help.

In the talk space I have referred to peer reviews in the context of the process that occurs for articles published in professional and reliable journals. I expect I've mentioned preview articles in the talk space. In the article space I only cite published sources. I do not cite peer reviews nor (AFAICR) preview articles.

Thank you for support of my proposal to complete bringing Al up to FAC, under the guidance of R8R. That will demonstrate my capacity to edit cooperatively, as I have done previously with R8R, and extensively with YBG (here).

I have no intention of gaming or exploiting loopholes; that would be self-defeating behaviour. Maybe others have done so; I am not so stupid to bite the hand, so to speak. If I happen to find any loopholes I’ll bring these to the attention of those concerned. Nothing will get out of my sandbox unless it complies with the conditions of my ban.

I don’t understand what you means by my user space—are you referring to my user page, talk page, and sandbox?

In conclusion, the only places I will be seen in the WP:ELEM space are aluminium, and nonmetal, plus the occasional news post, and consensus request to WP:ELEM, with no after discussion from me, unless asked, pinged or invited. Oh, and at least discussion with EdChem, as previously mentioned.

My objective is to reach a win-win solution. That is, a topic ban + a small window for me to stay connected with colleagues and their expectations, in some fashion.

Your thoughts? --- Sandbh (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please, please, stop this, Sandbh. -DePiep (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Self-imposed editing restrictions and conditions

1. For the next 3−6 months (duration to be determined) I won't edit articles marked as being of interest to WP:ELEM, unless there is WP:ELEM consensus, as determined by someone else than me. Exceptions A. Vandalism reverts; gnomish work e.g. spelling or grammar corrections; links; correcting mistakes or missing parts in citations; minor housekeeping; edit requests by a WP:ELEM member. B. In support of the goals of WP:ELEM: 1. Under the watch of R8R I'd like to edit aluminium to complete the work of bringing it up to FAC standard. I've worked with R8R previously when we attained a bronze star for astatine. 2. As lead editor, I'd like to edit the non-controversial nonmetal article to bring it (i) into line with the categorisation scheme recently agreed at WP:ELEM, including by me; and (ii) up to FAC standard. 3. I request permission to draft an assessment of actions required to bring gold up to FAC. 2. I won't ping WP:ELEM editors, unless unless I'm pinged 3. Subject to EdChem's agreement I propose to zoom with him, to discuss and clarify his concerns, including IDHT, and seek further guidance on the way ahead. I'll post a summary of this to wherever is deemed appropriate. He's already raised these concerns with me; there's nothing like a f-t-f meeting, even if remotely. 4. If these restrict/conditions are accepted I'll alert YBG, DS and R8R about them via PM. 5. Such further restrictions as the closing admin determines. 6. I propose to draft a WP:ESSAY on ANI protocol, practice and observations based on my experiences here. Addition to address other concerns 7. Aside from interesting publication alerts, and requests for consensus, I won't post to WP:ELEM unless pinged, questioned, or invited to do so.

As flagged, I'll wait to hear from EdChem. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have made a long post at my user talk page to Sandbh about the present situation and proposals. In it, I have said that I do not expect a self-imposed voluntary restriction to be acceptable to the editors who have !voted above on the tban proposal.
• I do not support a proposal like this as I believe that the point has been reached where both Sandbh and the ELEM editors / the ELEM topic area would benefit from time apart. In saying this, I do not presume to speak for anyone else, I am simply expressing my opinion of what is needed. I thank YBG for his recent contribution to this ANI thread, which I believe provides several reasons to think that a tban is needed, and I urge Sandbh to read and consider it carefully.
• Sandbh, to be clear, I do support a topic ban. I think the above proposal is inappropriate both because there is consensus that ANI action is necessary and because the idea of a topic ban is to separate an editor from the problematic area. Your continuing to contribute to the area as you are proposing is inconsistent with WP experience that staying away from an area is beneficial in circumstances such as these. I think you would be wise to accept that ANI action is inevitable and focus on how you can move forward in a productive way... and thus, I ask you to consider withdrawing this proposal by striking it.
• I have suggested that a small exception be carved out, that a page (perhaps user:EdChem/Sandbh) be created which ANI endorses as being exempt from the tban, so that Sandbh and I (and any ELEM editors who wish to participate) can hold discussions without the constraints of the tban. The purpose would be to be able to review (in a transparent manner) what has led to the tban and to discuss problems. It would not be for Sandbh to suggest article space edits for others to implement, nor to make proposals such as the ones currently at WT:ELEM. If misused, the page could be protected or deleted (as appropriate) and / or the exemption revoked by ANI. Sanctions could be applied if the page was used to pester / harass any ELEM members (through pinging, etc) and all the usual behavioural policies would apply. It is my hope that such a page can facilitate Sandbh coming to better understand the problems and I believe that will be easier to achieve if conversations about, for example, WT:ELEM problems do not have to be worded so as to avoid a "broadly construed" topic ban on chemical elements.
• I acknowledge that this idea may prove to be unwise – DePiep has already suggested that I am being played. My suggestion cannot occur without ANI consent and I will accept any restrictions viewed as necessary to prevent such a page being misused to circumvent the topic ban. I also acknowledge the risk that such a page weakens the benefit of staying away from the topic area entirely. My hope is for Sandbh to build experience collaborating by editing in unrelated areas and that such a page can help him to reflect and understand the problems he has faced in the ELEM area. When he is able to return to the ELEM area, I want him to be able to contribute without a repeat of current problems, and I don't believe that is more likely if no effort is made to help him to understand those problems. If this proves ineffective, then the page will at least be able to inform any future action that is deemed necessary.
• I am open to any feedback / suggestions / comments / etc on my suggestion. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• EdChem I've accepted I'll incur some form of ban. To the extent I'm allowed, I've set out my preferences for what that ban could look like.
• Other editors have raised concerns about my capacity to turn around my behaviour. I hear your and their concerns. Since I am the driver, the car will do a u-turn back to the driving behaviour of 2012 to 2019. Anybody who chooses to will be able to watch, or not. There will be no impact in the article space and no impact caused by me at WP:ELEM, as I won't do anything unless consensus is established by some one else.
• I'm able to PM Double sharp, YBG, and R8R, and will do so as part of my rehab. DePiep and I agreed to leave the past behind.[92]
• I heard EdChem's concerns about a perception or risk of a loophole seeking. Respectfully and politely to everyone, I'm not so stupid that I'll be looking for loopholes. I'll be walking on glass and exercising the greatest caution, wherever I go. That behaviour will continue most likely for as long as I still live, since I never want to visit ANI hell again.
• My personal preference is to safely practice the art of being a good WP editor, in a topic I have expertise in, take inspiration from per an SPA, and have good access to sources modern and historical, rather then spending several months away from the painting easel so to speak. I request space to practice.
• There'd be quite a bit of work happening in my sandbox, which is where it'll stay unless I have approval from WP:ELEM or whomever to do otherwise. I may shoot myself in the foot here but I hope that allowing access to my sandbox, in order to draft e.g. a polished periodic table FA, after nearly nine years of smooth WP editing and three FA's would be modest request. There will be no fight after my topic ban concludes.
• Failing all that, I appreciate the offer from EdChem for a single page in his user page.
• I'd like to keep WP:ELEM informed of interesting publications. There are a few of these on the way.
• I took comfort in Johnuniq's support, as an admin, for "the minimum required to ensure peace and quiet for at a few months in the hope that others will settle whatever this interminable dispute is about." That was the aim of my request for a voluntary ban. A nuanced ban rather than a one size fit alls, so to speak.
• I may be bold at times but no so foolish as to plead for a voluntary editing restructions only to have the whole thing blow up in my face through my own actions.
• I'll keep ANI or an admin, and WP:ELEM informed (presuming I'm allowed to do so) on at least a monthly basis as I go along or if I have questions about conduct under the terms of whatever the ban looks like.
• In these dot points I've attempted to set out my thoughts and feelings in a plain, polite, manner. I'm grateful for the opportunity.
• Unless there are questions I'll await the determination of the admin who closes the thread.

--- Sandbh (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

re @Sandbh: DePiep and I [Sandbh] agreed to leave the past behind: for the record. As I replied just now on my talkpage, not a 'leave behind' meaning 'as if noting happened' [93]. Sigh, since I replied to a friendly talkpage-help-request, I only got more trouble and misreadings. I will stop it. -DePiep (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• I do not support this Sandbh § Proposal: Self-imposed editing restrictions and conditions. IMO the problems and issues not solely are article-editing, but also discussion process and intereaction. These issues might easily reappear. Some details in here are not reassuring either, such as "Under the watch of [editor:XX] I'd like to edit ..." and "As lead editor, I'd like to edit [article ZZ]". This introduces side-deals with editors for 'consensus' and WP:OWN issues, both causes of current situation [94]. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawing my complaint

​​​​​​​​ Is there a protocol for so doing?

I feel that the stress of pursuing my complaint is not worth the bother of resolving the question of whether a re-revert of deleted content is a breach of BRD.

I subsequently intend to seek consensus at WP:ELEM to proceed with my proposed edits of the periodic table article, on an edit by edit basis, as informed by concerns previously raised there. While the periodic table is shown as FA, it is no longer of that standard. Which was what the "fuss" was about. It'll be slow going but we'll get there.

As Games of the world said, "Sandbh you really need to pick more wisely before coming here." --- Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

When a report is filed on the noticeboards, it's generally the case that the behavior of all the participants in the dispute is examined. Considering that a proposal has been filed asking for you to be sanctioned, it's rather late to withdraw your complaint, and doing so will not stop consideration of that proposal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

While I welcome Sandbh's intention to nullify their request to "disavow" [sic] me, for whatever reasons, I prefer this thread to be continued. Multiple editors, involved and uninvolved, have noted irregularities in the editing & discussing process, and so it could be benefiting WP:ELEM & this Wiki to address these. Included in what Sandbh calls the "fuzz" is the issue of two project members who walked away from the project, apparently with frustration. Also, since ELEM may be scrutinized once more as a (paused) potential ArbCom Case, an ANI outcome could prevent the project from breaking down. "We found ourself within a forest dark, For the straightforward pathway had been lost." -DePiep (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ahi quanto a dir qual era è cosa dura / esta selva selvaggia e aspra e forte / che nel pensier rinova la paura! Narky Blert (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This thread is indeed open and drawing input from uninvolved editors, so it should remain open until a clear solution is reached. Otherwise, the problem will remain, and we'll find ourselves here again in no time.

And on another note, if it is believed that periodic table is not up to FA standard, that can and should be handled at WP:Featured article review, where uninvolved editors can give a (hopefully) impartial review of the article content. ComplexRational (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sandbh

Thank you for your post, DePiep.

I'm no longer stressed since I notified this board of:

• my request to withdraw my complaint against DePiep; and
• that I would seek consensus at WP:ELEM to proceed with my proposed edits of the periodic table article, on an edit by edit basis, as informed by concerns previously raised there.

My two consensus requests at WP:ELEM are here and here. I've had one response to each request: No and no, from DePiep.

Re: "what Sandbh calls the "fuzz", I have no idea what this is referring to.

Double sharp has previously withdrawn from the project and subsequently returned. During his first withdrawal he remained in contact with myself and WP:ELEM. DS is still a member of the project [95] and is now in less active lurk mode.[96] YBG, who I have met ftf and count as a good friend, has taken at least one previous wikibreak, and returned to the project. Contrary to what Nsk99 wrote, YBG is still member of the project [97] and is contactable via his talk page.[98]

Re: "it is believed that periodic table is not up to FA standard, that can and should be handled at WP:Featured article review", I formed the view the article was no longer up to FAR some months ago. Subsequently EdChem expressed the same view.[99] I don't have a diff as some our discussions were on user talk pages rather than at WP:ELEM. EdChem can confirm.

Rather than seeking FAR, that is what prompted the recent round of continuous improvement editing on the PT article—which I initiated[100]—and which resulted in some 220+ edits.

I'm still contributing to efforts to bring the PT article up to standard [101]. I notified WP:ELEM of my edit (68 words, or 1.9% of the article) and my reasoning.[102]. DePiep, who was previously admitted he is a "technician"[103] with no SME in this area, reverted my edit.[104]

I have listed this revert at WP:ELEM with a request to obtain consensus.[105]

I regret the need to add to the 5,300+ word count. Sandbh (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

--- Sandbh (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbh, you can withdraw your complaint against DePiep, but that won't stop ANI from considering the proposal relating to you.
• This is not the place to discuss content but, for the record, I confirm that I do have concerns about whether the periodic table article meets FA standards.
• Seeking consensus is good, but this thread started as you flagged an intent to revert (which is good), started a discussion and participated in it (also good), then took Double sharp's comment as a reason to carry out the revert anyway (not good), and was reverted by DePiep. You've suggested DePiep's revert violated BRD. It is suggested above that your revert was a new bold edit and thus DePiep's edit was the "R" in BRD. A less favourable analysis was that your revert following the discussion was against a (developing?) consensus and thus (arguably) disruptive. Whether either or both of you and DePiep violated the BRD guideline is much less important than whether there is an ongoing problem with editor behaviour / actions / whatever that is impacting the quality of article content and the editing process... and there is. This is why the posts above mostly skipped over the technical BRD question and went to ELEM dysfunctionality.
• For me, the above provides an example where your evaluation of consensus has been problematic. This is not an isolated problem as other examples exist on the WT:ELEM page, dealing with consensus on what is OR and what is appropriate on talk pages. I am genuinely torn on what options exist for moving forward. To be honest, noting DePiep has responded with "no" to your suggestions and then coming here to ANI to comment on him as you have is adding to my concerns. How do you see writing that DePiep, who was previously admitted he is a "technician" [106] with no SME in this area, reverted my edit [107] is helpful? ANI doesn't deal with content and it appears to me that you are suggesting / implying that DePiep lacks the competence to edit the article, or is edit warring, or disruptive, etc... which seems inconsistent with withdrawing your complaint?
• I am sure this is an unpleasant experience and you have so much knowledge to share. However, ANI readers / contributors are concerned with the editing environment for all and the impact on articles. They are assessing your approach, your actions as part of the ELEM team, your contributions to WT:ELEM, etc, and whether the topic area would benefit from you being restricted (or even excluded from it). What I advise is to reflect on your actions and explain what you see as problems and how to address them. Can you persuade uninvolved admins and editors that action is not needed from ANI, or suggest what action would help? EdChem (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been summoned here by User:DePiep. I've been rather inactive for the last month or so and only watched the ongoing developments at WT:ELEM from the sidelines (and I didn't watch them too closely), although I have intervened once, unsuccessfully, when an intervention seemed in order, as it was previously mentioned in this section by other editors.

As for the original post, I don't think DePiep has committed any action for which DePiep should be held responsible. I admit I do think some arguments could be made better---especially when it comes to rationalization of DePiep's words, because some remarks are blunt but the explanation for this bluntness is not quite as clear as I would expect---but I haven't been able to identify a single red line that was crossed that would necessitate any action against DePiep, and I would oppose any such action being taken now. That being said, that's not Sandbh was asking for, at least as I read his post. I read his post as "please make him let me add my contribution," not "block him so that I could add it." As for the contribution itself, my understanding on the issue is---and I stand ready to correct myself if I misunderstood something---is that there's been no explicit agreement to make it mandatory to seek consensus to add new material, and as such, I could understand where Sandbh's frustration about being blocked from adding it until consensus was reached (I'll return to the topic of consensus later) came from. After it was made abundantly clear that this is where things stand today, Sandbh accepted that; it was in this spirit that the original post was retracted (or at least it was attempted to get the post retracted) and it was in the same spirit that Sandbh petitioned to seek such a consensus at WT:ELEM; problem solved, in one way or another.

As for where thing stand today and whether should be any sanction against Sandbh, the issue seems very uncertain. What would such a sanction really achieve today? I'm leaving aside the topic of whether a sanction would be deserved---ANI, as I understand it, doesn't do justice, it tries to help build the encyclopedia (right?)---what would it effectively achieve today? We most certainly would lose the knowledgeable author that Sandbh is, and what we get in return? Sandbh's main disagreement was with Double sharp, who admitted to me earlier in this month he wouldn't have too much spare time for Wiki in 2021 anyway, and now seems to be more certain to be gone, at least for a while, so that disagreement is not on the table. I haven't had a conflict with Sandbh and I'm going to keep it that way. ComplexRational hasn't had a conflict with Sandbh and is also likely not going to get himself into one. And that's it, that's all editors left at WP:ELEM now; only DePiep has problems with Sandbh and Sandbh has problems only with DePiep, and even the two of them have very different main areas of interest within our project: Sandbh writes articles and DePiep doesn't, instead doing primarily supplementary work, including outstanding contributions on graphics.

As for consensus building for periodic table, that seems rather unlikely today. I assume that there are four editors left in the project, and I'm not going to intervene as long as there are no editors on the verge of leaving, and ComplexRational hasn't intervened too much in this sort of issue, either, and as I see it, DePiep asking for a consensus essentially means asking for a veto power over future additions. I'm not at all implying that this was the original intent---I don't believe it was that---but it does look like this is what "consensus building" essentially boils down to in current circumstances... is it really that good of an idea, today?

My proposal for a solution would be that an external arbiter outlines how things should proceed in the future (I think EdChem could assume this position or at least contribute to such an outline)---maybe survey opinions on what such a description should contain---and have Sandbh and DePiep commit to that and warn that there will be consequences if that commitment, given as the outcome of this ANI incident, is not honored. I'm ready to join Sandbh and DePiep in making such a commitment if my participation is seen as a positive addition. I'm suggesting this because if one gives a word to do something, that'll be a stronger commitment than just a policy being somewhere there; after all, a policy is subject to avoidance at times, at least some editors may see it as such (see WP:IAR); moreover, if they both agree to the same thing, there won't be any feeling that someone is affected disproportionately (and undeservedly) more than the other one, and parity is important since in this very section, both Sandbh and DePiep have made comments about the other one that they could find an unpleasant accusation. Restriction by such an agreement could help recreate the positive climate Double sharp and YBG could return to. Most importantly, if there ever is a problem that arises after the outline has been approved, then it's easy to point out what the violation was, and it will be clear that punishment is deserved. Failure to commit to (hopefully) reasonable demands in the outline will also be rather telling.--R8R (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why were are discussing a "breach" of BRD as if it's some sort of bright line policy violation or worthy of an ANI over a single instance. If this is a general or discretionary sanctions area with enforced BRD, then that should have been mentioned in the opening statement and further for DS, it would likely be better to bring this up at WP:ARE or in both cases, maybe just speaking personally to the admin who introduced the page restriction. If not, then as always BRD is good practice and and an editor who consistently ignores BRD is likely to be a problem editor but it's dumb to bring an ANI case over a single alleged "breach" since it's not an explicit policy violation let alone a bright-line one. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with R8R's conclusion that this is an issue between me and Sandbh. For example re periodic table: until Dec 25, I have not intervened since Sandbh starting "restructuring" it. Started: Nov 15, -7k, and R8R -15k. So there were serious issues re the editing, and the article is about to loose its FA star—all without me. Also, R8R is playing down the fact that two contributors left. As for ComplexRational's involvement: CR's absense is not a confimation of "no problem"; just read CR's posts in this thread. I think the issue does not need to be brought down to editors instead of edits. btw, I did not 'summon' R8R, but noticed them [108]. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

A couple of clarification points: when I said that ComplexRational and I had no problems with Sandbh, I meant no problems that prevented anyone from improving the encyclopedia, rather than mere disapproval. I also note that I did not use the word "summon" to cast negative light onto DePiep; if that's how my wording is perceived (I'm struggling to see how that could be the case, but let's say that's it), please rest assured it wasn't the case. Other than that, I have nothing to add to the comment I've already given without repeating myself.--R8R (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, 'notification/summoning' misunderstanding is gone. Then re User:R8R. Others might correct me, but I still do not see why this would be about me having to make 1:n agreements or commitments. Unless editors can convince me of usefullness, I am not open for such side-deals. I recall other ELEM editors created side-agreement(s) in November when the CaseRequest was open, and a generic wide open pacification truce R8R and Sandbh did not sign up to. Now here we are. -DePiep (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Too whom it may concern

1. In nearly ten years of editing I have never engaged in edit-warring 2. In 2020, vandalism aside, I made one revert of deleted content, which was re-reverted by DePiep 3. Before making this revert I gave notification of my intention to do so 4. Discussion ensued 5. Only after the editor who deleted my original content agreed to let me edit as I wished, with others commenting, did I revert 6. I subsequently started editing the restored content in response to concerns raised by Double sharp, before being re-reverted 7. Discussion at the WP:ELEM talk page is freely entered into, or ignored

I'll respond to EdChem and R8R's helpful contributions, shortly. Sandbh (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Given R8R is a long-serving member of WP:ELEM he understands what is going on. I support his perspective and comments. Sandbh (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

​ So am I, so do I. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

​EdChem, thanks.

I only reverted after the discussion of my intent to do so petered out, including a suggested way ahead. I took the absence of further discussion as, effectively, consensus, especially since Double sharp, who deleted my content in the first place, withdrew from the discussion, and said I could edit as I pleased, subject to comments by others. I understand this is custom and practice at WP i.e. re when a discussion peters out.

My revert was not a new bold edit. Any WP editor has the right to revert at any time, as a way of seeking consensus. If DePiep had concerns with my revert he could’ve discussed these at the WP:ELEM talk page. Instead, he re-reverted.

As noted, I’ve never engaged in edit-warring. This year, among other edits, I made some to the periodic table article. Double sharp raised some concerns. In response I initiated the fresh energy for the periodic table article editing exercise. 220+ edits ensued. I subsequently notified my intention to revert just one of Double sharp’s multiple edits. The rest is history.

Re DePiep’s subject matter expertise, I raised this since the reasons for his re-revert, and his subsequent “no” responses to my consensus requests, included content for which he has no subject matter expertise, as he himself has freely admitted. In other words, this is not about content, it is about conduct. In this regard, note that even after Double sharp said I could edit as I pleased, DePiep was still expecting me to seek approval from Double sharp [109]. If that’s not disruptive blocking behaviour, then I don’t know what is.

As to the way ahead, the background to the “dispute” concerns a single article out of the hundreds that WP:ELEM has an interest in, and one revert at that.

As I can’t edit the PT article without being re-reverted, blocked, or reverted by DePiep, I’ve posted four requests for consensus at the WP:ELEM talk page.

As to the way ahead at the WP:ELEM talk page, all discussion there is freely entered into, or not. In the past, some discussion has been quite heated. I no longer engage in that kind of less than polite discussion.

More generally, in terms of “disavowing” DePiep, I simply ask that he contributes to WP:ELEM in a team-building sense, as a member of WP:ELEM, by engaging in discussion before reverting the work of other team members. That is a courtesy Double sharp extended to me, and me to him. Apparently this is courtesy that DePiep has chosen not to extend to me. Once again, this is a conduct issue not a content issue.

Since I’ve asked to withdraw my complaint, and am now engaged in consensus seeking at WP:ELEM, the whole thing has become moot IMO, in any event. @Nil Einne and Games of the world: have expressed similar sentiments. Sandbh (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Sandbh, there is a topic ban proposal being considered, one that has a reasonable chance of passing, so the whole thing is not at all moot.
• What I infer from the above is that
  • you are a subject-matter expert who has contributed a lot of quality content
  • DePiep is not a subject-matter expert and so shouldn't be reverting you
  • that you are (in some sense) forced by DePiep to discuss / seek consensus for changes to the PT article prior to implementation
  • that this is conduct issue for DePiep because of his lack of content knowledge, and because (in your opinion) he is not working as part of the ELEM team
  • that there were heated discussion in the past and that you are now only contributing politely
  • that, other than past heated discussions, there are no problems with your own actions or behaviour
  • that, post the ArbCom near-acceptance of a case on ELEM, there is now only one problem and that is DePiep's actions and behaviour

Is this a fair summary of your view? EdChem (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem:: thanks for this effort. -DePiep (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem and DePiep: Thank you both for your interest.

Per WP policy, a ban is a sanction of last resort. I see no conduct that has been so egregious that it warrants a ban. Nor was I seeking a ban for DePiep.

Yes, I have some SME in the periodic table, and have contributed a lot of quality content to articles that WP:ELEM take an interest in.

DePiep can revert me at anytime he likes. In this case he did so on the basis of concerns previously raised by Double sharp. The latter subsequently said I could edit as I liked, subject to the comments of others. DePiep went ahead and re-reverted me anyway adding why don't I ask Double sharp. Eh?

Since I do not wish to breach BRD by re-re-reverting I'm now obliged to seek consensus at WP:ELEM, which I have done. The only person to so far respond to my requests for consensus is DePiep, who opposed my first two requests, without foundation IMHO.

Yes, there for sure was heated discussion in the past at the WP: ELEM talk page. That said, all discussions at WP:ELEM are freely entered into or ignored. In any event, I've disavowed such behaviour quite a while ago and now seek to engage in polite discourse. Double sharp expressed regret at contributing to such behaviour and similarly toned things down.

OP's have raised concerns about my use of primary sources, and alleged use of OR in the talk space. As discussed, and you acknowledged EdChem, WP policy provides for the use of primary sources in articles, and that WP:OR does not apply at to talk pages. I recall you raised concerns about OR on a talk page having the potential to creep into the article space which, of course is prohibited. None of my alleged OR discussion has done so.

Re the content that Double sharp removed from the periodic table article that, after discussion at WP:ELEM, I reverted, and that DePiep re-reverted, I've since refined this content, in light of Double sharp's feedback, and posted it to WP:ELEM, along with a request for consensus. I'm not aware of what more I can do, in my efforts to bring the PT article back up to FA standard, as any editor can so contribute, in the great WP tradition.

Post near-ArbCom:

• Double sharp and I reached consensus on the periodic table categories, and our consensus was implemented.
• WP:ELEM takes an interest in hundreds of articles but few editors, other than R8R, Double sharp, and I (and DePeip wrt to templates) engage in extensive editing of those articles. For example, R8R and Double sharp were recently working on bringing aluminium up to FA standard; I most recently worked on bringing noble metals up to scratch.

I hope this clearly sets things out.

Your thoughts (you too, DePiep)? --- Sandbh (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please provide a TL;DR. Otherwise, readers might catch the wrong detail/subline as important etc etc. -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

and, this is your reply to EdChem's "fair summary?", right? -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh, it is understood that you oppose any Tban / think it is unwarranted, etc. But, looking at my qustion, is what I posted a fair summary of your view? Or, "accurate / reasonable but for XXX" – in which case, what is XXX? Or, "no" it's inaccurate/ unfair – in which case, how? Or, ...? EdChem (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@EdChem and DePiep: Thank you. I've turned EdChem's and my responses into a table, so that it becomes easier to see. DePiep, yes that's my response to EdChem. The TLDR is as shown. Is that clear now/will this do? --- Sandbh (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: The post in which Sandbh created the table mentioned here has been reverted by DePiep. Further details below. EdChem (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No, please no. Don't. Just reply to EdChem's posts. (formal note, Sandbh: I will not take ANI disruptions like this lightly any more). -DePiep (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sandbh I have reverted your tabilisation. Please, just reply. [110] -DePiep (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC):

• In reply to Levivich's question, which has since been removed, and because it was my post that was restructured and everyone may be confused:
  • Levivich, this is how I posed the question to Sandbh. It was very much meant as an attempt to clarify / summarise the view that Sandbh has of the situation. This was Sandbh's reply, which prompted DePiep to seek a shorter reply and also to post the above 'this is your reply' question. I also sought clarification, which is what prompted Sandbh to reorganise my question / summary and his response into the above table. Perhaps he chose this approach after I moved a comment that he inserted into mine earlier today at WT:ELEM and added a note politely pointing to TPG. I am surprised that this restructuring of my ANI post has occurred and based on the post that DePiep made, I suspect that he is too. I think that the result is that what has happened is only clear by examining the diffs, though undoing the post would also create potential confusion and distract from the point I was seeking to understand – what Sandbh actually sees as the situation. In any case, I thank you for asking and giving me the opportunity to clarify. EdChem (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • PS: While typing the above, DePiep has reverted and asked Sanbh to reply conventionally and posted to you. I'm slotting this (after ec) wherever seems plausible. Please, will someone not involved help to keep this on track? EdChem (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Yes, it was me reverting Sandbh. Are we OK all? Promise: won't happen again -- by S.). Alle reverts & corrections OK by me (except by Sandbh). -DePiep (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Restoring my content reverted by DePiep

DePiep reverted some content I posted to this board, further to above section, in response to EdChem's questions.[111] He has no right to revert how I choose to answer a question. This was my content (including content copied from another post by EdChem). I did not change any other editor's content. The last time he and I were here, he asked me not to interfere with his content. I adhered to his request. I trust he will extend that courtesy to me now. @EdChem and Levivich:, I'm reposting my reverted content. It seems I'm now no longer allowed to answer a question in a manner of my choosing. Sandbh (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the edit summary? Undid revision 997146585 by Sandbh (talk) this is !vote area, no discussion. )If you want to diuscuss my conclusion?? - go elsewhere.)

"It seems I'm now no longer allowed to answer a question in a manner of my choosing" If your method involves ignoring talk page norms and guidelines for you exclusive benefit, nope, you're not. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Calton, the disruptive revert I referred to was as per the diff. Non-reason given by DePiep was: "(Reverted 1 edit by Sandbh (talk) to last revision by Narky Blert)." Sandbh (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @EdChem, DePiep, and Levivich: I regret the confusion cause by my IGF refactorisation of EdChem's comments, which has now been undone by DePiep.

I've copied EdChem's 7 to 8 dot point assessment/comments [112] and added my responses into the following table, so that it becomes easier to see. DePiep, yes that's my response to EdChem.

The TLDR is as shown. Is that clear now/will this do?

Levivich, the 1-8 items are a verbatim copy of EdChem's comments.

EdChem's assessment & Sandbh's comments

EdChem	Sandbh
1. you are a subject-matter expert who has contributed a lot of quality content	Yes, I have some SME in the periodic table, and have contributed a lot of quality content to articles that WP:ELEM take an interest in.
2. DePiep is not a subject-matter expert and so shouldn't be reverting you	DePiep can revert me at anytime he likes. In this case he did so on the basis of concerns previously raised by Double sharp. The latter subsequently said I could edit as I liked, subject to the comments of others. DePiep went ahead and re-reverted me anyway adding why don't I ask Double sharp. Eh?
3. that you are (in some sense) forced by DePiep to discuss / seek consensus for changes to the PT article prior to implementation	Since I do not wish to breach BRD by re-re-reverting I'm now obliged to seek consensus at WP:ELEM, which I have done. The only person to so far respond to my requests for consensus is DePiep, who opposed my first two requests, without foundation IMHO.
4. that this is conduct issue for DePiep because of his lack of content knowledge, and because (in your opinion) he is not working as part of the ELEM team	See above
5. that there were heated discussion in the past and that you are now only contributing politely	Yes, there for sure was heated discussion in the past at the WP: ELEM talk page. That said, all discussions at WP:ELEM are freely entered into or ignored. In any event, I've disavowed such behaviour quite a while ago and now seek to engage in polite discourse. Double sharp expressed regret at contributing to such behaviour and similarly toned things down.
6. that, other than past heated discussions, there are no problems with your own actions or behaviour	OP's have raised concerns about my use of primary sources, and alleged use of OR in the talk space. As discussed, and you acknowledged EdChem, WP policy provides for the use of primary sources in articles, and that WP:OR does not apply at to talk pages. I recall you raised concerns about OR on a talk page having the potential to creep into the article space which, of course is prohibited. None of my alleged OR discussion has done so. Re the content that Double sharp removed from the periodic table article that, after discussion at WP:ELEM, I reverted, and that DePiep re-reverted, I've since refined this content, in light of Double sharp's feedback, and posted it to WP:ELEM, along with a request for consensus. I don't know what more I can do, in my efforts to bring the PT article back up to FA standard, as any editor can so contribute, in the great WP tradition. If there are any aspects of my conduct that I've overlooked I'll be pleased to address them.
7. that, post the ArbCom near-acceptance of a case on ELEM, there is now only one problem and that is DePiep's actions and behaviour	Post ArbCom, Double sharp and I reached consensus on the periodic table categories, and our consensus was implemented. 2020 has been an exceptionally productive year as far as the PT article goes: 512 edits, more than any year since 2012, which is when we got it back up to FA. WP:ELEM takes an interest in hundreds of articles but few editors, other than R8R, Double sharp, and I (and DePeip wrt to templates) engage in extensive editing of those articles. For example, R8R and Double sharp were recently working on bringing aluminium up to FA standard; I most recently worked on bringing noble metals up to scratch.
8. Is this a fair summary of your view? EdChem (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)	Some parts of it are fair; for some other parts I've responded above. That's the TLDR, basically.
Per WP policy, a ban is a sanction of last resort. I see no conduct that has been so egregious that it warrants a ban. Nor was I seeking a ban for DePiep.

DePiep Stop deleting content posted by others! Vikram Vincent 07:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• The refactoring that has gone on here makes following it all difficult. DePiep reverting the conversion of my post and Sandbh's response into a table was certainly justifiable. Though it might have been better done by an uninvolved editor, it was necessary – and I say that accepting that Sandbh genuinely did not see it as problematic. Reverting the comment added after DePiep's vote was understandable given it is a !vote section (as calton also noted), though it would again have been better done by an uninvolved editor. However, I don't see the justification for reverting Sandbh's presentation of the table as his chosen response to my question. I was seeking a more concise and brief response, but I can't direct how Sandbh responds and nor can anyone else (so long as the reply is clearly all Sandbh's content, policy compliant, etc). DePiep, I think you are too close to the situation to be doing any more reverting of anything that is not absolutely clear cut. It is adding friction and heat where they are not needed and so I ask that you hold back from reverting and instead ask for someone uninvolved to consider action (which excludes me, of course). EdChem (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: I was pondering an immediate edit block for Sandbh for this page. Their edits were disrupting the discussion full stop, both by rearragning posts and by changing topics &tc. Already multiple ANI reports have gone useless (=made unable to conclude) this way. Needed is an authorty (a cleck?) for this page to keep threads in good order. My goal is to keep this ANI productive. -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Help request

I obviously need help if, in my best endeavours, I'm facing the prospect of a topic ban. Not help in a mental health sense; help in in a "how to meet WP expectations" sense. I'm obviously missing something. I have not read any more recent posts, including EdChem's comments above.

Is my goose cooked?

I have asked @EdChem, DePiep, and R8R: for any help they could provide.

thank you --- Sandbh (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: I won't be online again until tomorrow morning my time; in about 10 to 12 hours.

My last post

​​​​​​​​​​​ I intend for this to be my last post to this thread.

I don't know what else I can do to express contrition. I've acknowledged my problematic conduct. I've reached out to WP:ELEM colleagues asking for their help. I'm ready to work cooperatively with WP:ELEM members.

Barring further developments I intend to work quietly on seeking consensus at WP:ELEM, and constructively working on related articles of interest.

To everybody here, and to WP:ELEM colleagues, I look forward to 2021 being an improvement on the train-wreck that was 2020.

--- Sandbh (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Questions on ban coverage

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

---

1. Under the terms my topic ban, how do I obtain guidance about its application? For example, am I able to keep in contact with WP:ELEM colleagues, on non-chemical-element related matters, via my talk page?
2. I would like to obtain clarity as to, for example, if I may edit e.g. cisplatin, water, DNA, sand, hypofluorous acid and philosophy of chemistry, and if the ban covers much of biology and medicine and pharmacology, at least in so far as the chemical elements are relevant? The latter question was put by @EdChem: and commented on by Johnuniq, and Narky Blert but never completely answered. Judging from their responses there seemed to be a level of support but I am proceeding with an abundance of caution.
3. Am I able to edit such pages as Eric Scerri, a world authority on the periodic table, Leopold Gmelin, German chemist (1788 – 1853), or indeed, Dmitri Mendeleev, whose page is badly in need of improving?
4. Further, if someone from WP:ELEMENTS pings me about a chemical elements topic, or posts to my talk page about chemical elements, am I permitted to respond?

​​​The context for my questions are that I am looking for opportunities to demonstrate cooperative editing, in areas that I have some expertise in. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

1. Please read WP:TBAN. For example, 'broadly construed', and the 'Weather, parts' description.

2. It is not an WP:IBAN. You are free to contact editors (but stay away from the Topic).

3. In the thread, I have posted [113].

4. Please be very careful. Editors have expressed discontent with your editing, and a good start would be to understand these issues before showing up at the borders. Meanwhile, editing pleasure can more easily be found in other topics. -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh, in the closed discussion above, I summarised my interpretation of the scope of the TBAN in two lines. It isn't difficult to understand. Don't try to test its boundaries, or you will surely overstep them. In plain words and broad terms: you have been TBANned for pissing other editors off - don't do it again.

WP needs specialist editors, but it needs good editors even more. Work in some other areas also. Researching stuff that you know nothing about is an interesting intellectual challenge (and Lord knows that WP is full of gaping holes). Narky Blert (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandbh, I think your question is fair but risks being taken as "how do I know where the boundaries are so I can step right up to them but stay 1 mm on the 'allowed' side?" (which I am sure is not what you mean) rather than as "how I recognise what I need to stay well away from?" I agree with DePiep that the parts of WP:TBAN dealing with "broadly construed" are helpful... though I remain unsure of the boundaries here and, if I were you, I would adopt the view that anything that plausibly can be placed within the tban zone should be avoided. Looking at some of your specifics, and noting that this is my opinion only and that alleged violations will be judged by uninvolved admins whose views vary and who may not be familiar with the exact issues that have arisen:

1: Don't ask for guidance at WT:ELEM. Don't post there for any reason, it is squarely within the zone of the tban and has been a site of ongoing issues. As DePiep notes, you are not subject to any WP:IBAN so you can communicate with any editor. What you can't do is communicate on-wiki about anything in the area of the topic ban, nor should you communicate in any place that the tban applies. In other words, if you are banned from an article then its talk page is off limits, as is the content of it anywhere else (like in a DYK / GA / FA nomination, etc), as is talking about it anywhere in user space.
Asking for guidance is allowed, but be careful in asking that you do not talk about the topic itself. For example, asking "Am I allowed to edit the aluminium article?" is a fair question. "I would like to do X, Y and Z to the article aluminium to help it reach FA standard, is this allowed?" is a dangerous question as X, Y, and Z may well be talking about the topic of the ban. As aluminium is one of the elements, I think working on it or its FA nomination falls within the ban, I am sorry to say. As for who to ask, you can try Sandstein (as the admin who closed the discussion and imposed the ban), or an admin who you feel comfortable with, or use the admin help template, or any other editor... just remember that you can only get opinions, not definitive rulings.

2: The likely answer to your list is "it depends." If you were editing cisplatin about its medical use, I think that is fine. About its chemical properties, more dangerous. About how it is a platinum-based chemo agent and platinum is a noble metal, etc, would not be allowed. I note that Narky Blert is of the view that the scope is easy to understand. For the core topic, that is true – WT:ELEM, the PT article, templates dealing with PTs and categorisation, articles on noble metals, classes / groups of non-metals, etc are all caught by the tban. "Broadly construed", however, is open to interpretation and some admins take much broader views than do others. The admin who closed the discussion, Sandstein, is one who takes a strict perspective and I am disappointed that he chose not to address the requests for clarification made in the above discussion.

3: Editing biographies of scientists noted for there work on the elements would, in my view, be caught by "broadly construed." Scerri's article should be treated with particular care as it is a BLP. I'm not suggesting you would seek to violate BLP, just that any BLP is a place for extra care and an editor with a potentially-relevant tban risks a "block first and ask questions later" response.

4: If pinged on WT:ELEM, say, I think the wise choices are (a) don't respond at all, or (b) post to the pinging editor's user talk page to note the ping has been seen and to say that you are unable to reply because of the tban. Don't express (directly or implicitly) a view on whatever the question is if it falls within the scope of the tban. Questions on your user talk page about a tban area can be either removed / archived with an edit note that you can't respond due to the tban or posting a brief comment that you are unable to respond.

Though you did not specifically ask, the close does not allow for any discussion that violates the tban. We can still have a discussion about prior events to facilitate your understanding but it cannot include discussion of the topic itself, which will be much more difficult. It is also important to note that the tban applies throughout your user space, so creating / editing any sub-page on the topic is also prohibited for the length of the ban.

I hope this provides some clarification. EdChem (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In my comments, I have deliberately kept away from specifics. Suffice it to say, that EdChem and I appear to have near-enough exactly the same interpretation of what I called "easy to understand". Narky Blert (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

EdChem, you pinged me. I've not replied here because I have no authority to provide guidance on this matter. The community imposed this topic ban, not I, and therefore my view about its scope is not more authoritative than any other editor's. That being said, Sandbh, the policy at WP:TBAN is in my view quite clear and should provide sufficient guidance. In brief, keep far away from anything at all that is broadly related to chemical elements or you risk being blocked. Sandstein 20:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

To all. Since my uname is in the sectiontitle, I think I have some right to ask for final closure (i.e., archiving). By now, this thread has not made any impressive progress after closing. I thank all editors who have contributed to the devolopment of this ANI thread up to this point (to me, looks like a thorougly sincere and well performed one). Now please archive it, and do help editors otherwise if you wish to. -DePiep (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I endorse DePiep's proposal. This is a timesink (someone should write WP:TIMESINK). Narky Blert (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

IMHO a black & white topic ban is preferable, and easier to administer, than a ban with nebulous boundaries. That said, I'll take up my outstanding questions with Sandstein at his talk page. Sandbh (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not to take away from any of the above advice, it's kind of like if you're forbidden to smoke tobacco, and you're asking ... How about lighters and ashtrays -- are they OK? Does it count if I inhale second-hand smoke? My advice is that for the duration of your topic ban you stay out of the tobacco shop, period, and completely away from people who smoke, period. Start hanging out in a no-smoking bar and take up drinking. You might like it. EEng 06:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a WP:Tban, not a WP:Iban. -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of the T-ban. I don’t understand the purpose of making it nebulous, when more specific options are available. To me it feels like, "to calms things down we're going to take this option away from you. At the same time we'll leave the metaphoric gun in the room to provide a source of temptation." It also feels to me like an admin is happy to impose a ban, which of course they have right to do, but after that it's, "you're on your own except if you get caught".

A site ban is specific; an article or page ban is specific; an I-ban is specific. Why does a topic ban need to be non-specific? IMHO this approach is unnecessary, and serves no real purpose, apart from causing confusion, and prompting the kinds of questions I raised.

In any event, I note WP:BAN (which is policy, rather than an essay), provides for exceptions to bans, unless stated otherwise:

1. "reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons."
2. "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include…asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban."
3. "As a banned user, if you think your editing is excepted from the ban according to these rules, you should explain why that is so at the time of the edit, for example in the edit summary. When in doubt, do not make the edit. Instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask whoever imposed the ban to clarify."

I interpret this to mean the T-ban is not imposed by the community; it is imposed by whoever imposed that ban, having regard to the views of the community. I have no idea what the bit about, when in doubt, engage in DR means. How can I supposedly engage in DR on something I'm supposedly topic banned from?

I'm inclined not to say any more on the matter here, and to take up my remaining concerns on the capricious boundaries with Sandstein on their talk page. Let the two sands engage in a sandersation. Sandbh (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:TylerKutschbach

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

---

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

My concern is that User:TylerKutschbach appears to be adding huge amounts of unsourced election results to US city and county articles. This is an active editor who has made almost 14,000 edits in 2020, mostly to add election results or change demographic data. Of a total 22,022 edits, just 11 have been on a talk page.

Yesterday I noticed this edit where TylerKutschbach added the results of the 1880 United States presidential election. This source was already in the article (though with an access date of 2018-07-03), so I assumed the edit was sourced by that link. When I visited the source cited, I was unable to locate those specific 1880 election results.

I started a discussion User talk:TylerKutschbach#Kenton County, Kentucky:

• [114] - I asked where to find the 1880 election results in the source cited.
• [115] - TylerKutschbach responded, "You can look at the Wikipedia page for the 1880 county results for Kentucky".
• [116] - I told TylerKutschbach that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, and again asked where in the source cited I could find the 1880 election results.
• [117] - When TylerKutschbach continued to edit articles about election results, I asked again where to find the 1880 election results in the source cited.
• [118] - TylerKutschbach responded "The user Luokehao found the results on US Election Atlas".
• [119] - I asked again for clarification.

TylerKutschbach then reverted three edits to restore content about election results: [120][121][122].

Similar past edits:

• [123] - last November
• [124] - last October
• [125] - last September

Warnings this past year about unsourced content:

• [126] - User:David J Johnson
• [127] - User:SounderBruce
• [128] - User:Schazjmd

Previous ANI reports:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#User:TylerKutschbach
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#User:TylerKutschbach - Mass rollback needed

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my warning was about introducing incorrect information; TK reverted my revert with an explanation in the edit summary, and when I looked more closely at the pre-existing source, I agreed with TK's edit, so my initial revert was incorrect. Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I have been adding county election results from 1880 to 1908 because I saw the results on Wikipedia and someone added the results for each county by viewing US Election Atlas. TylerKutschbach

There's an issue here; the results are not on US Election Atlas as TylerKutschbach is repeatedly claiming. They are on Wikipedia, sourced to http://geoelections.free.fr/ , which sources them from W. D. Burnham : Presidential Ballots, 1836-1892. That book is available through the Internet Archive; I can verify the major-party results for Kenton County, Kentucky for 1880 are as presented in that book, though the third-party data is not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

TylerKutschbach continues to revert edits which remove the unsourced content. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

TylerKutschbach has been blocked for 36 hours for the repeated addition of unreferenced content. This comes from an AIV report that was filed just moments ago. I also took this ANI discussion into account when deciding to block. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Tendentious and deceptive editing

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

Account is involved with deceptive editing with misleading edit summaries for pushing POV and original research and removing unfixed tags all in guise of copy-editing and fixing technical issues.

• Kalaripayattu diff1 Adding WP:OR in the guise of Refined wording, fixed a LOT of grammar errors; note that this on a article subjected to regular content disputes.
• Kalaripayattu diff2 More disputable OR in Southern style section
• Kalaripayattu diff3 More OR at same section
• Kalaripayattu diff4 Adds a WP:FAKE reference that does not cite any of that OR
• Kalaripayattu diff5 Removed peacock template with a deceptive edit summary, at this point, article has peacock terms such as "held in high regards", "elegant", "heavy emphasis", and he himself would add peacock terms in his future edits
• Kalaripayattu diff6 Similar, removed refimprove template without fixing the issue, leaving the article with unsourced/OR and poorly sourced.
• Kalaripayattu diff7 Addition of disputable OR under the same sub-section where he removed refimprove tag
• Kalaripayattu diff8 Same person who removed peacock and refimprove template add peacock "high regard" and OR.
• Kalaripayattu diff9 More OR
• Kalaripayattu diff10 More OR with deceptive edit summary
• Kalaripayattu diff11 OR on the lead, also peacock "draws heavily"
• Kalaripayattu diff12 Altered content with deceptive edit summary more accurately worded source info. Also fixed grammar (there's no source at all)
• Kalaripayattu diff13 Bypassing sourcing issue by removing page needed tags in the guise of fixed broken links
• Kalaripayattu diff14 More deceptive fixed broken link, this time bypassing citation needed issues
• Kalaripayattu diff15 Removed broken link, more template vandalism
• Kalaripayattu diff16 More OR
• Kalaripayattu diff17 More template vandalism with deceptive edit summary
• Kalaripayattu diff18 Here, User:Arjayay clearly points WP:NOINDICSCRIPT, but still reverts it ignoring policy (Kalaripayattu diff19)
• Kalaripayattu diff20 Indic script again in infobox
• Kalaripayattu diff21 Adds "heavily influenced" another peacock
• Kalaripayattu diff22 This was never "moved"
• Kalaripayattu diff23 Adds peacock "great deal of"
• Battle cry diff1 Misleading and territorial vandalism, what HE changed has no evidence. This is one of his several attempts on different articles to remove Tamil cultural influence in Kerala (Kerala was part of old Tamilakam)
• Battle cry diff2 Adds OR
• Tamil literature diff1 More territorial vandalism, "established fact" based on his OR
• Tamils diff1 Changing a region is more accurate wording
• Tamil nationalism diff1 Same again, vandalism with misleading edit summary - more accurate wording by changing a territory itself, highly disputable change.
• Tamil nationalism diff2 A disputable OR
• Belly dance diff1 Changing an entire region is refined wording
• Martial arts diff1 Addition of considerable OR
• History of vegetarianism diff1 More territorial tampering with misleading edit summary. This edit made it look like the early records are from "India alone".
• History of vegetarianism diff2 Peacock "widely considered"
• Anti-miscegenation law diff1 A very disputable OR
• Kalaripayattu diff24 More peacock "great significance"
• Kalaripayattu diff25 More template vandalism, removed page needed and citation needed without fixing it.
• Kalaripayattu diff26 More unfixed template removal
• Kalaripayattu diff27 WP:FAKE source, it does not cite any of the claims

I am reporting this not as a content issue but as behavioral issue of the editor. The user follows "his way or the highway" and is clearly biased. This is tendentious editing and does treat Wikipedia as an encyclopedia but as a space to promote his own views. 157.46.176.171 (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

With respect, most of those edits occurred a while back, when I was less familiar with Wikipedia’s policies as I am now, especially those regarding unfixed tags, sourcing, MOS, consensus building, peacocks, puffery, proper edit summaries and other policies. I’m still learning about them, and have recently begun going through some more formalized Wikipedia instruction on different policies and procedures. As such, I have been working to correct those prior shortcomings as I learn. As far as I am aware, my edits and rewordings were done in order to better clarify or specify certain areas, regions on concepts, and not to really push a POV.

Your primary complaint appears to be that I’m “removing unfixed tags” and having a “my way or the highway” approach, but as far as I know, I have not removed any tags on a page in a malicious fashion, nor have I made any unexplained reverts recently without explaining why I was doing it, especially if the reason for it was explained. If you believe that this was the case, then I’d have to say it was more of an accident or out of ignorance of policy rather than enforcing a “my way or the highway,” approach. For instance, I got into a small dispute with Arjayay a while back about usage of Indic Scripts that you mentioned above. I initially included an Indic script after seeing it used in other pages about Indian cultural arts, but I later learned about the policy and left it alone when he removed it again. Also, I do not believe that your accusation of me providing a WP:FAKE source is true. The source you mentioned states that: “Thayil is currently teaching several classes in Merrylands and Penrith, Sydney: traditional Vadakkan Kalari—yoga-like moves, develops flexibility, speed and coordination; traditional Thekkan Kalari—more combat-oriented; hybrid Combat Kalari—based on realistic self-defence situations.” I do not believe that accusation makes any sense. I get the feeling that you may not have looked through the article properly, or maybe there was an issue with the link.

You also claim that I’m trying to dismiss Tamil influence from Kerala, but I’m afraid I disagree. In fact, I was trying to eliminate biases from Tamil pages towards southern India (including Kerala) as a whole. Kerala and Tamil Nadu are two separate regions of India. “Tamil Nadu” does NOT equal “Kerala,” nor does it equal the entirety of “southern India.” While Tamils are definitely part of India’s (particularly the southern region) history and have definitely had an influence on the region, they are hardly the only culture there. Tamil Nadu has absolutely had an influence on Kerala, especially since modern day Kerala made up most of the ancient Chera Kingdom. Tamils have also had an impact on many other regions of southern India, but many people, especially Tamil nationalists, tend to gloss this all over by claiming that everything in southern India is instantly and inherently Tamil simply because it occurred in the southern region of India. This is factually incorrect, and totally dismisses the cultures, views and actions of other cultural groups in southern India. In fact, this itself is a neutrality issue which is seen on many Indian pages. Many claims made on pages like Tamil nationalism portray Tamil notions, cultural values and movements to somehow be universal throughout southern India, or even India as a whole, when this is not the case. Tamil people and culture, along with most Tamil nationalist activities, are based in Tamil Nadu and northern Sri Lanka, which is why in my edits, I referred to it as such. In the page, if I remember correctly, it tries to portray Tamil nationalism as a large scale affair throughout southern India, when in reality, it is centered to Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, the main areas where Tamil language and culture are adhered to.

Again, I apologize for any mistakes I’ve made while editing in the past, and I assure you that they were made in good faith. As I said above, I’m currently receiving more formalized training in Wikipedia usage and editing to improve upon all this, but I do not agree with the accusation of me using Wikipedia to “promote my own views” or that my edits were used to convey any specific bias. As far as I know, most of my more recent edits are not made with the same lack of understanding as the ones you mentioned above (many of which happened several months, if not a year ago) after going through my entire editing history. That being said, I apologize if I have made any mistakes, as it was not my intention to break any policies or rules, as I’m still learning about policies and guidelines. Kalariwarrior (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Not all your edits are old, there are recent edits too. You did removed unfixed tags even recently (Dec 22). This is indeed WP:FAKE; except for a minor part that says southern style is more combative and northern focus on flexibility (this is not challengeable as its already sourced in the History section with [129]) it does not cite the main content the large piece of OR you added earlier. You also said in the talk page that you were going to remove the OR tag and other tags with this revision on, which also gives the impression that you have no plans to source the OR and that the above reference was attached to deceive that the whole content above is sourced. You still haven't removed the OR content even after this report.

You claim the Tamils are biased (they can also claim the same about you). This is exactly the problem, you are claiming, tweaking and adding content based on your own original research, disregarding WP:V and WP:OR. If you change a content you need to change the source too (disputable changes may require discussion first) and adding content require sourcing, otherwise, it's called OR and can constitute POV/bias.--157.46.176.226 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, only the last few diffs you’ve posted are actually new (occurred in the last month or so). The vast majority occurred months ago, when I was not at all familiar with most Wikipedia guidelines and policies. In fact, I’m still receiving formalized training to overcome that. That being said, I can see where I made my mistake and why you thought my template removals there might have been malicious. I removed those templates in an effort to clean up the article, and believed that the sourcing issues would be addressed here.

After reading up on policies of template removal, I can see where I made a mistake in that judgement and why it would be perceived as malicious POV pushing. I’ll refrain from cleaning up those tags in the future unless I have a proper fix for said tags or it’s specifically discussed in the talk page.

Also, I can understand where you’re coming from with the idea of the source being WP:FAKE. As the source stated, southern Kalari is more combative in nature. I merely expanded on this point with what I believed was a more apt description, which was also in keeping with other information in the article, rather than maliciously trying to fake a source. That being said, I do not see anything grossly inaccurate in the description I provided. Most combat oriented martial arts place emphasis on the same things I mentioned in the description. With respect, I understand the way you feel on the matter, and am open to changing that description if you wish, but I do feel like you’re making a far bigger deal out of it than it actually is.

You claim that I was “going to remove the tags on the page with this revision on, which also gives the impression that I had no plans to source the information and that the above reference was attached to deceive that the whole content above is sourced.”

This is clearly not true from my response here, in which I clearly state:

”If there are no other objections, I’ll remove the tags on the page.”

After which, I clearly left the page alone while I waited for any objections to appear, which is exactly when you voiced your objections. I pinged two other, established, more experienced users with substantial experience editing the page/participating in the talk page discussions of the page, multiple times to get their opinion on the matter and look through what I had done. One of them, Outlander07, replied with his opinion on the matter, and we discussed some of the issues I had tried to address.

If I had wanted to maliciously push an, as you call it, “my way or the highway” approach, I would have simply removed the tags without any concern for the views of other editors on the matter and been on my way, but I didn’t.

I left the talk page with an open ended response, asking if there were any other objections and awaited other opinions and input from others. I planned to wait a few days, after which, if there were no other objections, I would have removed the tags. It was during this waiting period that you voiced your objections on the page, and upon you doing so, I did not remove the tags.

In short, I awaited the building of a consensus, which is exactly what Wikipedia policies states to do prior to removing tags on a page. While I admit that I didn’t realize this applies to in-line tags as well, I did not remove any of the main tags on the page, which was the goal of the discussion. As for the in-line tags, I’ll be happy to put the ones I removed back in again, as I can understand why that would be perceived the way it is. With all due respect, I feel like most of this discussion has been blown way out of proportion, and is largely based on misunderstandings, good faith edits and inexperience on my part more than anything else.

You also say that I “claim that Tamils are biased.” I would respectfully ask that you read my response again. I never said that Tamils were biased.

I said that Tamil nationalists were biased.

A quick look at a number of Indian (especially southern Indian) cultural, historical or political pages can tell you as much. Many of them are rife with Tamil nationalist vandals on anonymous IP’s claiming that every cultural aspect of Indian (southern India in particular) is inherently Tamil in origin.

Speaking out against these individuals can maintain a WP:NPOV. Personally, I have nothing but respect for Tamil people and their culture, and will be the first to acknowledge their contributions to Indian civilization as a whole (including Kerala). However, claiming that everything in India (especially southern India) is inherently Tamil (as Tamil nationalists have done), is not only factually incorrect, but is also a violation of WP:NPOV, and quite disrespectful of other cultures in India in terms of their views, contributions and actions. Claims that state that Tamil Nationalism occurs “all throughout southern India” don’t appear to be true, and claims that it does, in my humble opinion, might very well fall under WP:FRINGE, as the movement is not known to have any substantial interest or following beyond Tamil Nadu and northern Sri Lanka, the primary two regions where Tamil people, culture and language reside.

As I said in my previous response, the edits made in regards to Tamil pages were done a long time ago, when I was less familiar with Wikipedia policies than I am now. I’m still learning about said policies, and I think I can safely say that I’m getting a better grasp of them as I receive more training, even if I do make mistakes every now and then. Just as I said before, I apologize for any mistakes I made back then regarding sourcing and discussion, but I do still stand on the the fact that I was trying to reject claims made by nationalists and others who wish to push their political views on this site, and was trying to portray them in a more accurate light with respect to which regions the occurrences, events or movements happened in. Making claims that other regions outside of Tamil Nadu and Northern Sri Lanka supported Tamil nationalist movements is not only untrue, but could be seen as an attempt to push a nationalist, not at all neutral idea, that the movement is much more widespread than it actually is. Tamils have a long history, and have made a number of contributions to India’s culture as a whole, but claiming that Tamil movements are larger than they are, or that more people are affiliated with Tamil culture than historical evidence can provide, is not correct, and the presentation of such an idea on Wikipedia is a violation of WP:NPOV and something I cannot support.

In truth, this entire discussion feels like a result of misunderstandings, past (and to an extent current) inexperience on my part, and a misinterpretation of the intent behind my edits on your part. I kind of feel like this entire thing is more suited to a talk page than WP:ANI, but it is what it is. I will defer to the judgement of the administrator who views this report, and this conversation, as to what to do, as I’ve mostly said my piece on the matter. Kalariwarrior (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Alahverdian

Moved to WP:AN#Nicholas_Alahverdian 15:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Lukewin

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

Could an administrator please look into Special:Contributions/Lukewin? They seem to rapidly editing many articles to change names and article titles. This includes at least one copy paste move [130] that I repaired. They quickly removed my message to them without comment [131], which is troubling because it was their second warning on cp move and appears they may not be reading. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note I don't have time to look at this in depth, but to any passing admins, note that Lukewin is on a PROD spree. Look for the section of their edit history with the "(+277)"‎s as they seem to be using the same PROD language for most. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

They are PRODing both articles and redirects, which is a head scratcher [132][133] ☆ Bri (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, (non-admin note) it seems to be complaining about "being a beauty queen doesn't make the subject notable." Happy new year! Eumat114 (Message) 06:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he added the "beauty queen" PROD on Pura Villanueva Kalaw‎ and Trinidad Legarda, neither of whom were beauty queens, as two examples I noticed tonight. Glad to find this discussion here to confirm my assumption that it was some kind of spree.Penny Richards (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

They are also not paying attention to what they are doing since they added a prod to Jeremy Glinoga which had changed into a redirect last November.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Penny Richards (talk) just to inform, Pura Villanueva Kalaw is a beauty queen. She became the first "Queen of the Manila Carnival" which is one of the oldest pageants in the Philippines. Trinidad Legarda is also a beauty queen. She was the Queen of the Manila Carnival in 1924. Please read bits of information on their article before saying such. ~ Lukewin — Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Didn’t you read the articles yourself, Lukewin? These two women were known for things other than beauty pageants. One received a Presidential Medal for her work on behalf of women's rights in the Philippines, the other was an Ambassador for the country. Poor choices for prods. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Replying to @Malcolmxl5: That's why I reverted the edits because of the honest mistake. ~ Lukewin — Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The mistake should have been avoided in the first place by carefully checking the article before attaching a deletion tag. Also I have further concerns about your PRODs - how long an article has been a stub is very much not a reason to propose deletion.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I am curious. This may not be the correct place to ask (I am still finding my way around), but Lukewin added a signature file that he claimed was licenced with this edit. The image file claims that the signature is a public domain image because "This work is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.". In what way is a signature "common property" and of "no original authorship"? The whole point of a signature that it is not only original but certainly unique. This may not be Lukewin's fault as the file was uploaded by someone else who claimed PD. CliveDunford (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It is probably public domain even though it has the wrong file tag. See c:COM:SIG ☆ Bri (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. It's very enlightening - and interesting. CliveDunford (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Gérard Karsenty

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

---

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

Some help, please. persistent re-introduction of rather promotional content, mostly copied (with quotes) from the subject's faculty profile. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted and revdel'd the copyrighted content, and protected the page (2 days). Thanks for bringing this to attention! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger, thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Loves Woolf1882

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

---

• Loves Woolf1882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly User:Truth gatekeeper)

A topic ban on Ethiopia-related topics, especially Tigray conflict, Mai Kadra massacre, Awol Allo, Abiy Ahmed, should be considered for this user on the grounds that other users need an excessive amount of patience in order to obtain editing consensus and have already been discouraged from editing. This editor has provided some references and POVs (pro-TPLF, anti-Abiy Ahmed, anti-ENDF) that were absent from these pages. So a topic ban to protect other editors and to protect the consistency of content with Wikipedia guidelines should be weighed against the user's positive role in diversifying the POVs in the articles. There are currently discretionary sanctions on Horn of Africa articles.

Past editing behaviour (2019):

• Concerns in early 2019: WP:OVERLINK; POV editing; difficulty in writing article text matching the sources; difficulty in separating self-declared POV from editorial choices; WP:OR; adding massive amounts of material to talk pages that make it difficult to focus and resolve specific points; edit war; Doug Weller and Drmies lost patience, and Doug titled one section as Timesink;
• Blocked; created a sockpuppet to avoid the block; requested unblocking unsuccessfully in March 2019; unblocked on 9 December 2020.

Recent editing behaviour (Dec 2020). Given the complex nature of editing Tigray conflict (lots of text to be consense on), I tried to obtain consensus in simpler cases.

• Tigray conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The current state of the talk page is difficult for any editor to work through because of the massive amounts of quotes and text that include errors and distract from specific editing.
  • The current POV tag on Tigray conflict was posted by Jogarz1921 in response to edits to the lead by Loves_Woolf1882. The corresponding talk page section describing the lead as too pro-TPLF led to a response by Loves_Woolf1882 with a long list of points and a list of references with big quotes, in which Loves_Woolf1882 complained that the article was not sufficiently pro-TPLF.
  • Small text example: In this talk page response, Loves_Woolf1882 has failed to understand that while adding quotes around "invaders" matches the source, the effect in the infobox gives the impression that Wikipedia is pro-TPLF. S/he insists on keeping "invaders".
• Mai Kadra massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (simpler article)
  • Loves_Woolf1882 inserted a POV tag on Mai Kadra massacre, which (prior to his/her involvement) gave as much weight to news media interviews with refugees (anti-ENDF) as to preliminary enquiries by human rights organisations (AI, EHRC); the user gave a list of 11 references among which 5 failed to support the claim of new Mai-Kadra-massacre anti-ENDF sources; 1 supported the claim; 4 were video/audio sources; 1 source was redundant. Loves_Woolf1882 then gave massive quotes from the same sources, and added a 12th source. S/he recommended that I do the work of archiving the video/audio sources in order to satisfy the WP:PUBLISHED guideline. S/he justifies the flyby POV tag, which s/he insists is still relevant, as meaning that the article should better reflect the POV that TPLF have an over 45 years of admirable, heroic world class history, as the world knows; and still posts massive amounts of content on the talk page including straightforward errors.
  • This user inverted some of the infobox summaries regarding which ethnic groups were the victims, per the sources, on the grounds that one source (Amnesty) talked about a "possibility"; and inserted original research "thoug[h] there is not ethnic group called Welkait-";
• Awol Allo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (another simple case):
  • I created the Awol Allo article so that this notable living person, currently anti-Abiy, could have an NPOVed and properly sourced article. The current talk page shows how much work it was to try to convince Loves_Woolf1882 about WP:OVERCITE and WP:SYNTH. The current compromise on one issue is that we have: "Awol stated in international media outlets like Al Jazeera, CNN and the BBC criticising what he saw as Abiy's growing authoritarianism, the repression of journalists and political dissidents in Ethiopia.[2] (For claims of growing authoritarianism under Abiy in 2020, see: [4][5][6][7][8][9])" in the article text. To avoid WP:OWN and an endless talk page argument, it would be risky for me to delete "(For claims of growing authoritarianism under Abiy in 2020, see: [4][5][6][7][8][9])". See also this WP:OVERCITE problem in the same article due to this same user: against those who resisted' Abiy's program.[4][5][6][7][8][9][11].

Obtaining consensus on small amounts of text on very specific issues with few editors on Mai Kadra massacre and Awol Allo was highly time-consuming and some results still violate policy. I feel that many Wikipedians have been discouraged from trying to handle the POV tag at Tigray conflict. I myself feel discouraged from creating related articles that, by their NPOVed, RSed content might quite likely be seen as anti-Abiy (which does not imply pro-TPLF), because I don't want to start off articles that would either become talk-page timesinks or diatribes in terms of content. A topic ban for a reasonable period (one month? six months?) would allow the user to learn WP:NPOV and summarising of content on topics that s/he doesn't feel involved in. All the same, it would be a pity to block a user whose discussions and edits do contain some valid new material. Boud (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this editor does not seem to be aware of the Horn of Africa DS. But if they were, this could go to WP:AE which is usually a better venue for dealing with this stuff. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I don't think any of the "awareness" criteria were met--unfortunately. But it's a new case, of course, and I had to be reminded that it existed. I just placed the notification on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

As i recall, during the unblock discussion on the other board, at least some mention was made of both the possibility of a topic ban and the issue with the editing attitude the previous name suggested, and i know that Loves Woolf was following it because a number of people who commented in it (including me) were pinged. They are, at the very least, aware of the fact that the Horn of Africa is a problematic area, even if not specifically of the DS. Myself, i suggest we keep this here, where Boud has brought it, and impose a thirty day topic ban; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

DS set aside, we can decide here on a topic ban. I favor one, including from the talk pages, and for more than 30 days. Boud has been doing a yeoman's job trying to solve this the collegial way, with no obvious result. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm a doctor of things (not as clever as Dr. Biden, but still), so I'll drop my diagnosis here, briefly: this is a topic area that suffers from Wikipedia's slant toward Western, English, etc. topics. There is no large community of editors that can help filter things--content and editors--and so one single person (like Middayexpress) can have a much larger influence on a set of articles than in other topic areas. And there is no quality baseline for many articles, in terms of content, NPOV, and writing quality. These problems will not be solved until Wikipedia manages to attract more knowledgeable editors, both from the geographical area and from academia. Obviously the language (availability of sources in English) is a huge problem also. All the more reason for the WMF to do more to broaden our editorial field. How this can be done, I don't know, but it needs to be done. Our geographical/geopolitical bias really hurts us. Language education all throughout the West, where the majority of editors hail from, would help. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Responses

* Hi Boud, about my past, I have already discussed this in details with the Administrators before. I don't think it is fair to bring things back after 2 years.

* Dear Administrators, many of User:Boud's points, I have before responded to on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Response to "Remove the POV tag". (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag), so I please ask you read that first. With all due respect, User:Boud is misrepresenting my points here. My original NPOV complaint points can also be found above it on the same talk page (Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#WP:NPOV complaints in the whole article, including LEAD)

* User:Boud is saying that adding in quotation "invaders" as exactly stated on the France 24 reference was wrong of me to do (https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20201205-ethiopia-we-are-in-our-homeland-the-invaders-are-attacking-us-says-tigray-s-gebremichael). However, I first explained on the Tigray conflict page LEAD that "invaders" was the term used by the TPLF(diff), and I put it in quotation at both the LEAD and the Info-box. I assume the Info-box should summarize the content of the page/LEAD. I have responded to this before on Talk:Tigray conflict#POV in the infobox.

*However, look at the POV infobox on the Metekel conflict page Boud created without a real justification (since no independent media, or even the Ethiopian government reported it as “Metekel conflict”, except for Boud) diff. The Infobox is using an opinion from a foe/opponent of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) and Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF), in some Addis-Standard magazine “as a fact”. The Infobox does not even put the opinion in quotation, or as a claim. Infobox is presenting the opinion as fact. Boud not only created the page, but also regularly edits it. By the way, no independent media or organization have reported that OLF and/or OLA and/or TPLF are fighting in Metekel, not even the AddisStandard reference Boud used (the magazine only puts it as accusation of their blood enemy- the, the PP government).

* User:Boud said "S/he justifies the flyby POV tag, which s/he insists is still relevant, as meaning that the article should better reflect the POV that 'TPLF have an over 45 years of admirable, heroic world class history, as the world knows'". However what Boud said is not correct, this not my POV point (and this “reply” line I once said when he accused me of degrading TPLF, is completely being used out of context, as I'll explain here). My NPOV points are the once I listed the link to above (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag and WP:NPOV complaints in the whole article, including LEAD). I even said this reply line only once to him/her when Boud said I like degraded TPLF by calling them "some party". I clarified this for Boud before on December 26, 2020:- "I believe you first said, I like degraded them by calling TPLF "some party", so I was just trying to undo the degrading". This was the last line on this link discussion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic ). Boud, first accused me of degrading TPLF by calling them "some party", then when I reply a 2nd sentence to undo my alleged TPLF degrading 1st statement, Boud says my 2nd new sentence is pro-TPLF and he posts it all over the place, including here. Now he is even saying that my this one reply sentence is the justification for my NPOV complaint, however, this is not true, and I have written the two links to the real justification of the NPOV tag I placed.

* Some of my suggestion are even ani-TPLF. For example, in Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Remove the POV tag, I made the point that the Amnesty international report incriminated TPLF (not the Samri youth group). I asked things to be stated as on the Amnesty report (which said "forces loyal to the TPLF"), not Samri, and for the WP:SYNTH to be corrected. Implicating TPLF directly instead of Samri, thereby being anti-TPLF.

* Boud said "This user inverted some of the infobox summaries regarding which ethnic groups were the victims...ethnic group called Welkait...". It is funny that Boud thanked me for correcting his this WP:SYNTH mistake on the talk page before, but now brings it here differently. Please admins read the flowing subsection about this point from the talk page, for fairness sake:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic

* Boud said "S/he recommended that I do the work of archiving the video/audio sources in order to satisfy the WP:PUBLISHED guideline." Again User:Boud, with all due respect I have answered this on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Remove the POV tag. You said videos are difficult to check and wanted them (or wanted once that are already) transcripted and archived before they can be used as a reference. I have understood what the the WP:PUBLISHED guideline says, and it does not exclude the use of videos that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party, like the once I used. They are broadcasted but not yet archived (and it's not a requirement to archive them first). I asked for others (or your) "help" on how to archive them (until I figure out how to do them myself), but they still can be used as is according to WP:CITEVIDEO (since they were broadcasted by a reputable party).

* Even though Boud says that only 1 of my 15 recommended very credible articles is relevant, that is not true at all. I have before listed the relevant parts from all the 15 articles here:- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Replay to "Sources for perpetrators or victims of Mai Kadra massacre". And I even made a shortlist of only 5 specific once to include in the Mai Kadra massacre Wikipedia page (not counting the videos), as you read on the link above :- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Response to "Remove the POV tag". (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag).

* All of my references are from (and only from) the BBC, Reuters, CNN, Africanews, The Guardian, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Yahoo! News , Amnesty International, United Nations (UN), UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, The New Humanitarian, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, NBC News, NPR and Committee to Protect Journalists, so I don't understand why someone would say they have POV issue. The person Boud is now supporting (User:KZebegna), called all my references from the above outlets "inimical journalists" and "Yellow journalism". He does not agree with the addition of any content from the 15 articles because these are outlets which he calls "foreign propaganda outlets":- Talk:Tigray conflict#Please stop reverting my well referenced (and verified) edits, without a legitimate reason

* Boud is misleading, when he says that I am working to give the reporting on the above very credible international media outlets (along the latest position of Amnesty International and the intentional Human Rights Watch) more weight, over what appears to be Boud’s favorite report from the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

I) Even thought the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is run by appointees of one of the side of the war (the Ethiopian federal government), I didn’t completely discredited it, I only asked for it to not be given more than equal weight than the others. I did not even bring up the fact that EHRC’s leader Daniel Bekele is a former opposition politician who was convicted & imprisoned for two years for an attempted unconstitutional change in government (this is public record), by the former government sides his EHRC report is now accusing. Given the NOT impartial history of EHRC, I don’t know why Boud wants to take their report as the last word in the bible (e.g. Boud wanted first to make up an ethnic subgroup group called Welkait “everywhere”, because EHRC made up one in its report).

II) By the way, the international Human Rights Watch (HRW) to the contrary agrees with the reporting of the above international media outlets ( https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/23/interview-uncovering-crimes-committed-ethiopias-tigray-region ); contradicting with EHRC (EHRC stated the Mai Kadra victims were only Amhara/Wekait and the perpetrators Tigrayans). HRW reports both Amhara & Tigrayans were the victims, and points to federal forces as perpetrators, based on refugees.

III) About the outdated preliminary report of Amnesty International:- Amnesty made a preliminary report with its researcher Fisseha Tekle (Amhara ethnic), on this Mai Kardra’s said to be Amharas vs Tigrayan massacre. However, I only asked for the researcher to be named on the Wikipedia page, to point out if any bias (and therefore improve neutrality of the page). Furthermore, and more importantly, Amnesty International (and its researcher Fisseha Tekle) has changed position from the outdated preliminary report. The outdated preliminary report said only Amhara ethnic people were the victims in Mai Kardra, but now even Fisseha Tekle has gone on NPR and Associated Press to correct this (https://www.npr.org/2020/12/28/950886248/hundreds-of-civilians-killed-with-machetes-and-axes-in-ethiopian-town), and now Amnesty International also agrees with the reporting of the above media outlets (that Tigrayans were also half of the victims in Mai Kardra). So Boud is acutely making a POV himself by suppressing the latest reporting of the 5 media outlets and the latest Fisseha Tekle (Amnesty) interview on NPR & Associated Press; and using only the “outdated preliminary report of Amnesty” along EHRC. I pointed out the update from the Associated Press several times to Boud before all this (as you can see on the talk page), even though he mostly ignored it ( https://apnews.com/article/sudan-ethiopia-massacres-d16a089f8dcb0511172b5662b9244f78 ). Lets please give all credible published latest views equal & neutral weight is all I’m saying.

* As you may have read my compliant on the first bold link I wrote above:- what could be a better justification for NPOV tag than presenting the side of only one. The page only has a subsection called "Federal government point of view" (Mai Kadra massacre##Federal government point of view) and gives the accusation of the one side (the federal government). However, it does not have a subsection called "Tigray's regional government point of view" also giving the point of view of the other side, and making the article neutral. The page also lacks significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic; and I have short listed 5 published reliable sources to added (and 1 or 2 video, giving the NBC News video a priority).

* Boud said I "posts massive amounts of content on the talk page including straightforward errors". This is not true again. Boud thought it was an error because s/he does not open videos, and the video on the same article clearly has the point I was making. I have pointed out this to him also (diff). There have been other incidents also when he accused me of error and then corrected himself (on my talk page on the massacre talk page, especially with the interpretation of the phrase "the army"). And about “massive amounts of content” is a misrepresentation. I first only put the links to the credible reference, then when he didn’t see my points with them, I posted the exact quote from the credible article. Then he is now calling these quotes “massive amounts of content”. S/he is accusing me of two opposite things again, one after the other’s reply.

I). A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from my talk page:-"It turned out that reference 2 with ...‘I fled Mai-Kadra, because the army' was a valid rather than "weak" reference, as I did the work to discover."

II).A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from the Mai-Kadra talk page :- "editors making good faith edits can make errors… Immediately before the Geidi sentence about "the army", there is a sentence But several refugees at the Sudanese camp said federal troops had committed atrocities. It is clear that this sentence is an introduction to the following sentence; so the intended meaning of the following sentence is that "the army" is the ENDF. ...So you happen to have been right."

* It is not fair to block me because of things that happened 2 years ago. Please review User:Boud's report and my response independently and decide if I did something wrong worthy of a block. Thank you. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• note I unarchived this because it was still being edited in the archives and a close request was made at WT:AN. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Closed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and edit warring by User:D4rkeRR9

• D4rkeRR9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A number of editors, including myself, have been reverting D4rkeRR9's undiscussed page moves and edits to infoboxes for the past few weeks. Everyone has assumed good faith and no warnings were issued at the beginning, except for when they moved an article that is within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict.[134] The situation changed when they started edit warring and removing the warning from their talk page without paying any attention to their content. They even removed a complaint about them on an article's talk page and edit warred over it.[135][136] The latest attempts to make them stop don't seem to be having any effect as can be seen in their latest response and their refactoring of my comment on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Instead of joining this discussion, they just removed the ANI notice and went back to edit warring. The question that we have to ask ourselves now is: are they here to build an encyclopedia? I will ping some of the editors (R Prazeres, Kansas Bear and VQuakr) who are familiar with their problematic edits. M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

They are now edit warring on my talk page.[137][138][139][140] @Oshwah: Could you please put a stop to this madness? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton - I've blocked the user for 36 hours for disruptive editing. This should hold pending a review of the user's edits submitted to this ANI discussion... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thank you very much. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton - No problem. Given that there's edit warring going on at French Algeria and other pages mentioned here, the block was definitely needed... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

D4rkeRR9 just blanked their user talk page, so I guess a response to my questions are out the window... If disruption continues, I'd be in support of a longer (if not indefinite) block. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this type of administrative discussion before so let me know if I can be more helpful, but from my perspective I've tried, along with other editors, to help this user improve their practices in good faith by offering many direct suggestions and links to relevant Wikipedia policies (e.g. in my comments here), and at best they've acknowledged feedback and then ignored it in practice, or followed it once or twice after many complaints before going back to their original behaviour. When it comes to page moves, for example, they seemed to finally attempt the proper moving procedure on December 17 (here), but only after they twice moved several pages, were reverted, and had received critical feedback from other editors here, here and here. (For those first two undiscussed mass moves, see histories of Idrisid dynasty, Almoravid dynasty, Saadi Sultanate on December 8 and on December 15, 2020.) They then recently did similar undiscussed page moves at Dutch Surinam and Ayyubid dynasty on December 29 (and maybe elsewhere, I haven't checked every edit), as if none of this had happened. When I brought this as a complaint to them again (here), they responded (here) with what came across to me as either a sarcastic question or simply evidence that they do not understand, or refuse to understand, any of the feedback given to them by other editors.

Maybe not directly part of this complaint but relatedly I think, I don't believe they've ever cited a single source for any of their edits, even after being told (again, here) that doing so would improve the chances that their edits are retained. They seem determined to insert their own WP:OR and their edit-warring seems to be a reflection of that. In terms of an example dispute that I've been involved in, that seems to be the case on the Idrisid dynasty page where they kept modifying the "succeeded" and "preceded" parameters of the infobox to the same things they wanted (namely here, here, two consecutive edits here and here, and here, followed by slightly different but similarly unsupported edits here and here). And that's in addition to other recurring unjustified edits they made on that page alone. I offered plenty of information with sources on the talk page there (and in edit summaries) to explain why these changes were not improvements and were not warranted without clearer support and consensus, in addition to trying to improve the information and sources on the main page itself, and this insertion of OR has persisted in one form or another throughout. This makes it frustrating to work on some of these pages and puts other editors like myself in the awkward position of having to figure out how many times we're willing/able to revert the same edits that clearly refuse to engage with any consensus or reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Bitton should be blocked as well. 4RR in a mainspace, edit warring on user pages (which he complained about) and frankly hasn't gone to a talk page himself and I would say that the onus is on you just as much as the other party involved. You're more experienced than this other editor, use some brain man instead of calling out behaviour which you are just as guilty for participating in (this has gone on longer than needed and had a totally unacceptable edit war)! Dude has blanked page don't think he will be back. Games of the world (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The third revert was after they were blocked, so what 4RR are on you on about? I have been dealing with this editor for weeks, undoing their undiscussed moves and removing their nonsense (factually incorrecty info) from articles. As for my talk page, it's mine and I'm free to remove any content I want from my it. Did you actually read the initial complaint at all? M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Bitton you've admitted it. You can change you comment, but I've seen it. The 4th revert was before they were blocked (now your trying to say the 3rd was after, it was not and neither was the fourth). Games of the world (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You're wrong. There were 3 reverts in the last 24 hours (16:15, 16:25 and 16:47). The last one was made at 16:47, which is after they were blocked at 16:44, so your claim of 4RR is baseless. M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

When someone else was blocked is irrelevant to how many reverts you made, either way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah WP:BLANKING stuff from your own talk page even when entitled to is not exempt from 3RR. While it may be annoying when an editor is trying to keep something on your talk page you don't want and don't need to keep, as always the solution is simply to wait or let someone else deal with it. Nil Einne (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Since this is news to me and WP:BLANKING says: Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages., can you please point me to the policy that says "WP:BLANKING is not exempt from 3RR"? M.Bitton (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: it seems I'm mistaken the lack of a 3RR exemption so I apologise for that and any confusion I've caused. But it also sounds like you may be confused about how 3RR works in general. 3RR applies to any edits any where on wikipedia. Even if an edit is allowed, you aren't allowed to violate the three revert rule in making the edit. Therefore no matter what any other pages says, you need to heed 3RR and at a bare minimum never make more than 3 reverts on a page in a twenty-four hour period unless specifically covered by an exemption. As mentioned by The Bushranger, reverting an editor temporarily blocked for edit warring is not something covered by an exemption so you cannot make four reverts on a page in 24 hours just because you waited for the editor to be blocked. However I see now that the 3RR lists "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." Since the user page guidelines allow to remove most content from your talkpage including the content you were removing the exemption would apply. Personally I still wouldn't violate 3RR despite that, but it's your choice. Note that if this exemption did not exist, you would not be allowed to make four reverts in 24 hours on your user talk page, no matter that you were removing content you are allowed to remove, unless some other exemption applied. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The mainspace stuff which I assume refers to French Algeria, you technically avoided violating 3RR by about 55 minutes. Still as 3RR itself says, escaping 3RR by reverting just outside the window is generally a bad idea, and again "the editor was blocked" doesn't really help. As Games of the world mentioned, if your going to go that far, it would help if you'd at least started discussion on the article talk page, no matter that it seems unlikely D4rkeRR9 is going to join. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

__________

Editor was blocked for 36 hours, and block has run out. Further disruption should be reported here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Further disruption I have not been involved with this discussion or with D4rkeRR9 until now, but upon seeing this edit, I remembered seeing the username here. Without any prior discussion or even an edit summary, they removed the expert needed and unsourced tags from an article. I can't say much about expert needed, but since the article does not cite any sources, intentionally removing the unsourced tag is clearly disruptive. Lennart97 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I had a random look at their edits today after coming across an unrelated edit of theirs, and I notice they're still modifying or dumping flags into infoboxes all over despite previous pushback on this. (I'm not sure if this policy would be relevant to some of it: MOS:INFOBOXFLAG?) They engaged in mini edit-wars about it at Republic of China (1912–1949) (see January 12 in the edit history) and to a lesser extent at British Raj (see Jan 12 in history). Less clearly a problem but still a burden for other editors to deal with: they've also been unnecessarily creating new pages by splitting existing topics, or creating a duplicate page for essentially the same topic as another; see their user talk page for this or see Talk:Arab Republic of Libya and Talk:List of historical British-controlled states. In the latter case they tried to stop subsequent discussion of deletion/merger by blanking the talk page (see here). I'm not sure that this warrants other restrictions on their account but it makes me consider whether competence is an issue here as per WP:COMPETENCE, in the sense that they don't abide by consensus, never provide reliable sources, and most of their edits end up being a burden on other editors to clean up. R Prazeres (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Steven a91

• Steven a91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Steven a91 continues to edit disruptively despite multiple requests and warnings from several editors over the last two weeks. Specifically, he continues to add speculative future changes to articles before those changes actually take place, either misusing news reports or not citing any source at all. It seems he wants to get in early with 'breaking news', but his efforts are highly disruptive to editors who are trying hard to ensure that legal pages, in particular, are properly sourced to the actual published regulations, not to speculative in-advance news reports which may or may not be accurate.

His latest edit to The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020 continues this behaviour. The edit relies on a BBC report to claim that some of the the current COVID-19 regulations changed yesterday, 4 Jan, which they did not. The new regulations have not even been published yet, let alone come into force. In any event, the edit is as usual not even supported by the reference, which states that the changes are expected to take effect from Wednesday 6th.

This is not a case of a new editor who is doing this through inexperience. The editor has been here a long time, and has a history of warnings for this type of unsupported speculative edit (see his talk page for 2018, 2019 and 2020 warnings). Recent edits have required yet more warnings in respect of yet more articles, but the editor has not changed his behaviour in the least. I think that admin action is now required. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The Gov website does say "withdrawn" in the header but Boris did say they will be replaced with legislation on Wednesday so I agree saying they ended on 4 January is not correct, the message Boris was giving was not to wait for the legislation but to start the rules now but that doesn't mean it was revoked on the 4th. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

• Flexsteel81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Flexsteel81 just posted on legal threat against Wikipedia on the article Michael Flynn, which has been reverted. Donner60 (talk) 03:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NLT block applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Bot clerking on AIV down

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

---

It appears that bot clerking's down on WP:AIV. No bot edits have been made since 3:41 PM, blocked users remain on the page and the admin backlog notice hasn't been added. Pahunkat (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm clerking myself for now but I have to go soon. Pahunkat (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: HBC AIV helperbot5 is running, but I can't tell if it's running on AIV because now you're removing the reports yourself. I believe the bot only runs if the oldest report has been dealth with, and it was not until a few minutes ago. Please stop and let the bot do its job, or not do it and then we can report to the maintainer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, leaving AIV by itself. Pahunkat (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, yeah it does look like it's running but ignoring the main AIV list. @JamesR: can you have a look? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Taking a look now. — JamesR (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat: @Ivanvector: As it turns out, one of the reports was not formatted correctly and breaking the algorithm. I have fixed it here. Thanks for letting me know. — JamesR (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I thought that was probably it but couldn't figure it out myself, I don't normally patrol that page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks James! Pahunkat (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Theusernameistaken

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

---

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

User:Theusernameistaken is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. They have received 4 warnings in a month, and have continued removing sourced content without consensus. Adding to this is unconstructive talk page messages and general vandalism. Please block them. Thanks. Eyebeller 11:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Though I declined the AIV report, I have partially blocked from article space. User has issues, including SHOUTING in an agitated manner at those who have attempted reason. Any admin can unblock at their discretion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't look for AIV reports but when I looked through their contributions and saw that they weren't an obvious vandal I decided to take it to ANI. Sorry for the duplicate reports. Eyebeller 12:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  No problem. This is the correct venue. I suspect a number of editors find Theusernameistaken to be vexatious. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I set an indefinite duration, because we cannot know at this juncture how long it will be needed. Once unneeded, can be removed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of unsourced content

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

---

172.93.165.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated addition of unsourced content [141] [142] [143] and many others (yust open a few of the contributions diff's, the're all problematic. (Side note: It appears like it is still ongoing, see contributions.) The edits are made in a bot-like fashion, having made with only a few seconds grace between them. For example, the diff between the second and third link above were 4 s. As for the contents of the edits, they are unsourced, and, as far as I can tell from 2020_United_States_presidential_election#cite_note-Pending_certification-8, could not be sourced until somewhen tomorrow (January 6th) if the electoral votes were on a pro-trump-side. Courtesy pinging @Mike Rosoft, Beyond My Ken, Sjö, and JRDkg: Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing but rapid-fire additions of "He was a major figure in the 2020 United States self-coup, successfully acting to end American democracy and self-governance in favor of an autocratic one-party authoritarian state" to multiple articles. Block and ignore. Meters (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:NOTHERE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, block and ignore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing/Vandalism on List of dinosaur genera

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

---

• 2001:8003:b03c:8700:13f:8389:c92d:33e9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2001:8003:b03c:8700:3115:3cdc:620:e2d4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2001:8003:b03c:8700:c960:ccd6:f115:b38d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• List of dinosaur genera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Check their contributions. The first MAC address added "Ice Titan", "King Titan" and "Queen Elizabeth" to the list of dinosaur genera. I reverted it, as those are not real dinosaur names. A few hours short of a whole day later, the second address, most likely the same person, readded "Queen Elizabeth" with the rationale "Keep it there till the meme is dead". I reverted that, telling them via edit summary that this is an encyclopedia and not a place to host memes. But now the third address added "Queen Elizabeth" again. I felt uncomfortable reverting this vandalism a third time, so I'm bringing it up here. Atlantis536 (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Atlantis536, since it's blatant vandalism, you're probably going to get a swifter response over at WP:AIV. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected for a short period. Seems to be based on a Reddit meme. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Sharief123

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

---

Since their account creation in November 2018, User:Sharief123 has been warned numerous times about edit warring, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and so on. Their article creations are

• Howza ilmeya jamia jaffria:
  • January 2019 moved to draft, deleted afterwards
  • February 2019, deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howza ilmeya jamia jaffria
  • Today, tagged for G4 deletion, reverted repeatedly by Sharief123 and their sock- or meatpuppet User:Al Araqi
• Irfan Raza Ansari
  • Created by someone else in March 2018 (deleted as G11), since then 4 times created and redeleted, last time in June 2020 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irfan Raza Ansari)
• Jamia Urwa-tul-Wusqa
  • Created in May 2018 by someone else
  • Deleted in March 2020 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamia Urwa-tul-Wusqa
  • Today recreated by Sharief123, who also removed the G4 tag
• Bethat Educational TV channel
  • Created today, edited by sock/meat Al Araqi soon afterwards, Prodded by me, tag removed. No evidence of any notability.

Their other edits are mostly promotion of Jawad Naqvi, an article with lots of issues and lots of talk page discussions with regular editors trying to make it factual and neutral, and Sharief123 and others turning it into a promo piece. Sharief123 today again edited that page, including adding an incorrect GA icon[144], reinstating all kinds of positive claims sourced to dubious sources (e.g. "peace activist", sourced to a wordpress blog, or "Ayatollah Syed Jawad Naqvi is significant for his unique style of preaching of Islam-e-Naab, the pure Islam"). They also then added an image of Naqvi to the list of peace activists[145].

For more than a year now, Sharief123 has been almost exclusively a timesink for many editors, only interested in promoting one person and having articles for some related entities, which have been found again and again to lack all notability. They have received warnings on their talk page from many editors, including User:Kautilya3, User:Faizhaider, User:EdJohnston, User:C.Fred, User:Idell and User:Jeff G..

It is time for some more drastic actions, like blocks or topic bans. Fram (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Scrolling through his talk page I can see a plethora of 'final warnings'. Have any of them ever amounted to a sanction? Spiderone 14:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sharief123 was blocked for 24h in July because of edit warring at Jawad Naqvi, which continued after an AN3 complaint was filed. As for sockpuppetry,  Looks like a duck to me though I won't file a SPI given that there are admins here anyway. Pahunkat (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Fram that it is time for some more drastic actions.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sharief123 and the IP 2409:4054:297:8CB6::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) are clearly the same person: they're the ones that keep adding the page protection and good article icons to Jawad Naqvi, an article which has never been protected and has never been through a WP:GAN assessment. I can't comment on checkuser connections between accounts and IPs, but Sharief123 and Al Araqi are  Likely, they're editing on different networks but in the same location. I am blocking all three. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Potentially harmful removal of information

OP: sock. Surprise: next to nil. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I will try my best to post this, while assuming good faith throughout the entire post. I have notified the registered user of this post. I was editing a section of the article for sandwich. Two editors (an IP and User:Jayron32) began to remove information that may have helped the page to represent a neutral point of view. They may have had reasons for removing the information that I am not aware of, but the removal leaves the article with only a conservative perspective on the topic. I believe that the liberal view should also be included to keep the page opinion-balanced.--King of the lunch table (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC) King of the lunch table This page is not for settling content disputes. You need to first discuss this on the article talk page, and if that fails, move to dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC) King of the lunch table has never edited that article, and neither Jayron32 nor any IPs have in at least the past 18 months. There is zero editing intersection between those two named accounts at all. DMacks (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC) 1. What are you talking about? 2. I have now notified the IP that was involved. 3. User:Jayron32 appears to have a conflict of interest with the topic --King of the lunch table (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Troll account. See [146] 109.156.239.119 (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Viewmont Viking has deleted my change .I suspect theological bias

On the Wikipedia page for Christian worship, I added a note stating that proskeneu is not only used for Jesus and God but for others in Revelation 3:9 and when the brothers of Joseph bow down to him in Genesis 42:6 of the Septuagint

He claimed it was "unsourced"... Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocMando (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I advise you that it was unsourced. Please see WP:Citing sources for an explanation of how to provide sources for content you add to Wikipedia (and WP:NOR might be applicable here too). I also advise you to not assume bias in other people's actions, and I refer you to WP:Assume good faith for further information on that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't see where you informed User:Viewmont Viking of this report, as you were instructed to do in the big orange box above the edit window. I will do that for you now. (But looking at the comment you did make at User talk:Viewmont Viking, I think I need to draw your attention to WP:NPA too.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"He claimed it was 'unsourced'"... that's because it was unsourced. I don't see any actionable information here. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Not here except to promote a band from Ohio

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

---

• Memeschool716 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 24.140.19.247 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

An IP from Ohio and a new user have been promoting their non-notable band from Ohio. (I don't want to give the band more eyeballs by naming them here, but they have a bandcamp webpage which says they are from the same place in Ohio as the IP address.) The person told me to perform fellatio on him, so of course we're in WP:NPA territory now, aside from violating WP:MULTIPLE to edit war the same band name[147][148] into the post-rock article. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems like WP:No one cares about your garage band case. Des Vallee (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Memeschool716 needs to be blocked for violating WP:NPA, WP:RS, WP:PROMO and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Can we have some action on this, please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I've indeffed the account as a clear WP:NOTHERE case. It looks like the IP had already been blocked but it has since expired. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Kinu. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Lord Belbury Again

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

---

• Lord Belbury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Justgravy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am reporting Lord Belbury here again. They keep refusing to acknowledge the original consensus and keep reverting my edits when I try to implement them citing that I am not the one who has achieved consensus.Justgravy (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Justgravy: You are going to want to provide pagelinks and WP:DIFFs (especially diffs) so that admins understand the context behind the report. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted two of this users edits, to the Bexleyheath and Crayford articles. Their edit summary was "restoring to previous consensus", but a recent RFC they started on whether such changes were appropriate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages was closed with the verdict that there was no clear consensus on the matter - but Overall there is possible a very weak consensus against changing "Greater London" to "London". Justgravy is changing "Greater London" to "London".

@Justgravy: - are you saying that although there was a recently established "very weak consensus" against making these changes right now, you're aware of an older, "previous" consensus which said the opposite, and you're choosing to apply that one? --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes exactly. This previous consensus was established by many editors and over a long period of time. This is actually one of the fundamentals of the London Wikiproject, a Wikiproject which you are making a mockery of by doing this.

What you are saying is that it’s absolutely fine for someone to change a huge amount of stuff with no consensus. Just so long as nobody challenges it at the time. And then if/when this is discovered a while later, a new consensus is required just to change it back - because the previous no-consensus changes have been active long enough in Wikipedia time. The fact is, MetrolandNW made massive changes with no consensus and these have been allowed to stand for over a year. Wikipedia is institutionally biased, that is clear to me now. Justgravy (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

it’s absolutely fine for someone to change a huge amount of stuff with no consensus. Just so long as nobody challenges it at the time. And then if/when this is discovered a while later, a new consensus is required just to change it back - because the previous no-consensus changes have been active long enough in Wikipedia time. Er...yes, that's how it works. If somebody makes a WP:BOLD change and it is not challenged, it becomes the new WP:CONSENSUS, and removing it is a new WP:BRD cycle. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, institutionally biased...Justgravy (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Put simply: those were not "no-consensus changes". The article being stable for "over a year" including them established consensus for the edits - especially since, as Lord Belbury has stated, the previous "consensus" you are claiming has, in big, bold letters on top of the discussion on the subject, "NO CONSENSUS", and based on the evidence the 'possibl[y] a very weak consensus' is what you were editing against. Also I should probably point out that WikiProjects do not own articles. The fact common sense and consensus established through editing produce a result you don't like does not imply bias, institutional or otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No this is wrong. the “NO CONSENSUS” of which you are referring to is for the recent discussion, not the one which took place over many years before MetrolandNW made these mass edits. Please read through the archives for Wikiproject London and you will see this. The closing party failed to understand this as well. The problem is this current “NO CONSENSUS” stems from bias by certain editors, there is no common sense in this…Justgravy (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also I need to add, the reason certain users object to this consensus comes from local bias which everyone round this way understands. No offence, and with all due respect sir, but someone who is from halfway around the World from here just would not understand these issues as we do. Issues which have been ongoing for more than half a century...Justgravy (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus changed. The old consensus is no longer relevant. At this point I would advise you of the Law of Holes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

But there is no new consensus either. So you are saying that there should be no consensus at all in this matter? Also, there are a lot of people in the past who agreed with what I am doing. Although, it is annoying that they have all gone silent now I must admit. If I was completely alone in this then I could admit that I am wrong. However, if you just looked into the matter yourself, did some research etc. you would see that what I am trying to do is not ridiculous.Justgravy (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

But there is no new consensus either. So you are saying that there should be no consensus at all in this matter? There is a "new consensus". Since the discussion on consensus didn't establish a consensus, consensus by editing established one. Since these [edits] have been allowed to stand for over a year the article was stable with them and it was consensus through editing for them to be present. What you are trying to do is not "ridiculous"; simply once you made the changes you desire, and they were reverted, you should have discussed the content dispute, per WP:BRD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Even if consensus through editing violates guidelines? It clearly states here that guidelines “are developed by the community to describe best practices” surely by going against them it is degrading the quality of the content, and such content is not the best it could be? Also, I have gone through the various stages of dispute resolution. There is a lengthy discussion focussed on it.Justgravy (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You have not established that the edit violates any guidelines. So you're putting the cart before the horse here.

And your earlier comment is troubling: Also I need to add, the reason certain users object to this consensus comes from local bias which everyone round this way understands. No offence, and with all due respect sir, but someone who is from halfway around the World from here just would not understand these issues as we do.

That reads as if you want your personal experience to override everything else. Which is just not going to fly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:06, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

But that’s my point, nobody here seems to have read the conversation on the Wikiproject London talk page. I mentioned many times there that what I was proposing is just following guidelines. Also, I do have to retort because I was really not talking about my “personal experience”. This is something which affects millions of people in some way shape or form, so I can hardly call it personal. It is also something which is difficult to grasp if you have not been fully immersed in it. So what I was actually trying to mention was the biases that certain people hold. Especially stemming from incorrect interpretation of the facts.Justgravy (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You still haven't said what guidelines. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay so the guidelines can be found here it states that "For locations within Greater London, placename, London should be used" whilst also stating at the very top of the page that "This page describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places, and for the use of place names in Wikipedia articles."Justgravy (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Note however that it also says "occasional exceptions may apply". Once this became a disputed issue you need to WP:DISCUSS to resolve the dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That's okay. And yes it does indeed. However, as this affects most of the entire area in question, I would hardly call this an “occasional exception”.Justgravy (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Pentagon UFO videos fraudulent 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.

---

• Pentagon UFO videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been an editor quite some time, and can differentiate between a legitimate POV controversy and fraudulent editing. I have a past of even editing in controversial articles such as Ching Hai (added all the scholarly refs) and Water fluoridation (added the EU position and the notable oppisition view]] Also in Influenza vaccine (added EU position), where there was quite a robust POV discussion. Eas even commended by one of my opponents, an Administrator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/782699643

Wikipedia has becaume a very arduous and putting off place to honestly edit for a singular editor, especially because of clique behavior (see htCriticism of Wikipedia.

The article at hand is Pentagon UFO videos. Which appears to be in WP:OWNERSHIP by a group of editors.

I've read the Wikipedia article, and read the first cited reference in full. A reference from VICE magazine https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7wjzg/the-skeptics-guide-to-the-pentagons-ufo-videos

I was honestly shocked by the blatant violation of WP:STICKTOSOURCE policy by way of WP:CHERRYPICKING statements from the VICE article. It's really fraudulent editing.

I've corrected the the issue in this edit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pentagon_UFO_videos&oldid=998147440

But was multiple times reverted by the "owners" of the article. Completely disregarding the obvious blatant Violations

Another example would be allowing only Skeptic Michael Shermer view to be while reverting and deleting the views of notable experts:a former pentagon investigator and a Jane's Defence Weekly eviation editor views, both cited from a Popular Mechanics article. By way of various obvious WP:LAWYERING

I kindly ask of you to please do something about the Editors involved (editors who have reverted, or have supported this behaviour: LuckyLouie MrOllie ජපස jps

I have warned them on the article talk page that i would take ANI action if they persisted. But to no avail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#The_VICE_reference

Thank you Bigbaby23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute reported by an editor pushing a number of WP:FRINGE PoVs. If numerous editors agree on what is proper to include in an article, that's not group OWNERSHIP, that's WP:CONSENSUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree; reviewing the talk page and article history, I see a content dispute on the talk page, and Bigbaby23 apparently past 3RR on the article history. Pentagon UFO videos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Bigbaby23, three different editors have reverted your edits and you are guilty of edit warring. This dispute just started today and you need to resolve this matter on the article talk page. If you can't resolve your disagreement there, use dispute resolution. ANI is for editor misconduct, not determining whether or not an edit is valid. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd just like to leave a diff here of the level of discourse BigBaby23 has been bringing to related articles: [149]. - MrOllie (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Bigbaby23 This is complete nonsense, you are trying to convince the reader of something which isn't allowed and also use biased wording. To make the case of "solid evidence" your going to need an immense amount scholarly citations. You seem to be acting in good faith. However you should read on verifiability policy and the manual style of writing (MOS) for how what wording to use. A general rule of thumb is to state anything as fact, unless it is completely verified something this most certainly isn't. Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee, what are you talking about? Have you read the sources? What am I trying to convince? Here's Popular Mechanics (a respectable mainstream publication) article on the subject: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a29771548/navy-ufo-witnesses-tell-truth/

What are they trying to convince? they are simply stating facts and interviewing experts. Nowhere is it stated that the UFOs are 100% Alien. The discussion was about probability. Shermer said Zero (VICE magazine) the Pentagon and Jane's Defence Weekly experts say it actually seems more probableBigbaby23 (talk)

You are seriously advancing Popular Mechanics as a reliable source about UFOs? I don't think so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

And you should read WP:FRINGE, which applies here in spades. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What Beyond My Ken is doing is a perfect example of the dishonest editing/discussion practice. So the VICE reference that is cited multiple times in the article is a reliable source about UFOs then? Come on. Enough.Bigbaby23 (talk)

Enough, indeed. Given they went to 5RR on the article in question, Bigbaby23 has been blocked for 48 hours (and it's not their first block for edit-warring). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just a notice that about WP:RSN#Popular Mechanics for UFO claims. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As of now, finaly, these editors at least seem to accept one inappropriate quotation of only Skeptic Michael Shermer, and have removed that paragraph all together. But other misuse of the VICE article are still present. My ANI is not about normal content dispute, as depicted by some editors commenting above. It's a question about how do you deal with a very blatant, deliberate violation of WP:STICKTOSOURCE policy? Does Concensus overide WP policy? according to WP:CONLIMITED the answer is no. What do you do then, when WP:FACTION is so evident in violating the above through Concensus if not let ANI deal with it?Bigbaby23 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would reccommend dropping the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Wrong film facts from Leicester, previously Coventry

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

---

• 2A00:23C5:F202:DE01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Leicester IP range has been changing to wrong facts in several film articles. Previous disruption of the same sort was seen from the Coventry range Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:2264:7E00:0:0:0:0/64.[150] Current targets are Tom & Jerry (2021 film) and The Banana Splits Movie.

Nothing constructive from this person, so a rangeblock seems apt. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet - It looks like the range is now stale. Keep eyes on it and let me know if it becomes active again. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Oshwah, I'll take you up on it. The range is back in action today. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet - I've blocked the IPv6 /64 range for 72 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by 51.235.142.21/16

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.

---

• 51.235.142.21/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Can someone please do something about this IP range? Their so-called "Typo fixing" (content removal) has been going on for a while now. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If it helps to know, I think this IP is also a part of it: 94.98.255.228. R Prazeres (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil

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

---

Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since 2019, multiple warnings have been given to the editor, including being blocked for 24hrs in December 2019, with no effect. Even after the latest warning at Special:MobileDiff/996913355, editor has introduced content not related to the reference being linked at Special:MobileDiff/996964967. I had initially posted to WP:AIV but was redirected here. The bot added this to my report: User is in the category: User talk pages with conflict of interest notices. Vikram Vincent 13:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

While @Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil: has ignored all the warnings, he continues to edit at Special:MobileDiff/997032417, deleting content without an edit summary. Vikram Vincent 18:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Another edit without summary or source at Special:MobileDiff/997429316. No change in behaviour. Vikram Vincent 14:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Oshwah: The changes being made by @Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil: to the series of articles are either unsourced or unrelated to the reference. Plus, they are spread over a long period of time. The editor refuses to engage on any of the talk pages or his own talk page. Any way to get his attention? Vikram Vincent 05:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: This got archived without action. Vikram Vincent 04:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil - Can you please respond to this discussion and tell us what's going on? Why is there a report being filed regarding your edits and adding content where the reference doesn't explicitly support the content? This is problematic... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: a perusal of @Arjun Muraleedharan Madathiparambil:'s contribs shows he is still editing while not bothering to reply here. Vikram Vincent 05:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent - I've blocked the editor for 72 hours due to the issues raised and their failure to communicate. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

174.91.77.211 violating the policy on verifiability

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

---

174.91.77.211 has been repeatedly adding unsourced content to Eighth generation of video game consoles.

This violates WP:BURDEN:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

I have warned them 3 times about Wikipedia's policy on no original research, however they keep on reverting their edits and I don't want it to get WP:3RR. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if an administrator steps in or another editor reverts their policy-violating edits. Thanks. Eyebeller 19:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Parblocked for 72 hours. Their assertion that common knowledge doesn't need a source is partly held up by WP:BLUE, but the content they insisted is common knowledge is far from it, and absolutely requires a source. They can try submitting one on the talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, could you please revert their last edit to the article where the unsourced content is still present? Eyebeller 19:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It is common knowledge that the Wii U sold worse than the GameCube. It is also true that it is Nintendo's least successful home console. These are facts anyone knows. They are considered common knowledge. --174.91.77.211 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

They may be common knowledge to you because you are interested in Nintendo, but not to everyone else. Eyebeller 19:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, but video gamers, even if they aren't big into Nintendo know this as well so it is common knowledge and is factual information even if people aren't into video games. This is video game sales facts that is considered common knowledge. --174.91.77.211 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

But not everyone who reads the page will be video gamers. If someone who has no idea of the video gaming world reads the article, they wouldn't consider it common knowledge. Eyebeller 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ferret reverted the edit. And yes, a source is required. Being common knowledge among video gamers hardly qualifies as something generally expected to be known by everyone, and sales figures are contestable in any case. I say everyone knows the Wii U is the best selling console of all time. I bought one and everyone I know bought one, that must mean it's common knowledge. Prove me wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I've full blocked the IPv4 now, as well as their IPv6 they used to evade your pblock. -- ferret (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear, I guess now nobody can prove my Wii U fandom wrong. Truthiness ftw! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disrupting editing/vandalism by Karthison R

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

---

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

User:Karthison R this user has created a bit of nuisance who has been repeatedly deleting the tags and template from the article Teejay Karthi past 4th warnings (by 3 editors). I also strongly suspect user has CoI as it appears to be thier own vanity article. I propose an account ban to stop further disrupting editing. RationalPuff (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC) They are also now blanking notices on the talk page. RationalPuff (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

He has now created the page Teejay Karthi (disambiguation) to bypass his ban from editing Teejay Karthi Spiderone 20:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Given their reaction to being parblocked from the page was to create a clone of the page at another title, I've upgraded the block to a full block for the remainder of the existing block's time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Q: Is being "parblocked" like being parboiled? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A: It's certainly par for the course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: parblock didn't help. They are back again and deleting tags and afd template. RationalPuff (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that and their virtual complete lack of communication and their previous response to a parblock, I've indef blocked. If they engage and show signs of improving clue, any admin may unblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Aggressive Chicago IP reversions

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

---

Somebody from Chicago is targeting my edits for reversion,[151][152] using the range Special:Contributions/2601:240:E181:2020:0:0:0:0/64. This person is a long-term disruptor who was blocked twice as Special:Contributions/12.178.190.58, especially noting the personal attacks in edit summaries ("get killed",[153] "GFY", "aggotFAY"). This person has previously targeted Synthwave.94's edits for reversion,[154][155] and he doesn't communicate except for hostile edit summaries. He blanks his talk pages. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the IP may need to be blocked, given their actions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I might have spoke too soon. Drmies blocked the IP for 2 weeks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Autoblock issue using shared Wikimedia infrastructure

The following discussion is closed. 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 running into "Autoblock #10288711" while using the PAWS tool. Admin User:Nthep has blocked User:Sergio de Jesús Muñoz Lara 12 a few hours ago, with the autoblock option activated. That user had also used the tool. Can the autoblock please be removed, as it affects shared Wikimedia infrastructure? Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the autoblock. Nthep (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Threat To Life

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

---

This edit shows the editor @Gungeplunge threatening another editor. Celestina007 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Another admin has indeffed the user. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Rather uncivil behavior, sockpuppetry, and this threat was the last straw. You beat me in getting an ANI thread started. Pahunkat (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've revdeled the threat. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Global lock(s) requested since this is Evlekis. Pahunkat (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Another Evlekis sock just posted on my talk page. This should be a LTA. Pahunkat (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

And another one. Pahunkat (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Censorship and abuse of authority by user Archives908

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

---

Archives908 keeps reverting my edits, despite all the sources and arguments provided.

"LGBT rights in Armenia" is full of misleading info and differs significantly from the corresponding articles in Armenian and Russian.

ԼԳԲՏ իրավունքները Հայաստանում Права ЛГБТ в Армении — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.66.254.20 (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have protected the article. Instead of tossing around claims of "censorship"(please see WP:FREESPEECH) and "abuse", please civilly discuss your concerns on the article talk page. That a different language version of an article says something does not mean it should here too, as each version of Wikipedia is its own project with its own editors and policies. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Expand a range block

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

---

• 194.223.40.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Can someone please extend this rangeblock to 194.223.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))? The user has been harassing Bacondrum for quite some time at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory and is back today despite the smaller range above being blocked. I would do it myself but I'm temporarily without the tools. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector and The Blade of the Northern Lights Thank you! Bacondrum (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Capitol protests & anonymous 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.

---

I am not pretty familiar with the guidelines here. 2021 United States Capitol protests is being edited by a number of users with unused/almost-new accounts and deceptive names bearing similarity to 'AnonymousUser','Random12'. 180.151.224.189 (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

EC protected 2 days. —valereee (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Sealioning/bludgeoning

Suspended on behalf of proposer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, an editor user:Swood100 has been bludgeoning debate at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory for over a month now, with civil POV pushing around core claims made in that article. They've been running the same argument repeatedly from various angles - and it has received short shrift from other editors. Today they tried to push those views into the article after the majority of regular editors at that article repeatedly said no to their suggested changes. I've tried asking them to stop flogging a dead horse repeatedly and left a few requests to stop at their talk page, but to no avail. I just want an admin to give them a warning about POV pushing/bludgeoning the debate, I hope if an uninvolved admin has a word to them they might see the error of their ways. It's really disruptive and it's going nowhere, consuming most of the talk page discussion for more than a month. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC) It would be helpful to link to some specific examples?--65.92.160.124 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Sorry, it's hard with civil POV pushers. Today they added all this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=next&oldid=998700782 despite it being firmly against consensus. if you look through the recent discussions at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory they've been pushing for this or similar content for the last month with the claims being almost universally rejected by majority of editors, given very short shrift. most recent discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory#POV_pushing Bacondrum (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC) I agree with you but you need to provide differences, which is much more difficult with civil POV pushing. I suggest you suspend this thread and prepare it properly, because otherwise it is likely to fail. TFD (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Alright, thanks The Four Deuces, how do I withdraw it? Bacondrum (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC) I will do it. TFD (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive image changes by INDV100

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

---

• INDV100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Persistent disruptive image changes on Narendra Modi: Has been told multiple times not to disruptively change the infobox portrait without consensus as the current image has talk page consensus. User does not heed this advice and continues to disrupt the page every couple of days. This has been ongoing from October of last year. Most recent disruptive image change was here: [156]

The current infobox image has consensus and it can be found here [157] under the title Image in Infobox Prolix 💬 08:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have several times asked to apply the image in that page but nobody thought of it. If one wants to stop this persistent disruptive image editing, then I think to give the permission of using that image in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by INDV100 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  INDV100, There is already an established consensus regarding the image to be used. If you want to change it, start a new consensus process. Not being able to establish consensus is a poor excuse for the constant disruption you've been carrying out. Prolix 💬 14:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• How can I establish the consensus correctly so that I can help the image to be used in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by INDV100 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

INDV100, you need to discuss the image at Talk:Narendra Modi. You've already opened a discussion, so you need to wait for consensus. It will help to show the images side-by-side on the talk page and explain why you prefer the one you are proposing. Fences&Windows 19:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• @INDV100: you say you have "asked several times" but the only post by you to that talk page is the one you made today. User:Sdg100 on the other hand has asked about that same image a few times, such as here. Did you use that account as well? The posts are remarkably similar. --bonadea contributions talk 19:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Of 107 pages edited by User:INDV100, 42 were also edited by User:Sdg100. I'm opening an SPI. Fences&Windows 00:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdg100. Fences&Windows 00:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Abusive BLP edit at Robert Twigger

The following discussion is closed. 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 you please hide an abusive BLP edit at Robert Twigger by 82.25.234.92 (talk · contribs). Thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Esowteric -  Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

A6775456 clearly not here to write an encyclopedia

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

---

A6775456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has thus far made one mainspace edit (which contains significant BLP violations) and various talk page posts making similar allegations. Could someone take whatever action is deemed appropriate please? FDW777 (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FDW777, I left a level-3 warning on their talk page, apparently right after you filed this request; I'm surprised there wasn't an edit conflict. I debated whether using the category of "forum" or "defamatory" content, as it was clearly defamatory, but went with the former so as not to provoke them. However... Given their commentary on their own talk page warning those 'sympathizing' with "CHOP child murderers" not to leave a comment, I think it's pretty clear this user isn't interested in any productive contributions. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated harassment by user 'Josibald' and potential sockpuppet 'Brotherblog'.

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

---

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

The user Josibald[158] and potential sockpuppet Brotherblog[159] are repeatedly accusing me of racism for my edits to provide balance on a the page of the political figure Shahid Malik.

Initial accusations were made in edit summaries, [160], [161], [162].

Further harassment has been made on the talk page in three separate incidents: [163], [164], [165].

A sockpuppet investigation into both accounts is currently open given the continued pushing of a purely self-promotional POV written in a similar style on the Malik articl1e, with sockpuppets making similar claims against other users as far back as 2011 [166] which is an extenuation of previous investigations from investigations here [167]

MrEarlGray (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted two of the edit summaries, redacted talk pages comments, and warned User:Brotherblog that if they continue to attack other editors, they will be blocked. They have already been warned for edit warring. I've also asked for input at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Shahid Malik. Fences&Windows 16:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Fences and Windows :-) MrEarlGray (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruption on Gideon Greif

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

---

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

I have no idea what is going on, but I would like a more experienced admin to take a look at the revision history of Gideon Greif. Thanks! Steve M (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

A controversy section about Greif's work on atrocities in the Balkans was added by a now-blocked sockpuppet. IP editors who repeatedly removed the content were reverted for vandalism, but User:Pahunkat has now opened an RfC on the talk page, which is welcome. I doubt the content needs suppressing, even if it might be somewhat biased. Fences&Windows 14:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP user is removing the "controversies" section from the article. From the comment above, it looks like an RfC is open regarding it, and the IP user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's everything that has been said with the IP maing personal attacks against users who revert their edits. As a result, I would welcome participants in the RfC on the talk page. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Outing and legal threats

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

---

IP user 180.233.126.86 has outed me and is making legal threats. I've emailed Oversight to have it removed. IP should be indef blocked? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pauline_Hanson%27s_One_Nation&type=revision&diff=998858132&oldid=998854831 Bacondrum (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Request deletion of draft

The following discussion is closed. 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 don't know what speedy deletion criteria applies best, but could someone do the sensible thing and delete Draft:Washington Capitol Massacre please? It isn't Part of United States 2nd Civil War Battles, and the status in in the infobox of End of Siege, Death of innocents is a big red flag. Obviously we already have a proper article on this... FDW777 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's also obviously an attempt at a WP:POVFORK as the text was originally posted on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol as a "proposed change" to the protected page, was reverted/rejected for obvious reasons, and then created this draft. "Misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost" is probably closest; as that is worded to only apply to userspace pages, its applied here under WP:IAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) and already deleted by Acroterion as I wrote this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion or The Bushranger, I goofed and accidentally recreated it clicking too fast through a dialog. Please undo my goof. Jdphenix (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleted as a POV fork, image tagged for deletion at Commons since it's clearly non-free with a fraudulent "own work" claim, and user blocked for the image violation and general NOTHERE behavior. If there's a Commons admin looking in, please delete. Acroterion (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, they have a lot of uploads at Commons that are clearly not theirs - they're grabbed from social media and are comprehensively awful. Acroterion (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Images are deleted from Commons. As a general note, look out for scraped images from social media of the 6 January Capitol events, it is very unlikely that the authors have released them under a WP-compatible license. Acroterion (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User Mandruss violating discretionary sanctions at Donald Trump

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

---

Obviously Donald Trump is a heated topic, and there are very clear and strict discretionary sanctions in place. Anyone editing is meet by a big box stating that 'The following discretionary sanctions apply to all people who edit this article: If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. Brazenly ignoring these discretionary sanctions, Mandruss first removed a large chunk of text [168] and just then minutes later reverted both me and others to his own edit [169]. While this was already a blockable offence, I first tried to reason with Mandruss by informing them and telling them to self revert to avoid a block [170], as did Tataral [171]. Mandruss completely dismissed me, [172] and Tataral [173] leaving me with no option but to file this report. Jeppiz (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

In point of fact, I did not "completely dismiss" you but disagreed with you, with evidence. Completely dismissing you would look like "Get off my talk page." And I think you're in the wrong venue for this. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss that WP:AE is probably a more proper venue and an admin may close this report. Jeppiz (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE

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

---

• Jordanwelby599 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Jordanwelby599 (talk · contribs) has thus far created about a dozen drafts or articles, all of which appear to be tests or fantasies if we assume good faith, and hoaxes if not. User talk page doesn't shed any light. 2601:188:180:B8E0:2818:A14B:DF07:4185 (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've nuked them all, they're imaginary. The user appears to be very young, I'll leave them a note and ask them to take it easy. Acroterion (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Good assessment--deletion seemed right, a block unduly harsh. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:2818:A14B:DF07:4185 (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had been around when I was 10 or so, I might have done something similar. We should be gentle. Acroterion (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had been around when I was 10 it would've been in black and white. Tiderolls 13:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: The one I moved to draft (Iain Lauchland) had an IMDb page under the title "Iain Lauchlan"; I admit I didn't check it out in detail (and have only just noticed the misspelling), but it did look like the same subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a child writing about friends, relatives and imaginary situations, and the resemblance is accidental/coincidental.

@Tide Rolls: By Internet standards, it still is. And my folks didn't get a color TV until I was 18. Acroterion (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bah you kids, back in my day, if we wanted to edit on Wikipedia, we had to walk up hill both ways to connect on a 300 baud modem. And we liked it that way. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

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

---

AIV is locked--please block 147.158.190.196 (talk · contribs), again. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:2818:A14B:DF07:4185 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Kingofsumers Needs a time-out

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

---

• Kingofsumers (talk · contribs)

Kingofsumers decided to edit Boneyard90's comment to say some pretty gross things.^[174]

I gave a pretty stern warning for that.^[175]

Kingofsumers decided to act like a child about it.^[176] Therefore, we should treat them like one and give them a time-out. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You come back from 3 years of not editing and do THAT? Indef'd for NOTHERE. (Ok, 1 edit in 3 years.) RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's more like two years, but same difference lol
@RickinBaltimore: Thanks for the swift action! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Sarveshk7 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.

---

• Sarveshk7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has been making very disruptive edits since they first joined in December. However, some of them verge on vandalism. I think an administrator needs to know about this. I also think WP:NOTHERE applies. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I separately reported this account to WP:AIV. Pretty clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. A 72-hour block didn't do the trick, so something longer would seem to be in order.Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The person has been blocked. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Defamation at Proof of Heaven

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

---

• Proof of Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• George Lee Clark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Requesting rev/deletion of recent libelous content, since removed but still viewable. The article could use some tidying--the summary has promotional issues--but that's more easily handled. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing OP is referring to the edits by George Lee Clark, which indeed appear to violate BLP. I don't think they're particularly extraordinary BLP violations, but you could arguably call the accusations therein "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" within the meaning of WP:CRD #2. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of illegal activity against an identifiable living person does indeed fall under BLP, and I have revision-deleted the edits. Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyvio

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

---

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

Hi all. Apologies if this isn't the best place. I've noticed that Billy Limo has had a number of reminders about copyright infringement. Tanzania Police Force is the latest violation of that. It was moved to Draft:Tanzania Police Force and tagged appropriately but has now been moved back to mainspace. The two articles will need a histmerge but I've realised that Twinkle only has one level of warning for copyright infringement and this user has already had one of those. I've added yet another warning to their page but was wondering if an admin could reinforce the message? Many thanks in advance. Spiderone 19:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed. The last thing we need is more serial copyright infringers. MER-C 19:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• I G12'd the article and draft since they were pretty much entirely copy-pasted text. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Subtle vandalism

Special:Contributions/85.211.1.8 has made 6 edits adding "Zak Mahiz " to articles on various media, giving him roles in Roy, You, Me and the Apocalypse and other media. This has happened before with a similar IP Special:Contributions/85.211.14.18 a couple of months ago and yet another one Special:Contributions/89.242.25.60 here. Caius G. (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 3 months. Caius G., are there repeated target articles that could be protected? Do they always add the same text (for an edit filter)? You can also check about a rangeblock on 85.211.xx. xx with an admin familiar with this. Fences&Windows 00:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Kire1975

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

---

(Note: because of personal issues, It may be several days days before I am able to access wikipedia, so feel free to deal with this without my involvement)

Background:
Dwid hellion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), lead singer of
Integrity (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is a typical newbie who is the subject of a BLP. Previously Hellion edited the page of his own band, and got into multiple fights over inaccuracies on the band's page. Example: the page said the band is in Cleveland despite it having moved to Belgium in 2013. I was the first person to actually do a Google search and find a reliable source instead of blindly reverting Hellion's attempts to correct this error.

As sometimes happens, all Hellion needed was for someone to treat him like a human being and explain why Wikipedia editors do the things we do. Since I talked with him he has limited himself to talk page comments.[177] The page still needs a lot of work, but Hellion's COI editing stopped on 16 December 2020, right after I calmly explained our policy on editing your own page.[178]

Kire1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have a personal animosity against Hellion and has, in my opinion, violated WP:BLP. In my opinion Kire1975 should be topic banned from the areas of Dwid Hellion and his band.

Examples of problem edits:

• [179], 18:39, 17 December 2020: Added [redacted] (Wikilinks not in source; they were added by Kire1975 -- a dubious practice in the case of direct quotes).

The source is not a WP:BLPRS for such a negative editorial opinion.

• [180], 06:15, 17 December 2020: Tagged the exact same Cleveland Scene source with "non-primary source needed" when it was used to say something positive about Hellion.
• [181], 21:10, 16 December 2020: Tagged one of Integrity's albums with "The neutrality of this article is disputed" after Hellion corrected some errors.[182], Yes Hellion should not have done that (and stopped doing it once I explained it to him) but the tag is an overreaction; the factual corrections did not affect the neutrality of the page.
• [183], 01:24, 16 December 2020‎ : Overtagging to the point where is is getting close to being vandalism. (and since when is "monthly magazine" overly detailed? Note that in his zeal to stuff as many tags as possible into the article, Kire1975 actually reinserted the word "monthly" himself while at the same time tagging it as being overly detailed![184])

Hellion has complained about Kire1975 multiple times, the most recent being today.[185][186][187][188][189][190][191] While Hellion hasn't quite gotten the message that this isn't Twitter and that being aggressive won't get you far here, he does have a point. It took me roughly three minutes of searching to confirm Hellion's claim that the band is currently based in Belgium. It shouldn't be this hard for the subject of a BLP to correct errors in his page.

Related:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#User:Dwid Hellion is editing his own band page,
• Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Deleting unambiguous promotion drafts in other people's userspace

Again, in my opinion Kire1975 should be topic banned from the areas of Dwid Hellion and his band. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Kire1975's Response

"The Cleveland Scene is an alternative weekly newspaper" that has been published since the 1970s. Noting becomes not WP:BLPRS by being labeled so. State your reasons.

Why don't you just remove the wikilinks not in source? Seems reasonable to me.Though I do notice that you didn't cite any Wikipedia rules addressing that question to support your complaint.

The primary source in this edit refers to a positive quote by artist Derek Hess who is a colleague of Hellion's, having done artwork for an album that Integrity was on according to Hellion. The reliability and verifiability of the source is not in question. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a press-release service for positive stories only.

Which "factual corrections" made by the connected contributor are you referring to exactly? Please elaborate on how you know they did not affect the neutrality of the page? If I had to do it again, I would have put a WP:COI tag on it, expecting a consensus to be reached in a normal fashion. Kire1975 (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon is WP:GASLIGHTING when he speaks about overtagging. The word monthly was removed by me a minute after I had reverted his edit and five minutes before the first time he accused me of reinserting the word monthly, which he has done many times.

There were a lot of tags on the page because the page has been relentlessly edited since 2007 by a [redacted] The first edit on Hellions' account was to wipe out the prose on the page in question entirely. As Guy Macon states, the only reason he is posting here is because Hellion is able to enlist Guy Macon on his war against reasonable standards by once again falsely accusing me of tricks, disinformation and lies.

Guy Macon has been asked twice to leave my talk page alone because I am legitimately afraid of his gaslighting ways. As you can see from the title of his complaint, Guy's complaint is not about my actions, it's just about me. I spent two nights around Christmastime last month literally trembling. He has posted on it multiple times and now the trembles have started again after he he has posted an ANI notice on my talk page that if I don't meet his contradictory and intentionally confusing standards I am going to be banned from editing a page I have had no interactions with for three weeks and for no legitimate reason.

As a counter-request, I would request that Guy Macon be banned from interacting with me for three years, or however long the consensus decides (hopefully not less than six months), and that User:Dwid_hellion be banned from Wikipedia entirely for the same reasons that user:Cullen banned hardcore guitarist Vic DiCara on December 1, 2020.

Related:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#User:Dwid Hellion is editing his own band page,
• Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Deleting unambiguous promotion drafts in other people's userspace [redacted]

--Kire1975 (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Kire1975 my understanding of the idea of wiki is that it portrays the publics perception and opinion on a band or individual, your deliberate choice to solely source negative content from a cleve scene article from 14 years ago is rather suspect. You have decided that your personal perception of my band shall take precedence over that of the wiki community itself. You have deliberately sought out the most slanderous article of my band with the intention of painting a negative portrayal. Your personal decision to only site one cleveland scene journalists opinion as fact over and over while ignoring all of the other articles about my band is biased ( 32 years of articles about my band and you can only source one article from 14 years ago). Your counter research is also flawed, your statement that Derek Hess designed a few of my album covers is untrue, please cite your source for this information. Hess has not designed any album covers for me at all. He did design a various artists compilation album of which my band has one track on that record (a motorhead tribute album), but he has not once designed any of my album covers. Your actions on wiki continue to confirm that you have a personal vendetta against me and my band. The intention of your wiki edits on my band's wiki page is malicious in nature and has not been done with preserving the quality of the wiki community in mind, but done solely for your own personal vendetta against me and my band. You cherry-pick negative quotes and insert snarky language to discredit any positive remarks about me or my music. You are intentionally abusing your role on wiki. I recommend that you consider this when you defend your intentions as being for the wiki community and not for your own self-serving purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwid hellion (talk • contribs) 06:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Dwid hellion - You are a connected contributer. The band has been filled with nothing but "positive" articles since you started editing it since 2007. See WP:COI and WP:PROMO. Your contribution history shows that you have aggressively attacked anyone posting anything that you don't like long before I showed up. Your reputation as a [redacted] is well documented in a reliable, independent, secondary source. That this source is 14, 15 or 500 years old is neither here nor there. If you want to post nothing but positive articles about your band, hire a publicist or open a free blogspot page. Derek Hess is your colleague. Talking positive things about you benefits the reputation and sales of the album you and he both worked on. This is MOS:PUFFERY. Why do you go on and on about a personal vendetta? [redacted] You have enlisted Guy in your quest to tarnish my reputation with completely false allegations is plain for the whole world to see. This incident report here on ANI is evidence that you are the ones out to get me. You have influence around the world, as is evident with how you convinced Guy to gaslight me like this for weeks. I am legitimately frightened at the lengths you will go to retaliate against me for trying to make your bands Wikipedia conform to basic standards. I am very much aware that I am WP:NOTPERFECT and I am also aware that I don't need to be. You have been encouraged to suggest edits in the talk page, but you have done way more than that. With every comment, you are intimidating people. Why Vic DiCara has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia after making just two edits and you are allowed to intimidate good faith editors for almost 14 years is beyond my comprehension. Please leave us alone. Kire1975 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to Kire1975 the rules about posting an ANI notice to a talk page after being asked not to post on it?[192] Thanks.

I note the irony of Kire1975 doing the following:

• Told Hellion "[redacted]"
• Accused both Hellion and me with "you are the ones out to get me", and "gaslighting".
• Engaged in off-wiki "opposition research" by searching [redacted] until he found someone who criticized me.
• Claiming that he is trembling in fear because I posted this report.

Again, Hellion's COI editing stopped on 16 December 2020, right after I calmly explained our policy on editing pages about yourself. That issue appears to have been resolved, whether or not Kire1975 wants to keep criticizing Hellion for it.

If given a bit of time, I am pretty sure that further calm discussion with Hellion will result in him being less aggressive in his comments, and perhaps even learning the ropes and becoming a productive Wikipedia editor. From his standpoint it is understandable; it is difficult to have someone post false information about where you live and who created the cover art for your albums while calling you a divisive, brooding, shit-talker with a car salesman's tongue. As Hellion wrote to me on December 18th: "Thanks for taking the time to explain wiki. I had a different understanding of this website before this conversation."

Personal attacks such as the following are not acceptable behavior:

• [redacted]
• [redacted]

Accusing Hellion of [redacted] is crossing the line. It's admittedly a clever play on words. but it is still a personal attack and a sign that Kire1975 lacks the objectivity ("his account is about to be blocked forever any minute now"[193]) needed to edit Hellion's BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hellion's COI issue is one that should have been dealt with years ago but got lost in the shuffle based on his talk page. And since, wikipedia is forward looking, I concur that nothing further needs to be done now that a Guy has properly explained the issue.

Kire, on the other hand, may have started with good intentions of fully covering the band's highs and lows but at this point seems to have lost all objectivity and is only concerned with adding a negative item to a BLP article. WP:BLP stipulates we should be conservative when editing BLP article and further that multiple sources should be used for documenting incidents or allegations. Quite simply, if they can not drop the stick then it is time for the community to encourage them to move on from this article and be a productive member of the community elsewhere. Slywriter (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The stick was dropped three weeks ago. Delete the "negative" properly sourced statement if that's the consensus. I am not concerned with it on a personal level at all. Guy's mind is made up. I went looking for sources to support a normal history section, or sources confirming the long list of membership, anything to make it not WP:PROMO but all there is out there is non-primary interviews with people being positive about this connected contributor. Hellion won't even let anyone say the band is from Cleveland, which has been confirmed through sources, or similar basic edits without completely WP:PAGEBLANKING the prose over and over and over.

[redacted] --Kire1975 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

In regards to Macon's allegation of BLP violations, see WP:BLPBALANCE. Criticism can be included if it can be sourced to reliable secondary source. The Cleveland Scene is both. If only praise is allowed on the page, disproportionate space would be given to a particular viewpoint, see WP:UNDUE. Kire1975 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Irony noting is not a valid reason for topic ban. The existence of this discussion is evidence that Guy Macon is trying to get me topic banned for dubious reason. That he cites the fact that I used the phrase "out to get me" to illustrate a point and that I stated that he is causing me fear and trembling as a justification for punishing me for being a good faith editor is WP:GASLIGHTING. The ANI discussion itself is unmerited and is only a pretext for him to continue bothering me on my talk page despite being asked multiple times to not do so (see above). Kire1975 (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

[redacted]]. 16:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks such as [redacted] and [redacted] (both in Kire1975's comment above) are clear BLP violations. They show that Kire1975 has lost objectivity and should not be allowed to edit Hellions' BLP. The fact that Kire1975 continues to edit the Integrity (band) talk page (the most recent edit was three hours ago) is inconsistent with the above "The stick was dropped three weeks ago" claim. I do not see any viable solution to these behavioral issues other than a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You asked me to spell your name correctly, which I assure you was a complete accident that I was wholly unaware of until you pointed it out, then when I complied, you are now using the fact that I made an edit without explaining to anyone here what the purpose of the edit was to try to get me banned. More WP:GASLIGHTING. Kire1975 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The edit I referred to was this one:[194] I am not stupid. I would not have commented about you still editing on the Integrity (band) talk page after claiming to have dropped the stick if all you had done is correct a typo. I believe that I have identified the reason why you use the word "gaslighting" so often. I suggest that you stop paying attention to what I say and start paying attention to what others on this page are saying. What are the odds that everyone is wrong about your behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there something disruptive about this edit? You accused me of "reinserting a word" by reverting an edit multiple times, while ignoring that the word Monthly was removed 5 minutes before the first time you accused me of reinserting a word. I became so afraid of your relentless personal attacks (for example, "I am not stupid" above) and your relentless accusations that I dropped the stick so much that I didn't even look for that edit that made your attacks unnecessary until you brought it up here after three weeks of inactivity. That edit had a legitimate purpose. It was an answer to your question. I point to WP:GASLIGHTING so much because your mind is made up about me, though. You are trying to get me banned for simply editing, regardless of the purpose of the edit. You have never assumed WP:GOODFAITH, I am WP:NOTPERFECT but you never cared about explaining what I don't know without treating me like a human.

Hellion should have known better thirteen years ago. [redacted] It's not a BLP violation to post criticism, even if Hellion calls is slander with no evidence of a court case or anything. But hey, I type too much. I talk about my feelings. The alternative press article used profanity so, you can come here, clutch your pearls and enlist more and more people to "support" you and parrot your non-reasons. You could have just deleted the material and stated your reasons for it. I would have not objected. The page will be WP:PROMO if that's the consensus. Kire1975 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Again I say, there are FOUR people who have commented on your behavior on this page. You keep going on and on about why you refuse to listen to what Guy Macon and Dwid Hellion are telling you (I thought Hellion's "your statement that Derek Hess designed a few of my album covers is untrue, please cite your source for this information" comment was quite reasonable). Fine. Ignore us both. What about the other two people who have commented on your behavior? Are they also delusional and paranoid? You are violating WP:BLP and WP:NPA. You just did it again by calling another editor -- who is also the the subject of a BLP page that you keep editing -- "[redacted]". How many people have to tell you this? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not Derek Hess designed a few of his album covers or one, the question is whether or not Hess is a connected party/primary source. Hellion has confirmed that Hess did the artwork for an album coverm, therefore his WP:PROMO statement still on the page that "They were ahead of the curve. Integrity started incorporating art and illustrations, and I think that was a real right-on thing that broke away from the pack. When you say the name Dwid throughout the industry, they know who you're talking about. He's infamous." is WP:PUFFERY and should be removed, but meanwhile it won't be because you've got me here pinned down scared I'm going to be banned because of spelling errors and posting criticism and anything else you can think of to play gotcha with me. Instead of using bold and making threats, assume good faith and all will be well. [redacted] This is not an ad hominem attack against him. These are facts. If Dwid doesn't want them to be reported in reliable, independent, secondary and verifiable sources, there are things he can do to develop a different reputation. Threatening good faith redditors with false accusations and potential bannings is not one of them. Nothing becomes slanderous by being labeled so. You may silence me, but you will not be making Wikipedia a better, safer place. See WP:NOTHERE Kire1975 (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Dwid writes lyrics about mental illness according to the lede. I didn't put that there. There's nothing wrong with being paranoid and delusional, per se. Check out my own userboxes. Threatening good faith editors with banning on the other hand.... --Kire1975 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I blocked (not banned) User: Vic DiCara as a standard procedure to protect against possible impersonation, with simple remedies available to the user. See User talk:Vic DiCara. This is a completely different type of situation. This thread is filled with BLP violations by Kire1975. I support a topic ban for Kire1975 regarding Dwid hellion and the band called Integrity. Kire1975 is engaged in axe grinding and an ugly vendetta. It needs to stop now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Note that Vic DiCara followed Cullen328's instructions, verified his identity, and was unblocked now that we know he is not an impersonator. I have given Vic DiCara the same advice I gave Dwid Hellion about not editing pages that are about you. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ Thanks for finally explaining that. Your edit on User talk:Vic DiCara looked like it was some kind of template but I could not figure out where it was from or any precedents for that kind of block no matter how long I looked. There was also nothing there about the remedies having been taken. I am sorry for getting confused. Kire1975 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the COI tag from that album page. Thank you Guy for pointing out that Dwid's contributions on that page were not as major as they appeared. Speaking of overreactions, you could have pointed all this out on the talk page like a reasonable person or just removed it yourself and stated the reasons in the edit summary instead of trying to play gotcha with me here at ANI. Kire1975 (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Call for close

Could an uninvolved administrator please evaluate this thread and ether close it with a conclusion of no action required or close it with a topic ban? I am about to once again be in a situation with weeks of no Internet access and will be unable to monitor the BLP page for continued violations. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Second, the editor's conduct is well-documented in their own words above. Slywriter (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Third, but please read WP:CRYBLP first, especially the part about the chilling effect, remember that I have asked for WP:IBAN with Guy Macon and Dwid hellion because of well documented WP:GASLIGHTING. Please remember that Guy Macon [redacted] And please be precise about the reasons and clear about which "topic" I am to be banned from. Thanks. Kire1975 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if the closing administrator would also opine on the oft-repeated charge of gaslighting. If I actually am guilty of "history re-writing, reality denial, misdirection, baseless contradiction, projection of one's own foibles onto others, repetition, or off-topic rambling – to destabilize a discussion by sowing doubt and discord." as Kire1975 claims, I should be informed by an admin as to what I have done that I should no longer do. If, on the other hand, I am not guilty, Kire1975 should be told to stop accusing me of it.

I would also appreciate it if the closing administrator would address the CRYBLP claim above. Fortunately, Kire1975 has indicated exactly which part of CRYBLP he is claiming applies: "Invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion". Multiple editors have told Kire1975 that he has violated WP:BLP. If, as Kire1975 claims, we are all wrong, we should be told so in order to avoid making the same mistake elsewhere.

Finally, may we please have a comment on whether quoting some random flamer on [redacted] is appropriate?

In other words, a too-brief closing summary will leave Kire1975 convinced that his behavior is acceptable, so he should be told clearly and unambiguously what behavior is expected of him. And of course, if Kire1975 didn't do anything wrong, the rest of us need to be educated on where we went wrong in our assessment. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There you go posting a link to WP:BLP without stating your reasons again. Multiple people saying the same unjustified thing does not merit a ban, see WP:SATISFY. Nobody's accusing me of anything on [redacted] or anywhere else. [redacted] Kire1975 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

[redacted] Kire1975 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Additional question

In the following, I am asking an honest question without indicating what I think the answer should be. I really am not sure what the best course here is, and I don't trust myself to be unbiased in this matter.

Given the behavior we are seeing when Kire1975 is in the middle of an ANI discussion and presumably at his best behavior, is a topic ban from this particular musician enough? Should it be a full ban? Like I said, I can see good arguments either way. What do the other editors reading this think we should do? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I was mistaken. You're definitely not out to get me. Wow. [redacted] – Kire1975 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Long-term maneuvering by User:Albertaont

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

This report is related to my WP:AN/EW report [195] of User:Albertaont.

As I've mentioned it above, this user is associated with the long-term maneuvering of the editing processes and policies, which can hardly be seen as WP:HTBAE. Instead of WP:PRESERVE, their behavior has the destructive effect of censoring significant information and points of view—if not certain points of view.

The deletions by them were done mostly in the name of WP:UNSOURCED, WP:NPOV, WP:SOCKSTRIKE, "awkward", or "fake news". This is especially true when it comes to geopolitics- and China-related topics and content. Note that many of their deletions can be easily sourced and verified using a simple Google search, but they rarely show any interest in doing so.

Here are some diffs of their edits to demonstrate what I mean:

[196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257] [258]

Hope this report can help the community become aware of this user's behavior. Normchou ^💬 06:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ve observed the behavior you’re talking about with Albertaont, the seem to jump around the East Asia space to whichever topic is currently hot/controversial and then push a generally questionable line. From my personal experience back in December they reverted a number of edits I’d made at Tianwen-1 two weeks after I’d made them with the edit summaries "Undid revision 991794797 by AnomieBOT (talk)reverse vandalism”[259] "Undid revision 991791281 by Horse Eye's Back (talk) reverse vandalism where they have all been clearly cited”[260] and “Undid revision 991791144 by Horse Eye's Back (talk) reverting vandalism”[261]. They never did source the information they added back in. So a few days later I again removed the unsourced information as well as a few unreliable sources (we were using a Chinese space fan site as a WP:RS) I again was reverted with the edit summaries "→‎Scientific instruments: clearly cited and abundantly clear, even to you”[262], and "(Undid revision 994204852 by Horse Eye's Back (talk)reverting vandalism, clearly in body)"[263]. They also reverted AnomieBOT again without challenging/removing all the tags leaving undated tags [264]. I haven’t edited the page since, I honestly hadn’t even noticed the second set until I went back to grab the diffs for the first set. TLDR thats four accusations of vandalism against a single editor in three days with zero basis in reality, a clear violation of our NPA provisions around casting aspersions. This is just one part of the stuff I’ve seen this editor do, I see three options going forward: a topic ban from COVID, East Asia, and US politics (broadly construed), a significant change in editing behavior and comportment on the part of Albertaont, or an indeff as not here/disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I remembered another particularly egregious one, another editor had to clean up the mess Albertaont made at Hostage diplomacy with this rather pointed series of edits [265][266][267][268]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from 97.80.113.37

• 97.80.113.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• The Reason (Hoobastank song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:97.80.113.37 has been disruptively editing The Reason (Hoobastank song) by adding music charts on which the song did not appear or charts in violation of WP:USCHARTS. I have warned them multiple times to stop, but they simply will not listen. They had previously been blocked because of genre warring in August 2020. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 22:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears they have stopped the disruption - if it resumes please re-report. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism

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

---

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

Domestic terrorism needs some immediate attention. I've made a request at RFPP, but brand-new accounts and IPs (and one admin) are engaged in a very fast edit war. I've tried to get back to the last stable version a couple of times, and encourage discussion on the talk page, but I think locking the article (in the status quo ante version) is needed. (I originally asked fer semi-protection, but I think now that full protection is needed). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like User:Liz got to that (I was just about to). --Masem (t) 03:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Liz Thank you for the quick action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, one of the accounts there (sneedmaguire) is illustrative of something that should be a yellow flag in usernames: the phrase "sneed", which is related to a pretty common shitposting gimmick on sites like 4chan (see "E-I-E-I-(Annoyed Grunt)#Legacy"). Of course it's a part of many a different real name (see Sneed), but it's something to be aware of in the future if you see it in other disruptive accounts, edit summaries, etc. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

edits by DealOrNo

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

---

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

user:DealOrNo has in the past days been engaged in edit warring to get his version of evens across regarding the status of Gibraltar in the Schengen Area at those two pages. Unfortunately, despite multiple attempts to warn him (both templated and non templated) on his talk page he seems not to be willing to come to the talk page where discussions were starting regarding his proposed additions (Talk:Gibraltar#Schengen and Talk:Schengen Area#Gibraltar again (BRD discussion). After a pause the past days, he started editing again showing the same behaviour. I suppose a short block is needed to provide some stimulation to start the discussion process on the talk page, as we have exhausted all other options. L.tak (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

They're getting a 24-hour time-out for egreriously ignoring WP:3RR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Soumya-8974, again

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

---

• Soumya-8974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I hate that I have to be back here again regarding Soumya-8974 (talk · contribs), but his conduct at RfD is still deep in the "net negative" territory. To catch you up, he was topic banned from creating redirects in March 2020. In September, there was broad consensus for a strengthening of his topic ban, but unfortunately the thread was archived without action. Since then, Soumya's behavior has frankly gotten even worse. Today, Soumya submitted a flood of 24 separate RfD nominations for simple retarget requests (Thankfully CycloneYoris cleaned up his mess). Some of them have no rationale, like a simple Retarget to Kashmir. with no explanation why. Another, Cassimere, Soumya falsely claims that it's "not a valid spelling", which a simple WP:BEFORE would show otherwise. Note that Soumya is not banned from retargeting and he knows this; for example he boldly but incorrectly retargeted Canadien just last month, so it's unclear why he would flood RfD with these requests instead of boldly doing it himself. Going back to yesterday, we find a simple vote with no explanation at the RfD for Bahmin, and some misleading rationale editing at the RfD for National capital territory, that required a discussion at his talk page from Thryduulf. Going back one more day (still in 2021), there was a questionable nomination of English nation. There was a telling reply from Mutt Lunker there: Typical of the slapdash, uncomprehending approach of this editor, I have come to appreciate. I'll stop at 2021, but there are many, many more examples I can bring up if necessary. I've been saying this since last March, but the only way this behavior will stop is with an indefinite topic ban on redirects, broadly construed, and I hope you will agree. This isn't my wheelhouse, but it may also be worth examining a topic ban from ethnic groups (especially Kashmir) since I've noticed others have been frustrated with his efforts there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This user is highly prolific, doubtless well-intentioned and quite possibly making many positive contributons to this project but my heart sinks whenever I register an edit of theirs on my watchlist. My overwhelmingly experience of their editing is that of hasty, bold and sweeping changes or proposals, made with neither care nor understanding. If they slowed down, did some research or just stuck to what they knew, matters might be different but after months of observing the considerable collateral damage of their activities, they seem to be pursuing quantity, not quality, in a bull-in-a-china-shop fashion. This can not continue. I too can give multiple examples if required. I will say that they do seem to be receptive to constructive criticism on individual isssues but the amount of work they are generating in having to clear up after them and explain their errors is an overall drain. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I support a topic ban from redirects, broadly interpreted. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to correct basic errors in procedure, basic errors in understanding of policies, guidelines, essays, etc. that indicate that if they've even taken the time to read them they haven't been understood. Soumya has been here for over three years and has been contributing to RfD for months - we shouldn't have to be repeatedly explaining basic concepts (like don't edit your comments after others have replied to them) that most editors grasp either intuitively or within a matter of days of editing. I will look up the link if desired, but yesterday was at least the second time I've had to comment about misleading edits to their RfD comments. I have not looked in detail at their contributions regarding Kashmir, but the comment on their user talk page from M Imtiaz suggests that competence is lacking there too. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding competence on Kashmir pages, I have had limited interaction with this editor but I have nonetheless been left frustrated. Breaking edits to templates have been made with no attempt to clean it up and attempts to elicit a rationale behind the edits have been met with silence. The editor seems more preoccupied with the userboxen on their user page than with addressing concerns on their talk page; this has been the case with many editors' questions there. (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Corrected 15:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, but yeah, Sdrqaz hits the nail on the head, and I don't think I have anything to add other than that a WP:ENGAGE block might also be worth considering at least in the short term, given their refusal to even participate in this ANI discussion. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I find it concerning that some of the editor's contributions to userboxen have been to create User:UBX/Sinophobia and User:UBX/CCP virus, the former of which is displayed on their user page. That seems ... problematic. (Non-administrator comment) Sdrqaz (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess they're not wrong about that first one, though, are they... M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 02:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC) edited 02:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hahaha I find it highly unusual that an editor will be so explicit about their prejudices. It's possibly one of the most blatant violations of userbox/user page guidelines I've seen. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

He created Wikipedia:Userboxes/COVID-19 and most of the templates listed there, including this, this, and this. Nardog (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Nardog, I did see that too, but I thought the Sinophobia/CCP virus ones were the worst so only listed them here! I've nominated the CCP one for speedy deletion. I gave the editor the benefit of the doubt for the North Korean one and the WWIII one, believing them to be possibly tongue-in-cheek. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I created the Sinophobia userbox on the right place, under a user page, since the userbox was controversial. See WP:Userbox migration. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Soumya, the issue isn't where you created the userbox. The issue is that you created the userbox in the first place. I know that many editors ignore WP:UBCR, but that userbox was not just simply controversial. It was inflammatory or divisive. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So now that we have evidence of disruption in at least three separate topics (I agree those are some concerning userboxes), along with a failure to engage or even acknowledge his shortcomings (he has been editing elsewhere despite a nudge from Liz on his talk page to participate here), I think it's in the best interest to upgrade my recommendation to a full ban. If we topic ban him from everywhere there is disruption, we'll end up topic banning him from all of his interests... -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that an indefinite block is in order. The competence issues are bad enough, but the anti-Chinese comments are honestly enough to merit a block by themselves, and his response to that issue being raised has been severely lacking. We should not be bending over backwards to teach a self-declared bigot to edit constructively. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thirded. This gives me further doubt the user is here to build an encyclopedia. Nardog (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my latency, but I want to say that I wanted to do the right thing to improve the encyclopedia. However, the users above has have shown in this section that much of my contributions are ended up being problematic. I acknowledge this but I can't realise why it is occuring. Maybe Gosh don't let me to improve an encyclopedia that aims to create "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's the typical outcome when it's felt that someone is causing more harm than benefit to said encyclopaedia, and I appreciate you recognising that. That said, I'd suggest the other editors in this thread not think much of this user's "semi-retirement", given the likelihood that they'll return quietly sometime after the discussion once the scrutiny has reduced a bit. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 14:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Having now seen the userboxes, the comments regarding China and the opinions of those familiar with the Kashmir topic I unfortunately cannot object to a full ban. The only alternative would be a topic ban from Kashmir, China and redirects, all broadly interpreted but that would likely either be the same as a full ban or move the disruption to some other area. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to implement an indefinite, broad topic ban alongside a full ban for a defined period, say a month, to allow the user to have a wee word with themself? If they can't direct their efforts constructively to matters outisde the topic ban thereafter, no slack, short shrift and a full ban imposed? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker: If there is consensus for it then that is entirely possible. I don't know off the top of my head whether I support it or not, but it's certainly worth thinking about. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with that suggestion. Either they are likely to be a net negative in all areas, in which case a full ban is warranted, or they can contribute constructively in other areas, thereby requiring only a TBAN (or set thereof). I don't know what combining the two would accomplish, and in the past such sanctions have often been criticised as being WP:PUNITIVE. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The idea was to be preventative, rather than punitive, banning them from areas they have proven themself - charitably - to be incapable of operating competently but give them a cooling-off period to allow them to return to engage in work in which they may be capable. I can see though that they may already have proven themself too much of a risk to be allowed to work even away from the areas of a topic ban and, if that is the general feeling, am happy with an indef. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for closure

In the interest of preventing lowercase signmabot III automatically archiving this section after hitting the 72-hour mark, I would like to request for an admin to close the discussion and make whatever actions necessary. There seems to be a consensus (as far as I can see) for either topic ban(s) or a full site ban. Alternatively, if there is anyone who wishes to advocate for one type of ban over another, you're obviously free to do so. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Changed 16:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented an indef block, am fine with being overruled if there's editors who want to make a stronger case for another round of topic bans. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Mikezarco

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

---

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

Mikezarco (talk · contribs) has been a constructive editor in their few months on Wikipedia. They and I have had countless interactions on different pages since October 2020. Over the past few days, however, they have been acting differently. Reverting without explanation when they have demonstrated their knowledge of edit summaries; vandalizing my user page, etc. Then, they left a message on my talk page this morning saying they were hacked. I believe, for the good of Wikipedia, that this user be blocked indefinitely per WP:COMPROMISED. Their account is in no way stable, as they exhibited unusual behaviour not even 30 minutes ago. They admitted they were hacked, which, even if it was the hacker themselves writing that, the account would still need to be blocked for the safety of Wikipedia, once again per WP:COMPROMISED. I don’t know the exact protocols this requires, but I thought I would bring it up. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Indef'd as a self-admitted compromised account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Behaviour on Hailee Steinfeld

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

An unregistered user has been changing Hailee Steinfeld's height on Hailee Steinfeld from 5'6", which is what the source says. The obvious purpose is to disrupt, because the user sometimes changes her height to 5'8", sometimes to 5'7", and sometimes to 5'6.5". This has been going on for three days, but the tempo has been increasing this afternoon. Could the page be frozen for a few days until the editor loses interest and goes away? Instant Comma (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

2 days semiprotection applied to stop the vandalism. That said, you really should find a better source for that if at all possible. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

IP also blocked 2 weeks. (I didn't see Bush's page protection.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. In October, the user was blocked for one month for doing the same thing (changing the height of various celebrities). Instant Comma (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem appears to be less the IP and more a new-ish editor named Paul Polimero. I found a People magazine article discussing Steinfeld's height specifically and giving it as 5' 8" and replaced the existing Youtube reference. I got this revert and this bizarre edit summary It's a joke? it's not a funny video ... He says it clearly: "This is where (I lie) and I say 5'7, when in reality I am 5'6", it refers to when he said 5'7 once (but that is actually 5'6) The reference you put, in addition to placing it wrong ... I don't see her say 5'8 ... That is putting false information again and it has a crime. There's both the general competence issue ("he"?) and the attempt at a pseudo-legal threat. --Calton | Talk 09:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Calton! I wrote that. You see, let me explain. Hailee Steinfeld claims to be 5'7 here: https://twitter.com/haileesteinfeld/status/978785185910026240 She here she says: that she is lying, saying that she is 5'7 when she is actually 5'6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSfjCG4V2GM

Her source from that magazine, she has taken 5'8 from sometime that they gave it to her somewhere, and from there it has become official ... It's that simple. What is it that she doesn't understand? But Hailee Steinfeld herself, both from her mouth and in writing, never claimed to be 5'8 ... It's 5'6 actually what she measures. You are publishing a false data by putting that 5'8 ... You don't know what she measures better than herself, it's her word against yours.

And that which says: "that I am the problem, not the IP" is wrong friend, as a Wikipedian you know perfectly that an official source can be quite wrong ... The IP changes version constantly, sometimes it says 5'8, other times 5'7 and other times 5'6.5 ... He has no idea, he just wants to disturb us and have us discuss among ourselves ... Okay, it's just the height, but if there are already lies in a biography with height, why shouldn't there be with other things? Friend, don't let the lie win. I mean it in a good way :)

Paul Polimero (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

GenoV84

• GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.97.77.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1005:b020:b498:43a:745c:8998:3a25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(IPs are the same person, on different ends of the IP masking rollout; there are some previous IPs involved that appear to be a dynamic-IP situation)

I went to provide a WP:3O on the Antony Flew page and walked into an intractable edit war that seems to be wrapped up in GenoV84 taking a WP:RS issue personally. The issue, as discussed here, revolves around GenoV84 using a blog with a strong ideological alignment on the article's topic as a source; the IP editor notes that this source is unreliable, while GenoV84 replies by claiming the same information is available in reliable sources. This of course doesn't actually change the matter, because if information in an unreliable source is available in a reliable one, then established precedent is to preferentially use the reliable source.

GenoV84 appears to be working under the bad faith assumption that the IP's repeated removal of this source is vandalism, and has replied accordingly in talk pages (see here, here) and interactions with me (here). Notably, he claimed the IP editor to be block-evading in their interactions on the Antony Flew page, whereas my suspicion from prying into the situation is this isn't the matter at all -- rather, GenoV84 appears to be the sole person giving the IP vandalism template warnings (see here), and despite lack of adminship assuming the block level of these warnings constitutes an actual block (I may be reading this wrong; the issue was explained to me by only one party, and I've reconstructed it through talk page histories). He appears to be assuming a dynamic IP with an obviously good understanding of Wikipedia policy and who appears through all their interactions to be working in good faith (if getting heated on a heated topic) is a vandal.

I think the issue is getting wrapped up in personal beliefs, rather than the actual matter at hand of 'what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia', and this is leading to GenoV84 making bad faith assumptions. (I said as much in my 3O.) GenoV84's arguments in favour of the blog source appear to be oriented around "but the blog is the Truth™" rather than whether or not the blog is in fact an encyclopedia-appropriate citation.

GenoV84 has a large proportion of the edits to the page even prior to this edit war, so I think WP:OWN issues may also be involved, but I'm less confident on this point.

At the time of writing, the recent page history looks like this. Specific diffs can be observed here and look more or less exactly like this for over a page of edits (e.g. this). Note the persistent accusations of vandalism. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: I would like to clarify my position on the matter of this discussion:

1. the IP user objected that the blog cannot be used as a source by affirming that it makes unsupported "additional claims", whereas I repeatedly responded that blogs can be used as sources on Wikipedia and the blog is based on authoritative newspaper and magazine articles published by multiple reliable sources that report exactly the same informations, reliable sources that I had already provided as references to the Antony Flew article. I never said that "the blog is the Truth™", in fact I'm totally aware that reliable sources take precedence over blogs and that blogs "may not be the best choice" (as I explicitly said on the article's Talk page);
2. moreover, I hoped that the user Vaticidalprophet could help me and the IP user to reach consensus about what to do with the blog. In his 3O, Vaticidalprophet stated that "GenoV84 has found other sources that include the information he wants to add in this article, and accordingly can use them instead (and should have done so in the first place)". Now, if Vaticidalprophet is right and other editors agree that the blog is an unreliable source and doesn't provide useful informations, then it should definitely be removed from the article and the other sources that I had already provided should be used instead.--GenoV84 (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@GenoV84: I'll post a more detailed response regarding the 'additional claims' in the blog article on the relevant talk page when I have time, but in short my issue with the blog was that it was written, quite openly, as an opinion piece, and that at least some of the information it presents also falls into that category (i.e., the claim currently in the article that certain arguments 'reek of bovine waste.'). The reliable sources do indeed include much of the same information, minus any of the additional opinion claims (which are specifically what the article, in my opinion, cites), and you will note that I have made no attempt to alter or remove any of those. I believe that the article would be just as strong with the entire paragraph that relies on that blog post being deleted, but as Vaticidalprophet said, you could try to reconstruct at least parts of it using the other, reliable sources. I think that the Wikipedia policy on blogs is designed to allow us to use scholarly or expert blogs as an additional source of information, not to allow the usage of anonymous opinion pieces from personal blogs. That being said, I was just trying to make a minor alteration to make Wikipedia more reliable, as I do from time to time; I am a user, but I am not an invested editor, so I will leave it to others to solve this. 76.97.77.25 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion and for having engaged in a polite and mutually respectful debate with me, 76.97.77.25. I owe you an apology for my ill-tempered behavior, although I would have preferred to hear your proposal earlier so that we could finally come to an agreement with each other; anyway, all's well that ends well.--GenoV84 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

LaDanian1000000 adding non-notable game entries and their recent non-communication

• LaDanian1000000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:LaDanian1000000 has been entering non-notable game summaries to NFL player articles for about two years. Originally, these edits appear to have been unsourced, but even now the editor uses poor sourcing as they always using a box score from Pro-Football-Reference even though they don't mention the actual feat that was accomplished (example: that x player's sack in the box score was the first of his career). The editor also has a tendency to undue other editor's game reports when they actually are notable and completely sanitize them of important context (example: this edit on Niko Lalos) and replace the prose with almost robotic wording and disrupting the prose itself (using "recorded" instead of the actual applicable verb such as intercepted; rushed for z yards). This goes against the style guide of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League and LaDanian1000000 has been warned multiple times by several editors (including Rockchalk717, Dissident93 & Yankees10) as evidenced by their talk page. LaDanian1000000 has not headed these warnings and instead of adding what are considered to be non-notable game entries and it look like they have simply decided to ignore other editors, despite previously communicating with editors. I'm not sure what exactly is the best course of action, it's possible that a block could force LaDanian1000000 to respond and communicate regarding the game entries. A topic ban on American football-related articles might also work. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I support this 100% as this become troublesome and almost as disruptive as vandalism because he’s been warned multiple times. The user also tends to wait for a notable game then puts the player’s entire stat line in, instead of just what stats were notable.--Rockchalk717 22:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Rockchalk717, I can NOT read your signature. Please see WP:SIGNATURE and be mindful of accessibility guidelines; see WP:COLOR. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It makes my eyes go out of focus. Please fix it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Another thing that bugs me: I know WP:SIGLINK doesn't really address this but for all but 3 characters at the very end of the signature (and the least visually adorned of the sig) to not be linked is kind of aggravating. And yes, the contrast ratio is low. Sorry if this is off-topic from the thread, but yeah. That sig's pretty loud. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

To go back on topic, but I also support a short term block of a week or so. Hopefully that can make the user more receptive to discussing these sort of edits as continuing to do it will just result in more longterm blocks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

ShortDescBot creating blank pages

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

---

• ShortDescBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

This bot has opted to create pages that are entirely blank except for short descriptions (possibly imported from Wikidata), with implausible and never previously created titles. They are here:

"Pyrausta quadrimaculalis (Dognin, 1908)"

Pyrausta quadrimaculalis (Dognin,1908), Species of moth.

Note that the second article I listed has a short description that is literally the entire contents of another stub article: Pyrausta quadrimaculalis, the other one's short description is just "species of moth", and both of these articles created by the bot already have articles.

I'm not sure if this is what the bot is meant to do, but, if not, I came here for security. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 20:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@JJPMaster: It's probably worth contacting the bot's operator, MichaelMaggs. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping - I saw the pages but didn't realise they were bot-created. Not sure how that happened but I've stopped the bot and am looking into it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Qkowlew

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

---

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

This user is died, see in Russian Wikipedia. Please to protect the userpage of deceased user. Salsero al Zviadi (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Violation of 1RR after warning

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

---

• Nomanpk44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Insurgency in Balochistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nomanpk44 violated WP:1RR on Insurgency in Balochistan by making 2 reverts in less than 24 hours [269][270] by misrepresenting sources and defying the note on his talk page.[271] Dhawangupta (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Partial block from the article only (AE action logged here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#India-Pakistan). El_C 18:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Heavy vandalism and extensive socking, multiple actions needed.

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

---

• Spanish football league system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Slisas2222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2A02:1205:503B:4FD0:DD97:6D3D:2AE7:B60 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Diego Fuentes Cruz de la Pobla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For some days now, the article Spanish football league system sees heavy disruption from a vandal first calling themselves Slisas2222, then (after several warnings) using the IP 2A02:1205:503B:4FD0:DD97:6D3D:2AE7:B60 to again rack up a number of warnings, and now created the account Diego Fuentes Cruz de la Pobla to carry on. As there are several admin actions needed, I thought it easiest to come to ANI to request semi-protection for the article (a untreated request is pending for days), and block for the sock-master Slisas2222 and their various socks (per WP:DUCK) (no specific diffs provided as all three accounts only edit the article mentioned and clicking on the article edit history is enough to see the large number of obvious violations) Jeppiz (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I protected the page for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Now also blocked a couple of socks--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter I notice that I was manually reverting the article around the same time you were and I think I accidentally removed the protection, since my edit was seconds after yours. Not sure if I did remove the protection, when I check the edit differences between my first one and yours, it shows that I removed the { { pp-sock | small=yes } } part of your edit. Not sure if that's the protection. Sorry for the confusion RedPatchBoy (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I restored the protection template no problem. The protection itself was there all the time, you can not remove it so easily.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Severe reprimand or topic ban

Reading [272] I cannot help but notice that one of the editors needs a severe reprimand or topic ban for playing fast and loose with the facts. You have to decide who.

Rationale: Kuang Min Wu (1997). On Chinese Body Thinking: A Cultural Hermeneutics. BRILL. p. 70. ISBN 90-04-10150-0. Universality is ironic. Seeing his two disciples in hot dispute, the master Said to One, "You are right," then, turning to the Other, Said, "You are also right." A third disciple responded, "But, Master, they cannot be both right; they are disputing." The master thought for a while, then said, "You are also right." Now the master's saying has two points: (a) "also" and (b) "right." "Also" exhibits the freedom to affirm everything; "right" indicates the affirmation everywhere that includes negation. This freedom of universal affirmation with a gentle touch of irony keeps itself steady and integral; the statement, "You are also right," applies everywhere. I will leave it at what the third disciple stated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Tgeorg needs a topic ban? You have claimed that William G. Dever is not a reliable source because he disagrees with Israel Finkelstein to prevent my edits (which eventually had to be conceded), you have redefined the term "United Monarchy" against the scholarly literature in order to prevent my edits (which, eventually, you conceded), you have launched a false fringe discussionboard to shut me down earlier which did not work, you have launched an administrators noticeboard discussion earlier to shut me down earlier and that also did not work, you tried to delete my essay on the United Monarchy which was immediately reverted. In addition, the proposition you give makes no sense. You suggest a topic ban because two people disagree on the reading of a paper. Evidently, I'm your target and you want me off for ensuring that Wikipedia represents the scholarship rather than the view of a single minority Levantine archaeologist (Finkelstein). I am in the process of an extensive description of the literature in my essay.Editshmedt (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I just smell a rat. I don't know who the rat is, but surely we have a rat. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter (talk · contribs) Perhaps a 31h ban is needed for Tgeorg for calling me a rat?Editshmedt (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

No.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the three editors is lying through their teeth. I don't know who, let's find out the truth together. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

So now I'm a rat and lying through my teeth. Keep in mind the precedent here - Tgeorg has tried to shut me down with a fringe noticeboard discussion, and administrators noticeboard discussion, and tried to delete my whole essay on the basis that it was "disparaging" towards Israel Finkelstein. All three were dismissed or blocked by other editors. Concerning the deletion of my essay, it was marked by Maile66 as "Definitely not an attack page; should not have been tagged as such" (see here). One must consider Tgeorg's intentions in light of these facts and others which can be seen from our recent conversations.Editshmedt (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not claim it's you. All I said is: completely supports the United Monarchy and completely debunks the United Monarchy cannot be both true at the same time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What are you even referring to now? BTW, you're clearly talking about me. Can't be Wdford whose the rat lying through their teeth, who you repeatedly have praised and cited against me, claiming he's on your side and thus using WP:1AM to support yourself.Editshmedt (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

[273]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It could be you, it could be Wdford, it could be ImTheIP, one of you made a complete mockery of WP:V. I want to find out who. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that settles it, no? You've never suggested Wdford or ImTheIP made unverifiable claims, but have repeatedly done so for me. In addition, what you said was not verifiable turned out to be verifiable. Can you specify how WP:V was made a mockery out of? I'm a lying rat whose made a mockery of WP:V - what else?Editshmedt (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What I do know is that the rat is one of the three editors. I do not know that the rat is Editshmedt. In other words, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. But I cannot give the benefit of the doubt to all three. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Denotation: literal meaning of what one is saying

Connotation: implied meaning of what one is saying

What you are recorded as saying: Editshmedt made repeated unverifiable claims. Also, someone, who needs a topic ban or severe reprimand, made a mockery out of Wikipedia's policy on verifiable claims (WP:V). That person is also a "rat", "lying through their teeth".

The connotation is obvious enough. Can you explain how WP:V was made a mockery out of?Editshmedt (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I can accept that I was wrong. I cannot accept that all these three editors are right. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Me and ImTheIP seem to have come to consensus with each other. Can you tell me how WP:V was made a mockery out of? Don't tell me who did it - tell me how a mockery was made out of it.Editshmedt (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You are saying UM is the mainstream view; they are saying UM is a figment of imagination. You cannot be all right at the same time. You and Wdford even invoke the same paper in support of the two opposite claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Here, you said another of my edits failed WP:V. Which you then conceded. I don't know why you're insisting it's not me. It is.

The rest of your comments show you do not understand the conversation. Me and ImTheIP have come into consensus concerning the edits I made.Editshmedt (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I am prepared to accept I was wrong. I am not prepared to accept that the same paper advocates for both the existence and the nonexistence of the UM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The 2019 Garfinkel et al paper does not mention the UM, nor are me and Wdford discussing the UM. As for the mainstream view, I am doing no more than following a WP:RS from a leading archaeologist, William G. Dever who writes: "Finkelstein’s low chronology, never followed by a majority of mainstream scholars, is a house of cards. Yet it is the only reason for attributing our copious tenth-century-BCE archaeological evidence of a united monarchy to the ninth century" Editshmedt (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, in the discussion at [274], you were disputing this:

Ergo, per the latest scholarship, the minor fortifications of Level V at Tel Lachish were the work of Rehoboam post the "United Monarchy". The "United Monarchy" itself was a "small territory" which "collapsed after a few decades". QED. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You cannot be both right about that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

We're not. See the talk page for the ongoing discussion, which you tried to launch a topic ban for at the outset. Such a petty disagreement is has no relevance for a topic ban or severe reprimand.Editshmedt (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You replied to him with This paper is just as misrepresented as the earlier paper - and you admit you misrepresent it. You preface your discussion of the paper by saying you quote a "handful" of sentences to "support" [READ: prove] what you wrote.

Wdford replied to you with In other words, Garfinkel is saying the opposite of what you are saying.

Do you understand there is absolutely no reason to believe you both are telling the truth?

You even replied today with so I do not see how you can insist on this.

If you two cannot agree if Garfinkel's paper supports or opposes the existence of UM, then WP:V has been annihilated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"You two disagree regarding a paper, therefore a severe reprimand or topic ban is needed and verifiability is no more." Great.Editshmedt (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't disagree in a minor way. You disagree in a big, all in-your-face way. One of you interprets the paper as debunking UM, the other as supporting UM.

The essence of Wikipedia is that despite all our worldviews and all our differences, we get to agree upon what WP:RS say. Your quarrel is denying this essence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"You two disagree on a paper. Someone needs to get banned!" Editshmedt (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, Wdford's point is that Garfinkel's paper shatters your POV. You claim that that paper bolsters your POV. And you two are not prepared to reach WP:CONSENSUS upon such straightforward claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Two people begin discussing a paper. One day after the discussion began, a user posted an administrators noticeboard discussion demanding an immediate topic ban or severe reprimand because consensus was not reached instantaneously. Makes perfect sense.Editshmedt (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The morals is that admins have to force one of the three to come to their senses and stop talking nonsense. The shameless deforming of Garfinkel's view has to stop now. All I am saying is that the way you manage to interpret WP:RS has real consequences for your editing. One of the three has to stop lying through their teeth and retract with <s> and </s> their previous deformations of WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Ignoring the above (which reads like an attempted punch-up in philosopher's kindergarten), since when are we in the business of hosting things like Wikipedia:Commentary on the United Monarchy debate? Looks like a good deal of scholarly work there, so kudos on that, but I can't see any explanation for having this sit in Wikipedia space... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Was under the impression that I could write an essay on a topic like this; simply amassing the scholarship as it exists. I do not see why such a topic is necessarily an issue, and as you note, there's plenty of good work on it. If other users decide I cannot keep the essay, please do not immediately delete it - allow me to save it somewhere else first, and then I will remove it myself.Editshmedt (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Editshmedt: to be clear, I think this kind of material is perfectly fine in user space ("User:Editshmedt/"), but it shouldn't sit in project space ("Wikipedia:"). I'd suggest you just move it to your user space. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Made a user space for it. I think an administrator is needed to delete the project space.Editshmedt (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Editshmedt: I've taken the statement above as a request for G7 speedy deletion, so I've deleted the mainspace article. If I've misinterpreted you, let me know. Deor (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope, all good.Editshmedt (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin closure) Content dispute. Take it to the talk page(s) or dispute resolution, it doesn;t belong here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Now, you might ask, what did Garfinkel say about the United Monarchy? Garfinkel, Yosef; Streit, Katharina; Ganor, Saar; Reimer, Paula J (2015). "King David's City at Khirbet Qeiyafa: Results of the Second Radiocarbon Dating Project". Radiocarbon. 57 (5). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 881–890. doi:10.2458/azu_rc.57.17961. ISSN 0033-8222. For millennia, the biblical narrative about the kingdoms of Judah and Israel was considered a reliable historical account. According to this narrative, the United Monarchy, a golden age ruled by Kings David and Solomon, was established about 1000 BC. After two generations, this kingdom was divided to form the kingdoms of Israel in the north and Judah in the south (see e.g. Malamat 1979; Mazar 1990). However, over the last 30 yr, some scholars have argued that the biblical tradition does not confirm real historical data. These interpretations entirely eliminate the United Monarchy and place the rise of the Kingdom of Israel in the early 9th century BC and that of Judah in the late 8th century BC, some 300 yr later than the biblical narrative (Lemche 1988; Finkelstein 1996; Thompson 1999). A third view is that although the United Monarchy of the biblical tradition did not exist, a kingdom was established in Judah by King David (Garfinkel 2011). Garfinkel, Yosef; Hasel, Michael G; Klingbeil, Martin G; Kang, Hoo-Goo; Choi, Gwanghyun; Chang, Sang-Yeup; Hong, Soonhwa; Ganor, Saar; Kreimerman, Igor; Ramsey, Christopher Bronk (30 April 2019). "Lachish Fortifications and State Formation in the Biblical Kingdom of Judah in Light of Radiometric Datings". Radiocarbon. 61 (03). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 695–712. doi:10.1017/rdc.2019.5. ISSN 0033-8222. The data unearthed in our regional project point to the following developments. In the very late 11th and early 10th century BCE, under King David, Judah was a small territory in Jerusalem and the hill country, with the western Shephelah region being marked by Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al-Ra'i. This first stage, however, collapsed after a few decades, as indicated by the destruction of Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al-Ra'i at around 1020–970 BCE. These particular events are not mentioned in the biblical tradition, but wars with the Philistines in the time of David are frequently cited. Seen these quotes which fulfill WP:V I ask a topic ban for those claiming that Garfinkel would support the existence of the United Monarchy of the biblical tradition. This is a serious WP:CIR issue: an editor who claims such a thing cannot be trusted to edit anything pertaining to the Ancient Levant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Tgeorg is now figmenting, out of complete imagination, that I have recently claimed that Garfinkel accepts a United Monarchy - the literal opposite of my most recent comment, where I state his position is in-between the United Monarchy and Finkelstein view. Tgeorg now also fully admits he was talking about me being the shameless deformer the whole time. No credibility, just Tgeorg's shameless attempts to ban users who have repeatedly refuted him in the past.Editshmedt (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion is [275] and you were denying that Ergo, per the latest scholarship, the minor fortifications of Level V at Tel Lachish were the work of Rehoboam post the "United Monarchy". The "United Monarchy" itself was a "small territory" which "collapsed after a few decades". QED. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC) I am now stating, literally the fourth time in a row, that Garfinkel has an in-between position, between the United Monarchy and Finkelstein's position. I refuted Wdford in impressive detail - that quote contains countless factual errors, including (1) that Garfinkel is talking about a United Monarchy (2) that the fortifications at Lachish were "minor" (3) that 930 BC is far after the alleged date of the United Monarchy (4) that the Kingdom of Judah (not the UM) "collapsed" after a few decades - in fact, the first expansion phase collapsed. As you can see, Wdford literally has no understanding of this paper. However, the United Monarchy has nothing to do with Wdford's repeated quote-mining and bad reading skills. What Tgeorg claims I said, I in fact contradicted no less than four separate times. Tgeorg was literally told straight up in my last response that I'm saying the opposite of what he says I'm saying and he still insists I believe it. It's like reality crashes for some people. For the FIFTH TIME: Garfinkel neither accepts a United Monarchy nor an archaeological situation as posited by Finkelstein. Editshmedt (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC) If, as the quotes show and you agree, Garfinkel is an oponent of the existence of the United Monarchy of the biblical tradition, then Wdford's conclusion makes perfect sense. Why were you then telling that Wdford has misrepresented the paper? That does not make sense. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Wdford makes 50 claim about the paper, 49 of which are wrong. Solve the puzzle.Editshmedt (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC) So, why did you quarrel further if the main point was clear? There's no need of wild tangents if we already established that Garfinkel opposes the United Monarchy. That was being debated. So, Finkelstein in not the only advocate of the nonexistence of the United Monarchy. No need therefore to single out Finkelstein as minority/fringe, since most scholars anyway don't accept the United Monarchy. You always state your views as if you were WP:RS, but you almost never provide verifiable quotes in support of your claims. At least in that discussion it did not happen. You stated why you think Wdford is wrong, you have never made that case WP:Verifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Countless errors. (1) Never said Finkelstein is fringe (2) Your claim that Finkelstein is in the majority is false, contradicting the WP:RS given above by Dever - despite the fact that I have given billions of verifiable sources for all my claims, such as this one by Dever and my thorough refutation of Wdford, you continue figmenting that none exist (3) Clearly you don't understand why me and Wdford were discussing Lachish (4) This administrators noticeboard conversation is over, since your basis for it was imagination. If you want to reach me further, post it on the Davidic talk page. I will not be responding here anymore, as it was an abuse of the administrators noticeboard system on your part, plain and simple.Editshmedt (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Then why cite three papers by Garfinkel at User:Editshmedt/Commentary on the United Monarchy debate? Do you think the three papers would bolster the case for the United Monarchy, when you just stated above For the FIFTH TIME: Garfinkel neither accepts a United Monarchy nor an archaeological situation as posited by Finkelstein.? I get the feeling you want to eat your cake and still have it. Don't you think that it is dishonest to cite the three papers as if they were supporting the case for the United Monarchy? Same applies to citing Coogan, who has actually stated in Coogan, Michael (October 2010). "4. Thou Shalt Not: Forbidden Sexual Relationships in the Bible". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved 5 May 2011. Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) What Garfinkel and Coogan have in common is that they have lambasted Finkelstein, but, again, your essay is about the archaeological evidence for the existence of the United Monarchy, which neither Garfinkel nor Coogan are inclined to think it exists. Citing them in such dispute is at best irrelevant and at worst misleading. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Why is a content dispute being debated by two editors on ANI? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive history at Thugpun

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

Lots of WP:BLP violations over the long haul. Requesting a good look at this for possible mass rev/deletion, page protection, and maybe deletion for questionable notability. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Some revdels have been applied; I've also nominated it at AfD for notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Mattuk56

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

---

• Mattuk56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Reported at AIV with "vandalism after final warning. 13-year-old account with all of one previous edit (a BLP vio) shows up today to make unsourced BLP edits, POV. and vandalism, finishing off with personal attacks. NOTHERE?"

user:Darkwind responded with "This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to WP:ANI" so here we are:

• personal attack diffs: [276] [277]
• incivility [278] [279]
• unsourced BLP name changes (that contradict the cited sources): [280], [281], [282], [283]
• BLP violations: [284], [285], [286], [287] (not as obvious, but calling an apparently active wrestler a "nostalgia role" probably crosses the line, and the bit about fans wanting him out of the league is unsourced at least), [288] (again, not as obvious, but describing an active comedian as formerly cynical and formerly controversial is likely BLP vandalism, and certainly unsourced). [289]
• Vandalism: [290], [291], [292]
• rigged election edits: [293], [294], [295], [296]
• what's left from today... [297] not vandalism, but not as informative and less than neutral to change "coming second place to" to "losing to"

Meters (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have no issue with the report having been declined. Meters (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Defamatory content at Education City

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

Added by two accounts, presumably the same user. Asking for rev/deletion and appropriate sanctions. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I see @Girth Summit: has done some revdels, but I wonder - while the content in question was absolutely inappropriate, does RD2 actually apply here, seeing as Herbert London is not a BLP (d. November 2018)? (If it does the edit-summary on 27.60.11.147's last edit should also be revdel'd.) Also the IPs should have been notified of this discussion - I've done so on the one they were most recently active on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger and Girth Summit, thank you for following up. I should have notified at least one of the accounts--my assumption is that they're the same user. I didn't realize that London is dead, and my ignorance about him makes edit summaries like this [298] all the more odd. Alongside any constructive intent, they seem highly motivated to insert their opinions and assume nefarious purposes in others. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, even if BLP is discounted those edits have WP:RGW and/or WP:THETRUTH all over them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I just cropped the pointy edit here [299]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

And the snide little asides here [300]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Putting personal commentary in the 'reason' parameter of maintenance tags is a new one on me and a nastily subtle form of POV-pushing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that I confess I hadn't realised the person in question was dead. Not sure what the consensus on precisely what 'recently deceased' means, but I have no objection to any admin changing my settings if they think I goofed. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The Bushranger, it's also rich that they're referring to WP:BITE [301]; this is assuredly not a new user. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Playtime at Roary the Racing Car

• Roary the Racing Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Besides the string of test edits, would someone mind running a copyright check on the content here? I can't tell if much of this was lifted from other wikis or vice-versa. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also wondering if a more comprehensive block is merited for this range [302]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it is, and that's what I just did. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Drmies. They've been all over the map. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• On face value, Earwig doesn’t flag any direct copyright violation, although it may not identify close paraphrasing. I’m running out the door so can’t look in any more detail at the moment. If no-one else gets around to it, I’ll have a bit more of a look later today. --Jack Frost (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • thank you, Jack Frost. I found a lot of matches to other wikis, so it's entirely possible that they copied us. But I'm still suspicious, if the content entered today was new to the article. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi 2601, apologies it took me so long to get back to you. I’ve had another look, and everywhere I can find the article content elsewhere on the web looks to have copied it from us. However, I am awfully suspicious that the episode summaries have been copied from somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me find where (I have to wonder about whether they’re off the back of a series DVD or somewhere similar); it certainly doesn’t seem to be off the web or anywhere else that I can prove it. Sorry I couldn’t be more help. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually, hold the phones. That’s exactly where they’re from; they’re a paraphrase of the episode summaries which come on the back of the Roary the Racing car DVDs. If you google image search Roary Racing Car DVDs you can find the plot summaries. However, in the (admittedly small) sample I’ve just found, there seems to be sufficient difference that I don’t believe it falls foul of the copyright violation policy (either directly or as close paraphrasing); there’s only so many ways you can describe the antics of a toddler’s TV show... Good pick up, but in my very humble view I don’t think it’s copyright violation. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Jack Frost, absolutely great research. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

persistent IP hopping vandalism by 5.110.58.204

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

an IP user currently editing as Special:Contributions/5.110.58.204 is making a set of edits that amount to vandalism, having been temporarily blocked as other IPs for the same or similar edits within the past weeks. Edits tend to remove any indication of non-Arab origin of Muslim dynasties, and to inaccurately attribute Arab origins, and are invariably and entirely inaccurately given edit summary of "fixed typo". This is clearly the same actual human as made similar mischaracterized 'fixed typo' edits as 51.235.78.91 (blocked), 2.89.198.136, 51.235.135.45 (blocked), 51.235.34.5 (blocked), and probably others. Agricolae (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I blocked them for a month (same period as Special:Contributions/51.235.135.45). Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thx - that should be sufficient (for them to move to a new IP). Agricolae (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Really, there should be an edit filter disallowing any edits with a summary of "fixed typo", because in my experience at least they're invariably vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't "fixed typo" one of the small number of preset choices one is offered when editing on the mobile app? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It is, which would make this a fairly restrictive proposal. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, since all my phones are dumb and I twitch at the prevalance of "mobile devices"! But in a way that just makes it worse since it gives mobile-using vandals easy cover (which, as seen, they take full advantage of). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that is something of a shibboleth; anyone actually doing so will either say "spelling" or "Ce". The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There'd need to be a size restriction, at the very least. 11 of my last 500 ESs (over 90% of which were gnoming) were "Typo"; 3 corrected mistakes I'd just made; none of the others was more than 1 byte. 8 of them were "ce" and nothing more; range, -12 to +10 bytes. Narky Blert (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously there's selection bias with the pages I follow, but in my experience at least 80% of "fixed typo" edit summaries are vandalism, sometimes egrerious ones. Disallowing that (pre-set?) edit summary for edits over a certain size might work but I have no idea if the back-end coding would like that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Specifically "Fixed typo" rings my bell in 95+% of cases. It often means addition or deletion of 1+Kb, which isn't WP:MINOR by anyone's standards; and is almost always a crap edit of some sort.

If it were filtered or disallowed, I'd expect to see a lot of crashkey ESs - which would be no bad thing, because no edit like that is ever of any value. Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This only goes so far. The same editor that this was originally about (or a meatpuppet) is making the same/same type of edits today, now as 213.166.155.87, without edit summaries - this is ongoing. Agricolae (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ObXkcd Folks, we already have several filters that log edits like this:

• Public filter 633 (hist · log) ("Possible canned edit summary", public) logs all non-confirmed edits from the mobile apps (not the mobile website) with a summary exactly matching one of the drop-down options. It's not meant to log problematic edits, but rather meant to say "heads up, the user may have just fat-fingered the summary, don't yell at them".
• Public filter 970 (hist · log) ("Stock edit summary") logs all non-confirmed edits not from the apps, that add or remove "too much" content: ±10 bytes for "Fixed typo" and variants, and any negative amount for "added content". The title of the filter really should be "Possibly misleading edit summary", but I didn't want to "shame" people for being a little bit lazy. I was hoping that everyone would read between the lines and figure it out. Perhaps it needs a more attention-getting title.

IMO, the real problem is with MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-editor-summary-placeholder. This currently reads Example: Fixed typo, added content. It's not a dropdown, people still have to type in "fixed typo" or "added content" on their mobile keyboard. IMO, this page should be blanked. We don't provide any such "hints" to desktop users, so why provide them to mobile? If they can't think of a summary, so what? They can leave it blank, just like desktop users. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

But they are very helpful because seeing "fixed typo" is a good indication that the edit needs to be checked. It's a flag saying "I haven't a clue or I'm trying to evade detection". Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

persistent vandalism - 213.166.155.87

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

---

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

There is an IP vandal today making the same edits/types of edits as a different IP blocked yesterday (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#persistent IP hopping vandalism by 5.110.58.204), now as 213.166.155.87. Though they are no longer trying to disguise the edits as typo fixes the content changes are the same, replacing 'Muslim' or 'Moor' with 'Arab', even in a proper name of Puerto del Suspiro del Moro. They have already received level 3 and 4 vandalism warnings but are persisting. As much as this amounts to whac-a-mole, a whack is nonetheless needed here. Agricolae (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Mole whacked for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User HistoryofIran Stalking/Harassing

The following discussion is closed. 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, I was editing Maryam Rajavi and faced pushback from user HistoryOfIran based on false accusations of bad faith with a strong tenor of disrespect. I warned him to please stop undoing my edits without adhering to WP policies before escalation. Upon doing so, he went into another article I edited, PressTV and wholesale undid my meticulous revisions without merit. He is following me around and undoing my edits based on a non-neutral POV while I am going to those articles and making them more neutral. Please intervene or direct me to the correct noticeboard as I am relatively new. For clarity, my edits were made in good faith, I have no ideological disputes with the original content and am a subject matter expert in the US on Iranian issues who simply wanted to update the information there using only reliable sources. After attempting to engage in good faith discussions, I was met by this user several times in a very belligerent manner as if I have no right to edit anything even if allowable under guidelines. Thank you. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This topic is already being discussed above on this page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The filer is now clearly edit-warring at Press TV (there is a report at ANEW), and accuses me of being a sock with no evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/historyofiran. They've previously editing as an Iranian nationalist diff at Chess and clearly are violating site policies. Can someone show DeweyDecimalLansky a block? power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

May be a topic-ban from Iran would be in order, they are apparently not capable of editing in the topic area constructively. We have general sanctions which could be applied.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Tbhotch

Would someone please remove rollback from User:Tbhotch? Just in the last hour he's abused this tool three times:

• [303], deleting a relevant Wikibooks link
• [304], removing the name of the acting president of Kyrgyzstan from the "president" line of the Kyrgyzstan article
• [305], reverting my edit changing a deceased individual (death confirmed in the final sentence of the article) from "is" to "was"

This clearly isn't a misclick, given this DTTR on my talk page. None of these is anywhere close to WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

So, you violate the BLP policy, despite a consensus here twice (for the record, "Death is confirmed" is never confirmed in the article about Mulyadi because it only says that he was on board the flight), yet my edits are problematic.

• "deleting a relevant Wikibooks link"... from a redirect that no one can see. The link belongs to Onion ring, the relevant article
• "removing the name of the acting president of Kyrgyzstan from the "president" line of the Kyrgyzstan article", see Talant Mamytov, President of Kyrgyzstan and Sadyr Japarov to read why it was a factual error. This report is unjustified by Nyttend. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I can see why one would object to and revert all three of those edits. I can't see why one would Rollback them, nor why you would choose to argue about it here when you know full well that none of them were subject to WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Your explanations regarding why the edits were reverted needed to be in edit summaries, not at ANI as a defense for not leaving them in the first place. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

So This is a valid rollback use (Ny used the button "Rollback" there), but this revert of an already blocked user is invalid, despite I used the Twinkle rollback? That's the reason why the tags "rollback" and "Twinkle" are visible. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, I missed the TW tags I see now that you used Twinkle and not the Rollback tool itself, and it appears Nyttend did as well (an easy mistake to make, as the edit summaries are identical). This report appears to be in error, and I acknowledge that you did not abuse Rollback. However, I will still note that communication is required, refusing to communicate is disruptive, and while WP:ROLLBACKUSE does not actually apply here, reverting without an edit summary in these situations is not actually any better than misusing Rollback. I'm not going to pillory you over a report that was in error, but take this as a friendly request to not get into this habit so that we don't have more complaints down the line. And, again, I apologize for not catching the error here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Attack on Stepan Bandera, likely externally coordinated

• Stepan Bandera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the last two days, we had four users, Andriy.v, Рассилон, Aced, and AS, editing the page and the talk page with the only purpose - to remove the definition of Bandera as terrorist from the lede. Bandera was convicted by the court to death for terrorism and is defined as such by reliable sources. In Ukraine, Bandera, who is also a Nazi collaborator and a Holocaust theorist, is considered a national hero and was given a highest state award. Andriy.v, Рассилон, and Aced are not extended confirmed, AS is extended confirmed with a count of less than 2K edits, but their last 50 edits go back to 2012. This means none of them is currently an active Wikipedia editor. All four are native Ukrainian speakers. It is quite common for Ukrainian internet users to coordinate such attacks, and I believe that this one is externally coordinated (likely on social media), and restricting these users will result in just more users joining the mob. We had here (not in this article though) similar cases in the past, see e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#Organized disruptive editing of Aleksandr Khanzhonkov page in recent days. There is some discussion at the talk page, but reverts do not follow discussion (Andriy.v is only discussing and not reverting, others are reverting) which is a complete bogus: they first claimed that Bandera is not called a terrorist in reliable sources, and then, when plenty of sources were provided, started to require that sources "call him a terrorist as a define feature"), and then that Osama bin Laden is not defined as terrorist in the lede (he is of course). I am not sure what could help here, they are not particularly interested in listening to the arguments, they only want the word to be removed from the lede. The article is under AE discretionary sanctions and has been semi-protected before the incident. Probably a revert to the pre-war version followed by a full protection would help, though I am afraid when full protection expires they would start reverting again. I come we can collectively come to a solution here.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Now I see that the last version of the article is more or less ok ("terrorist" replaced by "involved in terrorist activities" and moved to the end of the first sentence of the lede), though the collective behavior of these users probably needs to be evaluated.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I can comment on my involvement here, and I'm not sure Ymblanter's comments give full justice to the situation. I wasn't trying to remove mentions of Bandera being involved in terrorism from the lede or, indeed, from the first paragraph. I don't deny Bandera's involvement in terrorist activities, I just pointed out that it's not the most important thing Bandera is known for or described as in reliable sources. I detailed this (to my mind, perfectly reasonable) argument in the edit summary & later on the talk page. Ymblanter undid my edit, choosing not to address my argument but rather citing my nationality. Now Ymblanter agrees with my version, which was later reinstated by another user (that was not coordinated with me), so I'm not really sure why he undid it in the first place. To the general point — no, I wasn't part of a "mob" or an "attack", didn't coordinate one, didn't see attempts to organize one, and, frankly, don't see one having taken place in the article. --Aced (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Well, I do not know, may be edit-warring is a valid dispute resolution avenue in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, but it is certainly not a valid dispute resolution method here. You are expected to go to the talk page and discuss, and to achieve consensus, and if you see that your edits are not accepted, to stop edit-warring and continue discussing. Instead, I see four users coming out of nowhere, at least three of which were not interested in any consensus, and they were only using the talk page to state their opinion and to continue reverting. This is not what we really find acceptable here. Concerning the absence of coordination, I happen to have a PhD in physics and math, and I would estimate the probability that four users none of whom is active in the English Wikipedia just accidentally happened to edit the article / talk page on the span of two days, pushing one specific point, as zero.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  I did not engage in edit-warring. Once I saw my edit undone, I did go to the talk page and asked for an explanation (and have not received an answer to my specific question so far). Concerning coordination, I'm talking about the lack of a coordinated "attack" or "invasion" by a "mob" as you claim. There's a considerable difference between having someone point out this article & participating in a coordinated attack. In my case, it was the former. Concerning my activity, I'm not highly active in English Wikipedia, but I am active and I don't come from nowhere, which anyone can easily check based on my recent contributions both in this wiki and in others. As a side point, I'd appreciate if you stopped referring derogatively to Ukrainian Wikipedia (as you did here and on the talk page), it isn't warranted and doesn't go a long way towards facilitating a productive discussion here. --Aced (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  When you revert an edit, get reverted, leave a random comment on the talk page and disappear, and the next user reverts with the edit summary "see the talk page", this is a textbook definition of coordinated disruption. Even if you have not coordinated directly anything with this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Your description contradicts the facts on three counts - 1) I didn't revert an edit but rather proposed better phrasing, which had not been proposed before; 2) my comment wasn't random, it was a viable explanation for my edit and a question; 3) I didn't disappear, I waited for your response on the talk page (and given that it was late night in Europe, it's completely warranted that you didn't respond right away); what else should I have done? --Aced (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Answering your question, you should have checked the edit history, and then, without editing the article, go to the talk page. As a matter of fact, you have just pushed your version into the article - it was not there before your edits, and it is there now. I understand why people do not want to start edit-warring for such a relatively minor issue, but the fact is that we do not have any indication that the version is consensus-based.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  So, to conclude — 1) I take your point that it would have been better if I had checked all the context and proposed my edit on the talk page beforehand; sorry if my edit was too rushed; 2) that said, as I've showed here, I didn't engage in an edit war or a coordinated attack, and I've definitely been interested in consensus from the very beginning; 3) I will continue discussion on the talk page, which I hope will conclude my accepting my edit as a consensus version because it reflects factual reality better. --Aced (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• 'Not extended confirmed' and 'not an active Wikipedia editor' come apart quite significantly, especially when one of the editors involved is an admin on a non-English Wikipedia. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  I do not know who of them is admin on a different project but if this is the case, it is high;u unfortunate that a Wikipedia administrator finds it acceptable to participate in coordinated disruption of another project.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I clearly disagree with the definition "Bandera was a Ukrainian terroris" not because his wasn't involved in terrorist actions, he was, but because this is not the primary and most important definition of this character. Bardera isn't known for his terrorist actions, he known in first instance to be a politician and leader of OUN and other nationalist groups. As correctly mention AS on the talkpage even the most famous terrorist Osama Bin Laden isn't defined as terrorist ("Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden, also rendered Usama bin Ladin, was a founder of the pan-Islamic militant organization al-Qaeda") so why we should define a character who is clearly not known in first instance as a terrorist? I agree with actual definition of Bandera, and i think that this is the most neutral and right, according to Wikipedia politics, definition.--Andriy.v (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I appreciate your, Ymblanter, efforts to resolve this conflict, but some of your statements are simply offtopic accusations, which I found sad and not helpful. I am called "not interested in listening to the arguments, "with the only purpose - to remove the definition of Bandera as terrorist", "pushing one specific point", posting false arguments ("Osama bin Laden is not defined as terrorist in the lede (he is of course)." - sorry, that's false if you understand the difference between the definitions.) I'll be thankful if you apologize for these accusations in accordance with WP:AGF ("may be offensive speech is a valid dispute resolution avenue in the English Wikipedia, but it is certainly not a valid dispute resolution method in UkWiki." :)). There is no magic, I know about this conflict from this discussion on UkWiki, and I came to improve article quality in most popular wiki-chapter without coordination with users above. Sorry for reverting the change, but not sure what did you expect from a "why do we have a low-count invasion of Ukrainian editors?" comment. AS ^sa 14:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid you have just confirmed that the action was externally coordinated. I hope other administrator(s) would weigh in what actions are needed here. I am obviously involved in this episode.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I have striken out a statement on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, it indeed does not add anything to the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I found this thread after I had made this post on Bandera's talk page. I think it is relevant to this thread. I agree that persistent removal of the word "terrorist" in not acceptable, but the Ased's edit is a good solution that was factually correct, and it was an improvement of the article's style. I propose to restore it and consider this incident resolved.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User either ignoring or not seeing warnings about sources

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

---

• Ola Waigh (talk · contribs)

Ola Waigh has made 87 edits here, most have been reverted as they're unsourced date-of-birth additions or reference hijackings. They are not responding to the warnings on their talk page and they continue to alter dates of births [306] and ignore hidden comments about the need for sources [307].

Since this user is not edit warring it seems possible they may not be seeing these warnings due to banner blindness. Perhaps a block from mainspace could be used to get their attention.

– Thjarkur (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

word salad

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

---

Is it ok to call another editor's comments "word salad"? If I ask that question here, am I making a complaint? See this: [308] Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is it that you've only reverted ([309] [310]) IHateAccounts' comment, and only notified them of this ANI thread ([311]), when it was User:ValarianB who made the initial "word salad" comment ([312])? As for the actual description of your comment as "word salad", it's certainly colorful language, but conveying to someone that their comment is difficult to understand (which yours was) and appears to be an attempt to twist the wording of the sources is not unreasonable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It was just a throwaway like on my part, the OP is tossing a lot of words into arguments when the actual thing being argued about (is "numerous" when describing a series of things original research) is rather pedantically trivial. I'll gladly self-redact if it is causing this much consternation. ValarianB (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@ValarianB: and @GorillaWarfare: It looks like Tondelleo is trying to provoke reactions, and when I didn't rise to their bait (such as their dishonestly claiming I told them to do something [313], when I have not done so) they decided to take it a step further with this. They're doing the same thing to @331dot:[314] as well now at Talk:Rudy Giuliani. There also appear to be WP:BLP violations such as this [315][316] too. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The bent sticks are flying fast and furious these days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

An interesting aside, please bear in mind that the phrase word salad does refer to a symptom of mental illness. While its use as a colorful way to describe jumbled and nonsensical argumentation is surely not intended to demean the mentally ill, it's important to know that certain words and phrases do have other meanings. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard. Anytime someone says "You're crazy" or "That's crazy", it doesn't mean they think that there's actual psychiatrically-defined insanity involved. Same-same for "word salad". Let's not purge our language of every possible colorful expression to its detriment as a vivid and living thing. In any case, without digging into the etymology of it, I'd bet the farm that psychiatry lifted it from everyday usage, and not vice versa. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, it's no skin off my back if someone uses that phrase. But it's best to be aware of such connections because they do sometimes cause needless kerfuffle. Cf. calling someone hysterical. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My question was, and remains: "Is it ok to call another editor's comments "word salad"? I'd like experienced editors to state, based on their experience (and understanding of WP policies) y/n is that an ok thing to say to another editor. If it's not, I'd like the people involved here who say things like that to stop; but if it is ok, when we can all move on from this. Tondelleo Schwarzkopf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Surely the answer to that, as to all such questions, is "context matters". In the case in question, you appear to have been arguing that some sort of logical first principles about the meaning of the word "lose" should prevent us from following what reliable sources say, as well as adopting an annoying, repetitive rhetorical strategy. In that context, it seems like not exactly polite but broadly accurate description. It's hard to see why you brought it here. --JBL (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

YSN Fab Page Vandlism

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

---

• YSN Fab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2001:569:74D2:A800:249D:BE4B:75FD:D5A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

An ip user is continuously reverting my changes and is threatening me. He has deleted some templates and blamed it on me. The page is YSN Fab. Please look at the version history to see his doings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpcomingPurse (talk • contribs) 23:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I know, I am 100% sure I did not edit war, but User:UpcomingPurse has created an article first and it has too many spam edits with a lot of YouTube links. User:UpcomingPurse has remove the speedy deletion template and I was extremely angry first, User:UpcomingPurse has edit war first because it has too many spam edits! I know I am still not edit war and I want to keep Wikipedia clean. User:UpcomingPurse has abruptly crteated and article with too many spam edits and User:UpcomingPurse has making threats against me and trying to make violence against me because of a spam article. Thanks. 2001:569:74D2:A800:249D:BE4B:75FD:D5A0 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this edit war (literally only about whether the subject is from Winnipeg)? I don't see a reason, IP, for escalating the situation over such a minor thing. If editing Wikipedia makes you angry, just take a short break. UpcomingPurse has not threatened you, but asked you to stop edit warring. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Both editors have been blocked for edit warring and in addition, the page has been deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Hotel Transylvania 4

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

---

• 1.158.78.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Hotel Transylvania 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP user 1.158.78.182 has been warned many times on vandalising the mainspace article Hotel Transylvania 4. He continues to make the same harmful edits. Cardei012597 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure this IP will get a block out of this, but in the future you can use the typical warning system (warn up to level-4) and if the person continues, report to WP:AIV. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm Sorry it's True, I've Helped to Created the Story Out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.158.78.182 (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Your editing habits on Hotel Transylvania 4 need to stop now. Your disruptive editing tactics are negatively affecting the quality of the film page. Please stop now. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Dreamer.se

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

---

It seems that there is a serious problem with uploads by Dreamer.se (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This editor uploads a lot of non-free media (images and soundtracks). The vast majority of the 180 notifciations on their talk page (going back to 2009) are concerned with this, most being deleted as unused non-free media, but some have been deleted for breach of copyright.

Therefore I propose that Dreamer.se is formally topic banned from uploading any non-free media on en-Wiki, under pain of an indefinite block. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Dreamer.se has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I see from their contributions that they appear to have retired (not edited since 2009), so this might be moot. My gut feeling is that this should still be formalised, so other editors who this might apply to can be sure that we are serious about these issues. If consensus is that this should be allowed to slide as no harm is currently being done to the project, then I can accept that. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, Mjroots, feels a bit needlessly bureaucratic to really bother with at this time. El_C 16:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, El_C. Thought I'd found something needing attention but I should have looked further into the matter before posting here - mea culpa. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries, it's all good, Mjroots. Certainly, no harm in asking. El_C 21:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Abuse of admin powers by Drmies and 331dot

The following discussion is closed. 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 Dominion Voting Systems article has been a source of contention. It is a protected page. I started by posting a link to a reliable source, the Huffington Post, on the article's Talk page. I was seeking to include a statement of fact in the article mainspace: that the intellectual property (one or more patents) supporting Dominion voting software is still owned by Sequoia, a company with links to the Hugo Chavez family of Venezuela. This fact was stated as a fact by the Huffington Post, which is (if anything) openly critical of Donald Trump and the Republicans, and openly friendly to Democrats, so it isn't going to publish conspiracy theories offered by Republicans. This was immediately dismissed and hatted by 331dot. I unhatted it and was blocked for 72 hours. As an afterthought, 331dot directed me to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, which I have now reviewed. If 331dot thinks these policies apply here, then he should have participated in the discussion by pointing them out, rather than silencing me. 331dot has continued to falsely accuse me of promoting conspiracy theories and "Trump/Republican talking points." He/she is pushing a POV and using admin powers to silence someone who disagrees. During the subsequent brief discussion on my own Talk page, Drmies couldn't resist piling on, and insulted me on my own Talk page. (Pinewood Derby cars are for eight-year-old Cub Scouts, not adults who edit Wikipedia.) I told Drmies to get off my Talk page, which any editor has a right to do under these circumstances, and he responded by removing my Talk page access. Again, using admin powers first, then discussing. I'm new here. I have previously engaged in many collaborative projects and my initial impression is that Wikipedia is not one of them. When one side in a dispute can "win" it by silencing the other side, that's not collaboration. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy here is as follows:

1. Removing the block from my record.

2. 72-hour suspensions of admin powers for both Drmies and 331dot.

3. An article ban for 331dot. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Having seen the whole talk page conversation, I suggest a civility block for the IP per WP:BOOMERANG. JavaHurricane 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, I've already been blocked for 72 hours for that. I've returned and I've been 100% civil. Your response is to block me again for the same offense? How long this time? Would a year be good enough? 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

331dot should have pointed out to you that the HuffPost article you posted is from a HuffPo Contributor from 2010, which we have determined since 2018 are not reliable (see WP:RS/P). I agree the manner that this was dismissed was too terse and without good explanation, but there was no way we were going to include that article. --Masem (t) 19:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Too terse" doesn't cover it. "Abuse of admin powers, worthy of a suspension" is far more appropriate. He/she silenced me as quickly and effectively as possible. This was not "without good explanation." This was no explanation of anything at all, until after I was silenced. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that neither spent the brief amount of time or decorum to either point out either with the HuffPo contributor article being unreliable or direct to the prior discussion I see in Archive 1 of the Domonic talk page that concluded the ties to Venezuela were to be considered FRINGE, rather than simply doubling down on saying it was FRINGE without pointing either of these out. That's a failure of AGF (even though I can recognize that page is one of high concern of potential offsite influence due to the election issues and thus any IP adding to it may be suspect). Both replies on the IP's talk page without addressing the question that the IP was asking furthers the lack of AFG. Only until 331dot's comment on 18:45, 13 January 2021 does the idea that there was past discussion about the weak ties to Venezuela even come up, which should have been the first comment made in response to the IP at the start. I can understand the frustration dealing with a page frequently attacked from outside parties but courtesy when courtesy seems to be given still is necessary to prevent disruption. --Masem (t) 19:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that at worst, this is just a trout in my opinion to 331dot + Drmies, given the IP's ongoing behavior, since it seems to be proving the intent the IP wants this to be added despite what has been now shows as evidence this is just a conspiracy theory. Just give a bit more reason of why you're dismissing the argument from either established consensus or policy before dismissing it so that you have a firmer ground. --Masem (t) 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocks records cannot be removed. They can, however, be added to. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Good. Then that record should be amended to reflect that the block was inappropriate and used to resolve a content dispute. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

By "added to", I meant additional blocks can be imposed. If that is what you want, the I'll be happy to oblige. Otherwise it might be a good idea for you to drop the WP:STICK. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I see. So you want to block me again? For what? Attempting to resolve this dispute in a civil manner, using appropriate channels? 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I did not try to silence anyone and invite the IP user to constructively contribute according to the policies I described in a collaborative nature based in logic and reasoned arguments supported by evidence and reliable sources; I was not aware that the specific source is not considered to be reliable at the time. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocking is silencing. You wanted me to shut up and go away. I mentioned Sequoia, I mentioned links to the Chavez family and you immediately raced to the conclusion that I was pushing a conspiracy theory. That isn't me. If election theft theories are conspiracy theories, then they are conspiracy theories with a kernel of truth. This is that kernel of truth and it should be included in the article. But I don't even want to discuss that content dispute right now. I want to discuss the impropriety of your actions as an administrator, and the proper remedy for those abuses. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not want you to go away. I want every willing person to contribute, if they can do so in the spirit I mention immediately above. If you are prepared to do that, fantastic. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Though your statement "kernel of truth" leaves me skeptical as every court in the land disagrees with that. However, I still invite you to contribute. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reading the very first bizarre post from new User:2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8, there is complete failure of NPOV. And that pattern persists throughout many of the comments they have made. Surely those who are politically biased should be banned from editing political articles from their region. Nfitz (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You conveniently forget that is is an IP. Multiple people have access to this IP. I'm editing Dominion Voting Systems. Stay in your lane. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Not all IPs are dynamic, and "stay in your lane" is not remotely WP:CIVIL. Your conduct is just as open to question here as those you're trying to ring up; tread carefully. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... on Jan 10, the same day you were editing Dominion Voting Systems, you wrote at Talk:Barack Obama, I raised several concerns about this article in the last week of November 2020. So it was you who made the edit Nfitz linked to, and now you've quite dishonestly suggested that it wasn't you. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• The proposed addition is a blatant conspiracy-theory dog-whistle. The claim that somehow the late Hugo Chavez controls Dominion Voting Systems is a favorite of conspiracy theorists, and the IP wants it in the article. The admins involved may have been a bit harsh in shutting it down, but they were correct in doing so. No action is needed at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't do dog whistles. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. I don't do conspiracy theories either. If the HuffPo article has been debunked, I'd really, really like to see some links to articles in reliable, neutral sources debunking it. As far as I can tell, the IP supporting Dominion software is still owned by Sequoia. However, I have occasionally been wrong, not having read every word published about this topic. Prove me wrong. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Pull my finger. The very first Google search result for "dominion venezuela" is Reuters. I'm curious how you found this Bradblog post if you're not trafficking in conspiracy theories and haven't done any Google searches on the matter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• 2601:245:4003:2530::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), fwiw. Their source on the Dominion-Chavez connection is an eleven-year-old blog (yes, HuffPost published it but it's still a blog) which has been debunked repeatedly since its publication, as recently as December. They were told that but kept pushing it anyway, leading to being blocked, and their talk page access was revoked when they kept pushing that same conspiracy theory on their talk page. I endorse both of those admin actions; the idea that we would sanction the admins involved is absurd. The IP made the same sort of conspiracy-laden spiel at Talk:Barack Obama barely more than a month ago (it was removed as trolling). We have AP2 discretionary sanctions just so that we don't waste our time on righting-great-wrongs editors like this. Give them a much longer block and let's get back to writing an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

See above, Ivan. If it's been debunked as recently as December, then post links proving it's been debunked. However, 331dot has admitted that he/she wasn't even aware at the time that HuffPo is considered an unreliable source. So my criticism of his/her actions is validated. 2601:245:4003:2530:1D7E:563A:399F:49E8 (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If it's been debunked as recently as December, then post links proving it's been debunked. Not how it works. The onus to prove the source you want to use is reliable, when it has been previously established by consensus it is not, is on YOU. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Overworked VOLUNTEER editors and VOLUNTEER admins deserve thanks for the work they have put in these last few weeks given the absolute insanity overtaking the world. So, if they are a little short with a user that has provided little to no positive contribution to wikipedia, c'est la vie. Close this and move on. Slywriter (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Boomerang requested - The IP is clearly a PoV editor without the ability to see past their own prejudices. They were given exactly the right amount of attention by the admins involved, and whatever "harshness" may be seen was completely deserved. The IP's complaint is invalid, and their requested sanctions are PoV-generated baloney. They do not warrant any additional discussion here. We are not the medium for the spread of ludicrous conspiracy theories -- many of which were behind the insurrectionist violence at the Capitol -- unless we are debunking them. The IP should be blocked, and blocked again when they pop up using another IP to evade their block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• I concur - 2601*, I strongly suggest you withdraw your complaint and take heed of what has been said to you strongly. If a source has been found by consensus not to be reliable, you do not say "prove it's been debunked", you prove why it IS reliable. This goes doubly for WP:FRINGE claims - it doesn't matter what you think of the claims, and it doesn't matter what I think of the claims, it matters what the consensus of the Wikipedia community thinks of the claims. Drop the stick and consider that, when admin action is taken against you, it might, just possibly, be because of something you did. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Looks like the block was pretty straightforward and the admins here should be commended for protecting that article against POV-pushing and conspiracy theories. This is the same old sob story we get from anyone who gets blocked for pushing fringe here, they're the victim, we're the bad guys, we're supposed to humor them because it's a collaborative project. A real tragedy for the ages. This user needs to drop the stick or they will end up blocked again very quickly. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Not just WP:OWB #37, but #32 as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block, and I'd endorse another one for tendentious editing, too. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have blocked this IP, together with their /64 range, for one month as not being here to build an encyclopedia. If they had an account I'd indef. (I'm far from sure they don't have an account, but I obviously don't know what it might be.) 2601 began their career by trolling at Talk:Barack Obama in November, here and here. Or at least began their career as an IP; they seemed from the start too versed in Wikipedia matters to be actually new, for instance visiting my page to complain after I'd removed the trolls. I note their dishonest suggestion above that maybe someone else was using the same IP in November. Hardly; compare the responses they got to that above, and besides, their manner is very recognizable between then and today. Also, 2601, if all sorts of people use the same IP, why would you even be interested in the block being removed from what you refer to as "my record"? So when it suits, it's your record, but when it doesn't, you pretend it's whoever's record? I can't find any actually useful edit from this user. Typical of their output is this example culled at random: not trolling, as such, but one of many, many useless whines about "left-wing biased editors". And now they're wasting the community's time at a noticeboard. The time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource. Why allow it to be squandered? Bishonen | tålk 23:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC).
• I just want to point out that I am not, in fact, paid by Dominion; all the "big" money I get comes from Intel, and the daily expenses are paid with checks sent to me by George Soros. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

‎HMWikiSoldier edit warring, making personal attacks, and showing WP:OWN tendencies

The following discussion is closed. 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 would post this on WP:AN/EW but given that he's already been reported there, engaged in several different edit wars, even after his warning when he was reported, and engaged in other concerning behaviour, I think this needs to be escalated further.

‎HMWikiSoldier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in several edit wars. He's edit warred at United Kingdom and Parler, the full details of which can be found at his last report. He regularly blanks his talk page, so you can click on the history to see the warnings he's received. Additionally, he has engaged in personal attacks against Mutt Lunker12, which resulted in him receiving a final warning[317]. He then found his way to Conservative Party (UK) where I encountered him.

At first I believed he made good-faith edits, but when I reverted them pointing out the talk page consensus was against him, he went back to edit warring. He has now reverted a total of 6 [318][319][320][321][322][323] times. I have repeatedly tried to direct him to both WP:BRD and the prior talk page consensuses (both on Talk:Conservative Party (UK) and on his talk page), but he has chosen to give up on both conversations and has instead reverted Ralbegen when he also tried to go back to the status quo, pending the talk page discussion. I've done my best to engage with him on the talk page and try to talk through his edits, but he's clearly not interested, and instead just wants to show WP:OWN tendencies by enforcing his own preferred version of the page.

Full disclosure: I also went over 3RR in trying to revert back to the status quo while the discussion was ongoing. Truth be told, I lost count of the number of reverts, and stopped reverting once I realised. However, as I realise that's no excuse I'm happy to accept I'll be hit by a WP:BOOMERANG. — Czello 20:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd concur that this individual is impervious to the notion of consensus, to warnings and with a clear WP:NOTHERE attitude. I'll add that their skill set, though notably lacking in the sphere of co-operation, seems distinctly advanced, from the start, for a user of eleven days so I think it unlikely they have not been here before, under another guise. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

...bit of a stab but seems to have significant common interests, style and behaviour with User:Politialguru. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a definite overlap in interests: putting politics to one side, they've both edited articles relating to Newcastle and Canada. The focus on Newcastle in particular seems too specific to be a coincidence to me. — Czello 21:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The more I compare, the louder the WP:QUACKing. The mass edits to individual political figures, particularly British ones, is of identical nature. It's them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:HMWikiSoldier as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Kombucha Morning

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

---

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

User:Kombucha Morning claims to be a reporter for the South China Morning Post (SCMP) and has been offering editors $250 for an interview, e.g. [324] [325]. Paying for an interview, i.e. checkbook journalism, is contrary to SCMP's stated policies (We never pay for a story, or give, or accept a bribe.). As such, I question whether this user actually works for SCMP or if they're purporting to act on SCMP's behalf without authorization. I'm not sure what our policies are about verifying users who claim to be acting on behalf of organizations, but I thought I should raise this matter for review. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• We will never pay for story as in accept an offer for a story for a payment. Not reasonable compensation for stories and interviewees. Since this practice (and I) have been condemned I will find another way to find Wikipedia editors willing to talk about their experiences upon the birthday of Wikipedia. Sorry for any disruptiveness and I will not seek interviews here on the website. My fault. Kombucha Morning (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Don't we block people like this until they can confirm their identities at OTRS or something? One thing that strikes me is that I'd expect a genuine reporter to provide something better than an anonymous protonmail address. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)@Levivich: I see I was right to be worried. This has the feel of something an outfit like Project Veritas might do. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's definitely PV's level of ineptitude. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich: also fitting their MO, the editors they targeted had all been involved in discussions regarding Sidney Powell, and PV was trying to create election disinformation in Georgia [326].IHateAccounts (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  A genuine reporter would use their real name (like the other genuine reporters who have accounts here). Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I reversed my request for interviewees. Upon signing into Wikipedia it said do not use real name or email. I am trying to follow rules. This is overwhelming but I bring to myself. My fault. Sorry once again. Thank you all for everything you do, Wikipedia is a blessing. Kombucha Morning (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This "offer" was asked over at the Teahouse before being promptly deleted after I advised readers of this report. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have blocked them pending an email from their editor at SCMP. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

A lesson to reporters everywhere: better make it at least $500. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This was already closed, but I would just like to let people who have been invited know that if they edit anonymously, such invitations can also consist of phishing (that can lead to WP:OUTING), so the above careful response was warranted. —PaleoNeonate – 05:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi - Terrorist Links

Hello, I am having my edits to the articles for Maryam Rajavi and the MEK organization become undone and called "disruptive" after writing in that they are terrorist organizations with citations to articles from the NY Times, Daily Beast, Intercept and Middle East Eye. There is no doubt that this is a terrorist organization and the idea of "debating" the point is debating a foregone conclusion reached already by several governments, indictments, and more linked accordingly. The subject matter here has politicization and there are editors that belong to the organization on this site. 173.52.73.120 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what this is doing on Incidents. Anyhow, looking through this IPs edits, they have been more or less making non-neutral edits, as seen here; [327] [328] [329] [330] [331] [332]

I did ask the IP kindly to look at the many discussions at the talk page of People's Mujahedin of Iran to see that it isn't that simple to brand them as 'terrorists'. Yet, he ignored me and instead went directly to its article, attempting to add the word 'terrorist' there as well, completely diregarding the months if not years old discussions that have been ongoing on its talk page. The article of Maryam is obviously a part of this larger discussion as well. EDIT: He is still at it [333]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

173.52.73.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), what on earth is this supposed to mean? "Signed and reported to FBI for monitoring since my IP is available. Port/packet sniffers on." Drmies (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The edits on the Rajavi article use phrases and words from the cited articles and glue them together, without their original context, into phrases like "Islamo-Marxist terrorists". That will not do. The edits linked above by HistoryofIran (thank you) are instances of non-neutral editorializing, and that also will not do. Finally, the IP accuses Wikipedia's editors of belonging to that particular organization, which is both a really old and boring rhetorical ploy and a violation of WP:AGF. If the IP continues to make such accusation, whether here or on article talk pages or user talk pages, they should be blocked immediately. If they edit in article space again in the same vein, they should be blocked immediately. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:LEGAL, I would think. - Ahunt (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a single useful edit by IP. Every edit is an attempt to editorialize content to fit their personal convictions. WP:NOTHERE would seem to be the real issue Slywriter (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you--but right now they're limiting themselves to the talk page, having been thwarted in article space by HistoryofIran. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for 6 months and reverted to the pre-war version, as the page is under community-authorized general sanctions. May I please remind everyone that this is a BLP article, and calling the subject in the first sentence a "leader of a terrorist organization" when the lede of the article on the organization does not call it terrorist is not really acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, the person you need to remind is DeweyDecimalLansky; your revert was essentially a revert of only their edits. In fact, all the persons in this thread except for the IP seem very well aware of what the BLP is about. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe that one and the IP, indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I see now that what I have written can be indeed read as if I complain again everybody in this section. My apologies, I did not mean this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

So, I reviewed all of the links furbished by the IP user and they are to reputable sources like the "Daily Beast", the "Intercept", the "New York Times", and more, all of which persistently use the term "terrorist" or "terrorism" in their headlines or bodies with reference to the BLP. I'm not sure when "terrorist" turned into an insult in the academic word. To wit, the definition is that it is a tactic whereby force or violence is used to achieve a political goal. Although the term is used colloquially and derogatorily against Muslims and others often, it also has a technical definition in dictionaries. I do not see any reason to exclude this information and to do so would be non-neutral editing. The balance can be achieved if counterarguments to the designation are also placed in the BLP's article with references equally to sources saying that this BLP has nothing to do with terrorism. As for any ideological reason for me to edit this piece, it's simply because it's inaccurate and required updates. This is my subject matter expertise, so I chose the article to edit. Please let me know if this was not the appropriate place for this reply and I will delete it. DeweyDecimalLansky (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

DeweyDecimal is certainly not helping much either [334]. Just like the IP, he is completely disregarding the long discussions at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran and is instead keen on pushing this one-sided terrorist narrative. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note that DeweyDecimalLansky is currently under a 48-hour block for edit-warring (while claiming 3RR doesn't apply) and also filed a bad-faith SPI accusing other editors of being members of or being paid by militiant groups just before being blocked that has me seriously thinking extend-to-indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  They also forum-shopped at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Maryam_Rajavi. Fences&Windows 18:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

An editor who I already had to bring to ANI back in October, has continued to stalk and challenge my edits at Squatting, as can be seen on multiple discussions at Talk:Squatting (interaction history). Whilst I have attempted to stop interacting with Graywalls unless absolutely necessary, they just made a legal threat against me at ("Claiming your allegations as facts is libelous" link) so I am requesting assistance per Wikipedia:No legal threats. Mujinga (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:NLT specifically states "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." What is the specific threat of legal action against you or someone else? 331dot (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I took that specific sentence as referring to BLP issues. WP:NLT also states "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat" Mujinga (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the discussion is about material though, I think it was about the outcome of a previous ANI discussion. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to you posting things as it relates to that article in a way that casts aspersion on me which I believe is libelous, such as unfounded statement claiming I am "stalking" your edits. Specifically at: User_talk:Gobonobo#Squatting. I asked you to stop doing this. This is not a "legal threat". Also, I am editing the article squatting while trying to follow the BRD process. I believe you're misinterpreting the advise from last discussion. It did not say that either one of us would have preferred claim to specific articles on which we both have interest in. Graywalls (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You are just digging your own hole now Graywalls. Per Wikipedia:No legal threats "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention." And how exactly would you end up at User_talk:Gobonobo#Squatting EXCEPT by stalking my edits? Mujinga (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I rephrased it so my intentions aren't misunderstood. So it couldn't be any less clear, I have, or had no intentions of suing you or anyone else. I had no idea those specific words are associated with such in Wikipedia. There's no rules against looking at contribution history. Graywalls (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• An important reminder: Merely talking about libel or whether certain edits may be libelous is not a legal threat under WP:NLT. Where the obvious intent is to intimidate or chill participation, however, such discussion may give rise to sanctions as generally disruptive.
  NLT is a bright-line rule: You may not use Wikipedia to threaten legal action, and until such legal action is resolved, you may not edit Wikipedia. It does not, contrary to Mujinga's argument above, prohibit statements that are subjectively interpreted as legal threats. The "Perceived legal threats" section of the policy very conspicuously links to the "reasonable person" standard, meaning your subjective interpretation is not what matters. What matters is whether a reasonable person would understand the statement to mean that X is threatening Y with legal action. And even then, administrators are cautioned in edge cases to seek clarification and, if necessary, request that the author refactor his or her suspect statement.
  Sanctions may lie where the discussion of litigation is clearly intended to disrupt. "[Article subject] will probably sue you for posting that!" would not trigger NLT, but may still result in sanctions for incivility and general disruptive behavior. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• That's not a legal threat although it is border-line. Graywalls should be aware that any variation on the term "libel" should be avoided. An admin who feels differently from me could block someone for mentioning that term (although the block would be removed with a suitable retraction/explanation). Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for one-way interaction ban

I request a one-way interaction ban to stop Graywalls interacting with me. I previously had to come to ANI in October about Graywalls stalking my edits and I took this edit summary from Graywalls at the time as showing acceptance of the issue: "Undid revision 984875439 by Graywalls (talk) avoding this page for now". This was Graywalls self-reverting after editing Stones of Scotland for the first time, five hours after I had edited it for the first time.

I said at the previous ANI "happy to draw a line under this matter for now", and what has happened since is that I've tried to limit my interactions with Graywalls on other pages for example ABC No Rio and Squatting in the USA but they keep on challenging my edits at Squatting and the situation has worsened recently. Per WP:HOUNDING "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason". I'll be honest, this hounding is starting to bug me. It all seems to echo Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1008#User:Graywalls, where the result was a oneway interaction ban for Graywalls concerning the other editor.

The disruptive behaviour is now concentrated on one page purely because I've really tried to avoid interacting with Graywalls elsewhere and suggested several times they do the same eg November, January. In just the last month, Graywalls has deleted my edits at Squatting here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. This has then resulted in all these convoluted talkpage discussions:Talk:Squatting#Moldova, Talk:Squatting#Challenging_the_re-addition_of_these_Squat.net_primary_SPS, which was then shifted by Graywalls into Talk:Squatting#MacSimoin, and Talk:Squatting#Kibera_/_Smith. There's never an offer to actually improve the page and very little effort engaged in compromising despite the intervention of another editor in one case. It's just becoming a waste of time for me, there may be some merit in individual discussions but please note the pattern. To that effect, I'll state also that it is only my edits that are being targeted; when an IP address added unsourced info to Squatting or when another user added an clearly mislabelled image, Graywalls was apparently unconcerned, despite challenging my edits in the meantime. Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for contents addition limitations on squatting related articles on discussion starter

Mujinga started an ANI discussion on me regarding language/civility, but even after the conclusion of the discussion, but can be seen the user exhibits hostile behaviors towards other editors over contents and editorial disagreement, such as this one directed at Czar when they didn't agree with Czar's response. Perhaps they could weigh in and see if they feel my editing process was "uncompromising" as the allegation made. Removing contents and engaging in BRD process is not the idea of "disruptive editing".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Squatting#Inclusion_about_individual_squats This is pathetic. I want to improve this page and I have had to deal with trolling behaviour for over a month now. Regarding these sentences about squatting in Moldova, I attempted a compromise by rephrasing and contextualising, and the new edits have been deleted without any real justification. Vague recourse to policy doesn't get past the systemic bias in not including salient information from Moldova. In any case, the latest policy referred to is Wikipedia:Summary style which states "Ideally, many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections" and "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." With their recent edits on this article, Graywalls has among other things misread a source, misunderstood that there are different legal systems within the UK and deleted blue links without bothering to find references. It's getting to the point where the article is being harmed by these edits and the same pattern is going on at other pages such as Squatting in the United States as well. Graywalls has pestered Czar to intervene here. I find it quite sad that an admin doesn't know better, and I am particularly offended by the personal attack of Czar calling me a "pig". I'll suggest a new version of the sentences about Moldova, something which I'll note both Czar and Graywalls have repeatedly shown no interest in doing. Mujinga (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't make any legal threat and I personally don't feel that anything I've said would be seen by a reasonable person as a threat of lawsuit that Mujinga is suggesting. I feel perhaps this discussion was not started in good faith. Removing improperly sourced contents is an improvement. Per WP:HA#NOT, looking at their contribution and observing that they've been going to other editor's talk pages and casting WP:ASPERSION on me isn't "stalking". As can be seen in the squatting discussion I believe my sourcing related concerns have editorial validity. This is the kind of comment I have a problem with as I believe it is aspersion. Hi Gobonobo could I ask you a question about recent edits on Squatting? An editor has popped up who seems to enjoy conflict and they are repeatedly deleting things and questioning sources. Occasionally this might be legitimate behaviour (even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day) but most of the time I don't understand why they don't just fix it themselves instead trying to provoke drama. They began to stalk my edits back in October so I made an ANI report which ended in the advice for us to edit different pages which seems logical. The response from that user though suggests they don't find my sourcing related concerns unreasonable at User_talk:Gobonobo#Squatting. Graywalls (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Brawling in the Dominican Republic

Both Iocollict (talk · contribs) and Historiador91 (talk · contribs) are edit-warring (both have broken 3RR) and exchanging gross personal insults in People of the Dominican Republic, continuing an edit war from December after full page protection expired. Neither has made any attempt to use the talk page. I'm not involved in the dispute and don't know what the issue is exactly, seems to be about neutrality. It would be nice if the page could remain unprotected. Not sure what to ask for instead, partial blocks? Whatever is appropriate... Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Given it's been over 24 hours since either of them edited, the 3RR is essentially stale for blocking - I've dropped warnings for both of them on the subject. If it resumes, immediate blocks shouldl probably follow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Agenthercules14

This user is repeatedly removing the word "WWE" from the lead of WWE-related articles without explaining, and has been doing this for a while. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 23:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @JJPMaster:, per policy stated at the top of this page and when creating this report, please notify the user on their talk page as required; you may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. You may also want to provide WP:DIFFs from some articles so it's easier to tell which articles are being affected. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Tenryuu, As for notifying, done. As for diffs, just see this person's entire contributions over the past few hours: Special:Contributions/Agenthercules14. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 23:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oops, I made a mistake here. I misinterpreted repeated similar edits to the same article as edit warring over the same change. On that note I've reverted the block. I don't see any need for action here at this time. Spamming edits like that is skating on thin ice, don't get me wrong, and I'm happy to block if it goes too far. However they haven't continued doing it since you asked them to stop. Also, it doesn't look like the edits are particularly controversial, and no one has raised any objections or reverted them. If you object to the edits, that's fine, but you need to actually engage with the user and explain why. If they refuse to communicate and continue making the edits, that is when we will get involved. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Jamesandersan - Spamming SPA

infinityebook.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Jamesandersan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - SPA spamming links to https://www.infinityebook.com/, which has just been globally blacklisted. I have just blocked them on Wikispecies for the same reason. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but where is your attempt to talk to the user before coming to ANI, even just templated warnings? The first post on their talk page was...the ANI notification. Not even a welcome template or warning about spam links first. GiantSnowman 11:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not interested in discussing long-term, underhand, cross-wiki spam with spammers of this kind. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This is an editor who has made 8 edits over the course of 10 months on en.wikipedia, without ever having been told not to or why... GiantSnowman 11:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And every single one of those edits was placing concealed spam,always for the same site. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Concur - although I also concur this wasn't an ANI matter. This should first have been taken to WP:AIV, as "replacing citations with external links to your website" isn't just spam, it's outright vandalism. It's not quite the full WP:VSCA platter but it it is a simple equasion: SOA x VOA = INDEF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've requested a global lock (for cross-wiki spam) for good measure. Also, marking this discussion with a linksummary for infinityebook.com so that we can easily find it if someone else decides to spam the same website. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

And I see that it's been globally blacklisted...disregard my comment about "if someone else decides to spam it" GeneralNotability (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Readdition of unsourced OR at the Alt-tech page

• Munmula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Alt-tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can I get some extra eyes at Talk:Alt-tech#Unsourced_table_of_alt_tech_platforms_and_other_changes, or someone to convince Munmula that sources are not optional? I've already reverted them once yesterday and tried to start a discussion, but they ignored me and re-added it today. It's already caused confusion (Talk:Alt-tech#Can_4chan_really_be_considered_Alt_when_it_predates_most_mainstream_sites?) in the short time it's been up. I'm on mobile and can't really handle it myself at the moment, and am about to go offline, but it's been a higher traffic page lately, presumably due to recent events, and I don't want to knowingly leave unsourced original research in place just because I can't get to a computer. Thanks GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not ignore you. I instead made a different edit hiding most of the content you described as unsourced. Plus, the discussion is still ongoing and I am not the only user objecting to the current state of the article. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 04:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You restored the table, with unsourced content remaining, without discussion. And yes, there is currently a person on that talk page objecting to the current state of the article (the version with your table) because said table contains unsourced comparisons. The proper thing to do here would be to self-revert and propose your change, with sources, on the talk page and establish consensus for its addition. Same goes for your unsourced and POV changes elsewhere in the article, which do not accurately reflect the current sources nor add any of your own. However because I have to go offline very shortly and I'm not sure you're going to do that, I've created this discussion to get some outside input in the hopes that we will not be misleading our readers with unsourced content for the period that I am away. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Biomax

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

---

• Biomax20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Libya Observer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• December 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1053#Disruption and personal attacks by Biomax20

Biomax believes that the newspaper The Libya Observer, widely boosted by Google News (which doesn't guarantee that it's legitimate), is based in Turkey. That might be true, and it's clear (by my own common sense: WP:OR) that the newspaper tends to be supportive of the GNA, Turkey-supported "Tripoli" government in Western Libya. But I couldn't find sources for that (my WP:OR doesn't count as a source), and instead, the best source so far says that the newspaper is based in Tripoli in Libya. So that's what is currently in the article. See Talk:The Libya Observer for discussion.

Biomax came up with the good idea of trying to find official commerce-registry info. The idea is fine, but I'm not the best person to find that info, and pressuring (threatening?) me to find the info is not nice, especially by email. This is what Biomax emailed to me: I would like to ask you to provide the Chamber of Commerce registry number for www.LibyaObserver.Ly as a registered company in Libya. This information is publicly available. If not, i will take this case with a higher body on wikipedia and without wikipedia, as i mentioned earlier with IC3, British government and relevant authorities.

The problem is the hint that Biomax will take legal action accusing Wikipedia (or me?) of supporting terrorism. French legislation to require websites to remove terrorist information within 60 minutes is, I think, being pushed through parliament by President Lukashenko Macron, though Biomax is referring to UK law, not Belarusian French law. I don't really see this falling under Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, and I'm not sure whether or not this is serious enough to bother the WMF about. I see absolutely no risk to Wikipedia - the author from the European Council of Foreign Relations might be accused of internet terrorism for his hyphenated adjective Tripoli-based, but I can't imagine any legal body taking this seriously for more than the five minutes or so it takes to try to understand the complaint. On the other hand, it's clear that Biomax doesn't understand what Wikipedia editing is about, despite having been on Wikipedia for four years, and doesn't understand that we're volunteers and cannot threaten each other to find sources that we think should exist.

I see this as a problem from someone who may have some useful POV and information to provide, and quite likely is right on some things that currently have no sources, but is unwilling to understand verifiability and civility. I have only looked briefly at the December 2020 concerns and my comments here are independent from those. Boud (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Tripoli-based"? That is a correct hyphenation of a compound adjective; the archive.today link isn't cooperating, but taking a guess as to the content, "Tripoli based scholar" leads one to question what a "based scholar" is.

Happy 2021 from your ham-fisted, hyphenation-fixated, U.S.-based, unreliable-sedan-driving colleague! Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

(Just to explain this: I think that the implicit complaint is that the newspaper is by controlled by people in Turkey (Libyan expats/Turkish authorities/the Muslim Brotherhood) who don't know what is really happening in Libya, so it's misleading to pretend that Libyans-living-in-Tripoli-in-Libya are running the newspaper. The archive.today URL works fine for me; the relevant quote is "Tripoli-based Libya Observer". Boud (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC))

Ignore them. The information is sourced. If they want to challenge the source they can go ahead, but the burden of proof at this point is on their head to prove otherwise and to prove their claim it's based in Turkey. What happens in UK or French law is irrelevant here, Wikipedia is hosted in the United States and only US law applies to it. If they issue a legal threat, report it and they'll be blocked for it. Canterbury Tail talk 02:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have issued them a legal threat warning. For now I'd say ignore them. They're now on the radar of more people who can keep an eye on things. Canterbury Tail talk 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

They're on my radar, and they're currently offline. Given their previous interactions they're pretty close to just being indeffed off of Wikipedia. I'm going to sign off for the night now and check in on their edits again in the morning. We'll see what their response is, if any, but if their attitude doesn't change drastically I'll take further action. Canterbury Tail talk 02:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll second Canterbury Tail's comments. The tempted to just block now and only unlock if they retract the legal threat. If they do not immediately retract it upon return, a block is warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail Boud Hello, to make things clear to everyone, i have not stated that i will be taking legal action against wikipedia or user Boud. I simply challenged him to provide any information, especially a chamber of commerce number or registry number, or any evidence thereof, to back up his article and his edits stating that the website operates from within Libya. Its a simple, literal request & statement, and I am in the legitimate belief this is well in compliance with Wikipedia policies. With regards to citing information, wikipedia requests documentation or proof for copyrighted material, in comparison, i asked for a simple chamber of commerce number or evidence to prove what the website claims to be. Simple, if Boud cant provide this information, then i would have requested from any relevant wikipedia administrator to look at the case and either ammend the article, or remove it.

I read what Canterbury Tail stated saying that " burden of proof at this point is on their head to prove otherwise" i am assuming he was referring to me. Well i respectfully disagree since wikipedia policy is to back up sources, correct? Whats there to say that i can just go open some fake website with fake information in it, and write on a daily basis and claim to be operating from Syria or Egypt by just stating it on the website. And thereby have a article open on Wikipedia stating so, hence making my website look legitimate? What body is there to verify such things then? Biomax20 (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Perhaps i should apologize for being vague. I dont see any real reason to initiate any legal action against Boud or Wikipedia, but i did inform Boud that i would be taking some action ( And not against him or wikipedia ) if i cant get this article amended or removed providing HE provides "The burden of Proof" which i believe is within wikipedia policy to begin with. Thanks. In simple language, all i did was ask him to prove that it is registered in Libya, if he cant, well i would go report the website to whomsoever necessary. Biomax20 (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Biomax20: If you believe The World Weekly not a WP:reliable source or at least reliable source for this claim, you should discuss this in an appropriate place, probably WP:RSN. As long as The World Weekly is considered a reliable source for this claim and you have no reliable sources which dispute it, the factoid is likely to remain. No one needs to prove anything to you, and we definitely do not require a companies business registration to say they are based in a country. Indeed that's generally an inappropriate use of WP:PRIMARY sources and probably also WP:Synthesis. If you want to take legal action against some other party, for some reason unrelated to Wikipedia, that's up to you. Just stop bringing it up on Wikipedia. I mean you should mention your WP:COI where appropriate, but if you keep trying to further your legal dispute here, you're likely to be blocked. While it may not be a legal threat, it is an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. I have no idea why what happens on Wikipedia is a problem for someone unrelated to Wikipedia, unless you mean you plan to take legal action against the source we use, but again that's none of our concern provide you don't try to use Wikipedia to further your legal dispute or threaten or take action against our contributors over a Wikipedia dispute. Note that I normally might have mentioned if you have factual questions unrelated to Wikipedia, you could try asking at the WP:RD, but frankly your questions cross too far into WP:BLP sensitive territory. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

regarding the website:

One of the website's editors is Abdulkadder Assad, who had his education in Syria, specifically Allepo. He has a twitter account, and it clearly states that he is based in Istanbul, Turkey. Secondly, Other editors, which i wont mention, operate in Libya, but also Turkey. They also have twitter accounts, and tweeted news that are pro GNA - Turkish. I dont have a personal crusade against these people, or the website, but i take offense to a website claiming to be Libyan, where Syrians or Turks, who may or may not be involved with Syrian opposition groups, claiming to be Libyan, Posting suspicious news and information that is clearly Libel, on a daily basis, during wartime, and worse, legitimizing illegal turkish occupation of our country, AND providing alternative 'news' to what international law states is ILLEGAL, the UN sanctions clearly state - that there are UN sanctions in Libya with regards to weapons transfers, and Turkey is legitimizing them through intense propaganda and Libya observer MAY or MAY not be one of those websites! I also checked who the website is registered to, and the name, i assure you, is not Libyan. Biomax20 (talk) 07:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Biomax20: If you are going to decide someone can't be from country X, because of their name then get the fuck out of Wikipedia. We don't need nasty racists like you here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

More generally, ANI is not the place to discuss content issues. Try the article talk page or some other appropriate notice board. And even if I put aside your disgusting racist remark, your comment is very close to crossing WP:BLP redlines or maybe already has. Website registration data also often has little bearing on where a company is based. I'm a Kiwi-Malaysian who lives in NZ. I could if I wanted to, register a .my domain name for a Russian company's South African office. I believe .de has no registrations restrictions unlike .my, so I could also register, a .de domain name for the same South African office of the same Russian company. My name could potentially be identified as possible of Malaysian Chinese or perhaps Singaporean origin, given the romanisation, two word (instead of combined) given name for the two Chinese characters (generation name and personal name), my address would be in New Zealand. The company I registered the domain for would still be based in Russia, and the website for their South African office. Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Given all the above and even more vague waves on his user talk page Biomax20 has been indef blocked for, while they say they don't intend to take action against Wikipedia, making comments that are by accident or design inevitably going to cause a chilling effect, and more to the point making it extremely clear they are not here to build an encyclopedia by making it very clear their purpose is to right great wrongs and establish The Truth. While we must assume good faith the fact is that's not a suicide pact and at a certain point a spade must be called a spade. Now if they make it explicitly clear they understand why they are blocked, renounce even the look of legal action, and agree to abide by policy, there's no need to ping me before unblocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Sorry to post-close comment, but after the block Biomax20 saw fit to email me twice. Very massive walls of text boil down to "I did nothing wrong, others did something wrong, your block is irresponsible and enables propaganda, please unblock me"; I stand by my decision, but there are two things they said that I believe other admins should be aware of: If you decide to keep the block, well nothing stops me from opening a new account - i.e. declaring intent to block evade using sockpuppets - and This entire issue revolves around Truth, which is a bit of a boomerang as it confirms they are not here to build an encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation. I was somewhat mystified why you gave them a sock warning since I didn't see any signs of socking on The Libya Observer article or talk page nor did I recall reading any threat to sock. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we have a spambot here

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CP_Biswas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endymiona19 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by IP

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

---

Hello, an IP has made a legal threat here (including a bizarre accusation of treason). — Czello 08:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's looney nonsense but WP:NLT still applies.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like Malcolmxl5 blocked the /64 range for one week. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Range block needed

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

---

1.132.111.60 is evading their block at 1.132.104.188 and continuing to edit war on Camberwell railway station, Melbourne. Eyebeller 10:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s two IPs, both of which are blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruptive editing from 85.76.0.0/16

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.

---

• 85.76.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

IPs in this range have disruptively edited Uppsala and Führer ([335] and [336], respectively). The range was partially blocked 1 month ago, in December; apparently they were harassing users. However, it seems users from this IP range have also edited constructively; this must also be considered when deciding how to prevent further disruption. Thank you for your time. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 12:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Opalzukor, for what it's worth I've requested semi-protection for Fuhrer for disruptive editing in general. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Uppsala and Führer have now been semiprotected three months each. It is awkward to block an entire /16 range but this behavior is stretching our patience. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Unblock request by Ahrtoodeetoo

Moved to Administrators' noticeboard § Unblock request by Ahrtoodeetoo

17:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

POV Pushing from User:Swood100

• Swood100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, we've got an editor who has spent a month pushing a view against consensus. It's very disruptive. Please excuse the lack of diffs, there'd simply be too many and it would be confusing to see an endless list of diffs out of context - they've been civil POV pushing and bludgeoning the debate with a great many comments over more than a month - but if one takes a quick look at the editors contributions at say this section at talk the pattern of WP:SEALIONING is very obvious. The core POV they are pushing is the the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is not inherently antisemitic, they've been doing this for over a month, as is often the case with Civil POV pushing. Their POV has been firmly and repeatedly given short shrift, yet they persist.

Recently they tried to shove the disputed content into the article amongst a bunch of minor edits and they then started claiming that when their edits were reverted that the revert was not legitimate because the minor edits were not against consensus:

• The edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=998554127&oldid=998036225
• Makes spurious claims regarding minor edits, but refuses to address bulk of content added against consensus during the same set of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=998759698&oldid=998745387.

If an admin takes the time to look at recent discussions the pattern is clear. They've been going from academic to academic Michael Walsh (author), then Jérôme Jamin, today it's Herbert Marcuse...now they are presenting the view without any source, just hoping one can be found with comments like "If there is a reliable source saying that the political correctness element originated with Marcuse, that would appear to be relevant." If there's a reliable source? And "It wouldn’t be difficult to find a reliable source to say that..." they are not reading reliable sources and letting them inform their edits, they've come to a certain point of view and have since filled the talk page with longwinded and dubious attempts to insert their POV into the article. They've been begging the question, They've been edit warring with it, while jumping from source to source, academic to academic.

Edit warring despite having this and similar claims contested by numerous editors more times than I can count:

• 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=998554127&oldid=998036225
• 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=998746785
• 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=999361656&oldid=999349843

I've asked them to stop many times now. As I said it's hard to demonstrate the issue as it civil POV pushing. However, a quick look at their contributions to the talk page makes it pretty clear. I just want an admin to talk to them about POV pushing/flogging a dead horse/bludgeoning the debate...just get them to stop, it's really disruptive, wasting everyone else's time at the article for more than a month now. Bacondrum (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to present the bigger picture, Swood announced their interest in the article with this edit, asking Is this article intending to imply that anyone using the term “cultural Marxist” is a conspiracist, regardless of what he or she means by that term? (The consensus answer, according to repeated RfCs and a massive AfD on the topic, is essentially "yes".)

Swood has subsequently introduced citations by Alexander Zubatov and Melanie Phillips,[337] Andrew Sandlin[338] the editors of Baudelaire contra Benjamin and Michael Walsh[339] - none of whom are reliable in this context, and most of whom simply regurgitate the conspiracy theory - as well as hypothetical sources. Swood has also repeatedly cited actually reliable sources out of context, misinterpreting them, and has attempted to reshape the article in service of the POV that the destruction of Western society by "Cultural Marxists" is - or at least might be - a real thing. I am not one to jump to sanctions, but this insistent crusade has become a behavioral issue, in my view. Newimpartial (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Newimpartial, it's hard to deal with this kind of disruptive behavior, on top of the other issues there's been a refusal to listen to other editors and apparent attempts at gaming wikipedia. Bacondrum (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum, @Newimpartial, can you propose a solution? Are we talking a p-block from article space, or what? I'd appreciate you suggesting the least-restrictive possible solution. —valereee (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Me personally, I'm for giving as many chances as possible, I've certainly been given a few over the years. So just a firm but friendly word about this behavior to start with, if it doesn't stop then we could move to an article block? Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with admonishment at this point. The thing is, repeated warnings by Bacondrum alone aren't having any effect, so something needs to come from an admin (pssibly under AP2, though the page itself doesn't carry an AP2 notice) or the community. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that what Newimpartial is objecting to here is my questions on the Talk page as to the potential acceptability of various sources or the relevance of various topics. I recently asked the following question on the Talk page:

What if a reliable source is found who, for example, connects Marcuse to what later became political correctness, but without accusing him of being involved in a conspiracy? So it’s an element of what some people mean when they talk about “Cultural Marxism” but without the conspiracy part and without the anti-Semitic part. The relevance to this article could be that some aspects of the full-blown conspiracy theory may have originated from Franklin School sources.

In fact, I do have more than one such reliable source. It was two hours after I posted the above question on the Talk page that Bacondrum made his first post on this page. Apparently his position is that even asking such a question on a Talk page is cause to block someone from posting further. Is there consensus that no aspect of Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory originated from Franklin School sources and so anybody who even asks is exhibiting disruptive behavior and deserves to be blocked? — Swood100 (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Swood, once again, what is the Franklin school? And how many times are you going to ask, in one way or another, whether the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article should cover aspects of the conspiracy theory that you feel are "real" before you accept that the consensus answer is "no" and that repeating the question (with yet another dubious or irrelevant source) is disruptive? Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have noticed this user's disruptive behavior at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory where they are wasting the time of other editors, and it seems to me that if they were inclined to heed warnings, they would have done so already. Nevertheless, you can always hope. (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, re-reading that section reminded me of just how disruptive they have been, and how unwilling to listen. Maybe a short article block, say a month? Give them some time off. That approach has worked in getting me to see sense in the past and it's only a short break from a specific article. Bacondrum (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• For all who are interested, my pronoun is “he.”

This article is at stasis now with respect to the changes that I have proposed. In the last few days, Newimpartial and I discussed potential changes to the article. Newimpartial made some of them and demurred on others. His agreement that “admonishment” would be appropriate is surprising. I would like to see Newimpartial's list of the infractions for which admonishment would be appropriate. (I have given up on asking anything of Bacondrum, who refuses to give any response at all to my requests for explanation except that “it has been explained to you already” and that I am acting “against consensus.”)

Bacondrum seems to be insisting that I should be admonished for my comments. I invite anybody to go to the Talk page and read my comments. He claims that my comment, "If there is a reliable source saying that the political correctness element originated with Marcuse, that would appear to be relevant" is evidence that I should be admonished. So before making an edit I ask on the Talk page whether there are any objections to it, and that appears to be evidence for admonishment.

Another editor noticed my disruptive behavior on the Talk page where he or she says that I was not inclined to heed warnings. This is nonsense. Please list the warnings that I didn’t heed.

So I would like to see a list, by any complaining editor, listing my infractions specifically. That is one of the fundamental requirements of Due Process. — Swood100 (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This is more of the same kind of behavior. A cursory glance at their talk page and the Cultural Marxism talk page reveals multiple warnings and requests to stop, as well as an interminable list of comments evidencing the sealioning behavior going back to December last year.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swood100
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory Bacondrum (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

multiple warnings and requests to stop

To stop what? This is the point at which Bacondrum stops responding to me. He needs to refer to a specific post, or a group of posts, and tell me what the violation is. That they violate “consensus” is insufficient. What is the consensus that they violate? He refuses to reply, saying that it has been explained too many times to me already. But it hasn’t been explained too many times to the people in this forum. So let’s hear the explanation. — Swood100 (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And that statement is where I become convinced that this user is WP:NOTHERE. "List every instance of my violations" is a tried and true technique to deflect and bog down discussions while the user wears everyone down.

I propose a Topic Ban from post-1932 politics, broadly construed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologise if I am not formatting this correctly, but I have never posted on this page before.

HandThatFeeds is proposing a topic ban for Swood100 from American politics on the basis that Bacondrum, the complainant, has refused to specify their complaint against Swood100. This is surreal.

I also have suffered from Bacondrum’s unspecified allegations, on the same Talk page. Bacondrum will never say what POV I was supposed to be pushing, but keeps talking about sealions (yes, I read the essay) as if that explains his posts. It doesn't. If you make an allegation, you must specify what the allegation consists of, and provide evidence. The persistent unspecified allegations feel like low-level harassment. Examples: [340] [341] And see this series of edits for someone who complains that their time is being wasted: [342] [343] [344] [345] [346]

And this [347] on my talk page. Again, nothing is specified. I considered seeking assistance from an administrator at this point, but decided not to waste an admin's time.

I propose that Bacondrum should be warned that if they make any further unspecified and unsubstantiated allegations, they will be indefinitely blocked.Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sweet6970 had also been sealioning to the point where I was beginning to suspect that Swood100 and Sweet6970 may have been sockpuppets, but then Sweet6970 stopped doing it a few weeks back. Any admin who takes the time will see that myself and the other editors above are right to accuse Swood100 of sealioning, it's been quite blatant over several months. As admins know sealioning is hard to provide diffs for, it's a tactic for wearing others down rather than one specific offending edit. As you can see above, I'm not the only editor accusing Swood100 of sealioning, I'm not just making this up. Bacondrum (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that the complaints were "unspecified." The allegations were very clearly made in the article's talk page, but Swood100 didn't want to listen, and now is using the fact that Bacondrum is tired of this being dragged out as an excuse to claim there is no basis for the complaint. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• For the sake of admins, I'm including all the warnings that Swood has received regarding Sealioning/bludgeoning (so you can see they are quite blatantly feigning ignorance. Which is, of course, more sealioning behavior):
• 24 November: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=next&oldid=990318443
• 30 November: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&type=revision&diff=991450598&oldid=991448889
• 30 November: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=991586687
• 12 December: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=next&oldid=993735896
• 3 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=997977844
• 3 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=998108874
• 3 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swood100&diff=prev&oldid=998111424
• 6 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=998744667
• 6 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=next&oldid=998768890
• 6 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swood100&diff=prev&oldid=998749812
• 7 January: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory&diff=prev&oldid=998961364

They are clearly having us all on claiming they were never warned about civil POV pushing/bludgeoning. I stopped responding to them because they are blatantly sealioning, we don't have to keep responding to blatant and disruptive sealioning, we don't have to interact with those who engage endless disingenuous questioning. Bacondrum (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"I was beginning to suspect that Swood100 and Sweet6970 may have been sockpuppets - ah, probably right, add to this the various IP and other accounts that were popping up during various discussions, all towing the same line Acousmana (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I await the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation with interest. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Mate you were Sealioning too, I'd take Swood100's example as a lesson and stop. Bacondrum (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Partial block

Even a cursory reading of Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory makes it very clear that the page - and its many other editors - need a rest from Swood100's persistent badgering and inability to drop the stick. I have therefore blocked them from CMCT and its talkpage for 3 months. Hopefully they will engage positively at other areas of the encyclopedia, although after a reading of their previous editing behaviour I am not particularly hopeful. If there is a discussion about a post-1932 AP ban, that discussion can continue, so this should remain open. Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, hopefully they will take the time to reflect and correct their behavior. Bacondrum (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've been watching this unfold on my watchlist for quite some time, and I have to agree, Swood100 is a massive time sink for the editors there. While I won't say definitively, it appears, from a bystander's point of view, that Swood100 believes the conspiracy theory, and wants the article to more closely reflect that point of view. Regardless of whether that's true, their editing is completely tendentious. Without question. Editors indulge Swood100 on the talk page, and these conversations become long and drawn out discussions with little actual purpose. I likewise support a post-1932 AP topic ban. If they want to actually contribute to the encyclopedia, they can demonstrate it elsewhere. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

hi, continuous deleting of evidence from Luigi di Bella

• Luigi di Bella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2A01:E0A:21B:44B0:E406:2D03:7455:B291 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• TheIronMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

hi, I want to challenge this datas, I only shows official sources Psychologist Guy continue to erase verified informations, what's the matter here? why when even Editorial Registar of British Medical Journal, Tribunals and Italian Center for National Researches and Science approuve it Mario — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:21B:44B0:E406:2D03:7455:B291 (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) IP editor, by policy you are required to notify users in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time.

Reviewing admins should note Psychologist Guy's reverts, such as this and this, were done because of copyvios and undue weight, as described in their edit summaries. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

IP, if you continue to edit war over that material, I will semi-protect the article and block your range. That is all. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: The same editor created an account and then immediately re-inserted the content. I've reverted and semi'd the article for three days. Up to you if the user needs attention. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP has been trying to add that fringe material for a while. The material is exact copyvio from an editorial piece by Marcus Mullner which is undue weight and a minority opinion. The IP keeps adding another paper [348] written by Giuseppe Di Bella of the Di Bella Foundation. This is not an independent source and not reliable per WP:MEDRS. I am not aware of any reliable independent scientific evidence for Di Bella's therapy for cancer. It is considered quackery [349]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger, I just want to thank you for your continued dedication to our project. Thank you. If need be, let's semi-protect for longer, if they continue. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's appreciated, thanks! It's worthwhile even if sometimes it can be very trying. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Moroccan editor

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

---

WP:BOOMERANG of epic proportions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Looking at the history of articles regarding Morocco, Western Sahara, North Africa, or anything relating to them, after a couple weeks of through review of contributions made by User:M.Bitton, it has become seemingly clear that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia and what his motives are. A disguised POV editor (who gained trust from other editors and admins over the years), making reverts to scattered small irrelevant articles such as Tracy Allard, Jake the Dog, Himalayan salt, Emile Sinclair and many more, to intelligently hide his motive, which is to target Moroccan editors (edit warring and reporting them) and to silence ANY Moroccan contribution (or opinion) from this encyclopedia and also on Wikimedia Commons;. Don't be fooled however, if you look thoroughly through the articles that are mostly unrelated, you can see a very clear and consistent pattern of articles that are, and those are of any article regarding Morocco and its history, and also Algeria (edit wars over that too, see it's talk page). Let's take a closer look at exactly what I'm referring to here; Reverting and/or uploading (replacing) stable maps (orthographic projections) mainly of African countries (and some surrounding European ones) that have nothing to do with Morocco/Western Sahara 1. On Wikimedia Commons: Uploaded own version of nearly identical file to the Algeria article, because he was unsatisfied with the dashed border shown between Morocco and Western Sahara that was shown (insists that there be a solid border separating them in all orthographic projections), then proceeds to add his preferred version to the Algeria article. Note that he uploaded his version on the same day as that file was redone (6 Feb 2020). 2. Does the same exact thing for Libya - his file. The stable original file . Uploads it to the Libya Wikipedia article on 6 Feb 2020 (same day). Diff 3. Does the same thing for Botswana - his version, stable original version that is nearly identical and used years. 4. Same for Madagascar - his version. The stable original version. This particular one was interesting given that Madagascar is on the complete opposite side of the continent of Morocco/W.S. (which were barely visible), yet he still fusses over the fact that those particular borders are not shown the way HE wants them to be shown and uploads a new (nearly identical) version but with his desired borders, and onto the Madagascar Wiki article. 5. Too many examples on commons, this speaks for itself If he really wasn't a POV pusher, he could've done this to other countries with disputed territories that apply, such as Kosovo, Serbia, Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Somalia/Somaliland, Nepal and more, but he specifically chooses ONLY Morocco and Western Sahara because that's where his primary (POV) concerns are. He doesn't care about how maps/projections are depicted according to the UN, ONLY when it comes to Morocco/W.S. Otherwise, he would've done the same for other countries with disputed borders. Specifically targeting Moroccan editors thru reverting, edit warring and reporting 1. Has been previously argued with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SADIQUI this Moroccan editor on talk pages and edit warred. M.Bitton also reported that editor on Commons I believe. 2. Removes the "Morocco"/"Moroccan" (and also Berber) this article, even though this type of architecture is about the Moors (historical people of the Iberian peninsula and modern-day Morocco) has nothing to do with Arabs or the Middle East. Seemingly doesn't like the fact that Morocco is acknowledged as the origin for this architecture. 3. Removes "Morocco" from this article about the Almohad Caliphate, which was very clearly a historical Moroccan Empire and based off Morocco. He could've also removed "Spain", but chooses to remove Morocco because he doesn't like that country. 4. Reported and got this Moroccan user blocked for making corrections to articles relating to Moroccan history. 5. Removed "Morocco" in this article, even though this historical empire was located almost entirely in Northern Morocco. 6. Removed "Moroccan" from this article about Couscous. Note that it stated how the Moroccan version of this dish is served, not that the dish is entirely Moroccan. If someone put "Algerian", you can bet he wouldn't have done that. Also does that to a similar article here. 7. Same for Pastilla, there are no sources that support this dish is found outside of Morocco, yet he removes "Moroccan" anyway. 8. For some reason he switches the order of Morocco-Algeria because he wants Algeria to appear before Morocco. 9. There is no evidence or sources supporting that the Balgha is worn in any Muslim country outside the Maghreb, yet he reverts anyway. More on his anti-Berber edits later. 10. Replaces "controlled" with "occupied" here (unsourced because that region is administered by Morocco, not military-occupied). Also removes "Algeria backed" because he doesn't like his country shown that it supports the armed rebel movement. 11. Removes "Morocco" and "Moroccan" here, even though this was a Moroccan empire. 12. Removes citation regarding this tradition and Morocco (additionally blanks Morocco and adds "North African" instead). 13. More edit warring and removal of "Moroccan" nonsense 1 14. unexplained revert 15. Removes "Sultanate of Morocco" in an article regarding French West Africa. 16. Disregards the fact that Spanish (Western) Sahara was historically part of Morocco by doing this 17. Restores unsourced information by reverting here. Classic Algerian nationalistic editing. 18. Unsourced pro-SADR revert 19. Removal of source here 20. Propaganda in this talk page 21. Again, removal of source, claiming it's "different" or unreliable to push a POV. 22. Unwarranted removal of Morocco (again) 23. Plenty of POV gems here, especially made the atrocious claim that "Morocco violated the ceasefire agreement" where in fact it was the Polisario that declared war and violated the ceasefire with their juvenile acts at the Morocco-Mauritania border in Guerguerat/ 24. Wanted to make sure Western Sahara was a country (according to his POV) by doing this 25. Algerian POV pushing here 26. More Algerian POV pushing (here), claims it was "Unsourced and most likely copied from some unreliable/blog like source)". Clearly does not want the reader to know about the Kabylia Independence movement in Northeast Algeria. 27. It is a political term preferably used by the Polisario Front, as they claim to be the "indigenous Sahrawis" in W.S. Nevertheless, he reverts this and also removes a source. 28. This 29. More clashing with another Moroccan editor in this talk page, and also accusation of personal attacks. 30. Dubious and unfounded claims on this talk page. Clear POV alignment and unsourced nonsense. 31. More clashing/edit warring here. Morocco actually controls roughly ~80% (more than 75) and Polisario doesn't control the rest, the UN does. 32. Removal of source here, that factually stated the Polisario tried using women/children as human shields. Also replaces "controlled" with "occupied" (unfounded). 33. Here, was unhappy that a Moroccan football/soccer player was considered one of the best goalkeepers in the world. Reverted it of course. 34. Back on Couscous again 35. Algerian POV nationalist reverting here and here 36. Removal/replacement of "Morocco" on Couscous article Anti-Amazigh ("Berber") editing I also managed to catch some removal of information and language regarding the Amazigh/Berber (native people of the Maghreb region in Africa), clearly he does not want Algeria or North Africa as a whole to be associated with them, but as wholey Arab. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8. That's not all of it, but a sufficient amount to get a good idea of what's going on here. This is just a fraction of the thousands contributions (from the past month or so alone) that M.Bitton has made. If this isn't incriminating enough, I highly encourage further looking into his history of contributions, where this extremely obvious pattern is. Needless to say, I also quickly popped up on this guy's watchlist scope, as a Moroccan editor, and it did not take long for him to target and report me (and edit war). If you ask me, I think this user should be indefed for such long-term and undoubtable abuse and hardcore POV pushing to the extreme. He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, but to silence any Moroccan contribution and remove anything that may portray anything positive about Morocco. EdDakhla 16:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC) *Comment Suggest this is closed without prejudice, ASAP. OP is a new editer who appears to mean well. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC) @Roxy the dog did you even look at the report and diffs or are you *suggesting* this be closed purely on the basis that I'm a "newer" editor so this should be discredited?? EdDakhla 16:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC) On the basis that I have an interest in Maghrebi articles, many many of them are on my watchlist, and M Bitton makes a fine contribution to them. (You should notify M Bitton of this discussion per the very large instruction at the top of this page.) -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC) @Roxy the dog,They're on his watchlist too, all he does is removes Morocco and Amazigh from all of these articles as I've clearly shown. He also imposes the Polisario's claim to Western Sahara, just look at those reverts/uploads on Commons and see if you can explain exactly how he "means well". He seems to push a pro-Polisario/pro-Algeria Pan-Arab narrative. Evidence (and diffs) suggest the opposite to what you are claiming. EdDakhla 16:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Did you notify him? I have not checked. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Roxy the dog,  Done, notified him. EdDakhla 17:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC) I've just clicked on some of those links at random, and I'm not seeing an issue. Putting countries in alphabetical order is not a Pro-Algerian or Anti-Moroccan stance. Can't figure out what the supposed issue with #28 is, seems a reasonable edit to me to alter something to what is actually covered by and sourced in the article. Similarly I see no issue with #15 which is again something not in the article. Also #22, they removed the claim it originated in Morocco because it isn't supported by the article, which in fact is sourced as saying something completely different. And complaining they reported and got someone blocked isn't an issue, an admin would not have blocked unless it was warranted, they do not just block on someone else's say so. I'm not finding any anti-Moroccan sentiments in the edits listed above, and that you're complaining about these edits makes me think it's more the other way around. Trying to make articles neutral and contain information supported by the references isn't disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 18:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Clicking on some more. #33. Seriously, you're complaining that someone reverted the addition of a comment that someone is considered the best in the world to a bio's lede without any sources to back it up? I think your own editing biases here may be clouding your judgement. Canterbury Tail talk 18:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC) About number 4 in the second set, it's fairly misleading to say "blocked for making corrections to articles relating to Moroccan history". A quick check [350] shows that User:IbnTashfin97 was rightfully blocked for these horrible personal attacks [351] [352]. I don't know what else IbnTashfin97 may have done right or wrong, but if you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable here, I'm not sure you belong any more than them. If M.Bitton only reported IbnTashfin97 for edit warring (I don't know, I didn't check) frankly they're being generous and shouldn't be faulted for that. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Nil Einne, IbnTashfin97 seems to be saying some similar points that I made, but was rightfully blocked for expressing it in an inappropriate matter and thru personal attack. But if what IbnTashfin97 said was your idea for such "horrible personal attacks", then you alleging that I find his behaviour acceptable and saying "but if you think that sort of behaviour is acceptable here, I'm not sure you belong any more than them" is a very clear personal attack directed towards me. EdDakhla 18:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC) No it's not a personal attack. You are the one who chose to give four as an example. I don't know why. One possibility is you didn't look properly into the block. In that case, it's simply a terrible example, which badly damages your case. I acknowledged this is a possibility by saying "if". The other possibility is you did look in to the case, and think it is acceptable to accuse an editor of being paid by some government with zero evidence. It's not, and I am entitled to express, to you and the community, the view that any editor who thinks it's remotely acceptable to make such personal attacks is not the sort of editor should be welcome here on Wikipedia. Such accusations are incredibly harmful and should be stamped out fire. They are also incredibly stupid, since 99% of the time, you don't have to pay someone to be highly biased towards theira country. (To be clear, I'm not saying this describes M.Bitton simply pointing out how ridiculous those attack were.) I still don't know what the case is, since instead of explaining why you chose to highlight an editor rightfully being blocked, you instead chose to fault me for expressing the opinion that anyone who would excuse an editor for making such horrible personal attacks doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Anyway, the reason I mention that "if" is I intended that to be my last comment. Instead since you accused me of a personal attack, I felt compelled to follow up but this will be my last. I have no desire to look into this further since my cursory check concurs with what everyone else found. If the are problems with M. Bitton's behaviour, it's fairly unobvious from your complaint since quickly choosing a few random examples finds utter nonsense, stuff which clearly isn't a problem and instead leaves us scratching our heads (and still scratching after you followed up) why our heads why on earth anyone would choose to highlight stuff where M.Bitton was clearly in the right. Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict)And checking #36 shows the horrible, terrible, no-good very bad edit by the terrible villian who has been spending years sneakily conspiring to win hearts and minds of other editors in order to nefariously push an agenda against Morocco...was to revert an IP edit that was actually performing nationalistic-POV-vandalism to what was actually in the cited source. Given the comments above my doubt that the other supplied "proofs" are all very similar is next to nil, and I would suggest that the OP prepare themselves for an incoming WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC) It looks like virtually all the reported edits are the reported user reverting disruptive unsourced edits/POV-pushing. As for the maps, it's hard to see this as POV-pushing when both Western Sahara and Morocco use a solid line on their maps. OP is a new user but it's not some "rookie mistake" to misrepresent appropriate reversions as a systematic campaign to push a POV. Roxy's proposal would be a generous favor to this user, but reviewing their history I question whether they're even intended to be unblocked right now. It looks like they were indefinitely blocked on commons for CU-confirmed socking, and indefinitely blocked on enwiki by El_C for disruptive editing in this exact content area. It looks like El C granted them a tentative conditional unblock with the agreement that the user was to stay out of this topic area, with the understanding that there was a global lock request pending for this user which would likely solve the problem anyway. I don't really follow that logic, but regardless, his doing so seems to have had backfired, resulting in the global lock request being declined by Ruslik0, due to the fact that the user was only blocked on one wiki (commons), and that the "master" sock account was inactive. This rationale seems to be in error, as it ignored the fact that the user was only unblocked here with the assumption that the lock request would be approved, and it ignored the fact that EdDakhla was actively socking with a CU-confirmed sock, and that the "master" account was patently irrelevant to the entire situation. Anyway, we have all that for context, and Ed is apparently jumping right back into a content area that they're supposed to be staying away from, being a known disruptive editor in this topic area, with a willfully misleading report against a good faith editor who is reverting inappropriate edits. Unless someone has a particularly good argument as to why we should wipe this editor's slate clean, it seems to me that their indef block should be reinstated. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Agreed. The wall above seems like nothing more than a nationalist Moroccan editor trying to push their points and fluff up Morocco by means of character assassination against an editor who appears to be doing everything correctly. Canterbury Tail talk 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC) I'm too nice. I have withdrawn my comment above. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 19:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely. Indef reinstated. Thanks for the clarity, Swarm. El_C 19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• @Roxy the dog, Canterbury Tail, Nil Einne, The Bushranger, Swarm, and El C: I just wanted to thank you all for dealing with this report and at the same time make a small clarification in relation to something that isn't as obvious as the rest. What they falsely described as "stable maps" are in fact the maps that have been introduced into the articles 2 weeks ago in order to sneak in a border change while pretending to care about the projection and the UN's map (compare the stable map with theirs and then see the map that I added with an explanatory edit summary). I do realise that this is no longer relevant, but I wanted to highlight how crafty the POV pusher can be. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton, for sure, happy to help. And sorry for being a bit slow on the uptake, at times. But, yes, I did notice the nonsense with the maps (my Spidey senses were definitely tingling there). Finally, sincere thanks to you for the many years of dedicated, high-quality editing of pages belonging to this area of the world which is otherwise much neglected on the project. Kind regards, El_C 00:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Thanks for the notification and for your efforts to stop this's editor's misbehaviour. I was aware there was some fuss over maps but I thought this was just in articles related to Morocco or maybe immediate neighbours. It's very concerning that User:EdDakhla was POV pushing by trying to change maps in completely unrelated articles by changing the maps, and hiding what they were doing by claiming it was just a projection issue. Putting aside whatever lead up to the block, this is someone who clearly needed to banned whether site ban or a very restrictive topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Just clarifying that, above, I meant maps pertaining to Morocco/Western Sahara only, like when they changed this into this. Once I saw that, alarm bells immediately started ringing. Admittedly, I didn't pay much mind to their changes to maps in other countries. Sorta assumed they were productive edits meant to drown out that grossly POV map change, but I guess not... El_C 16:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrative abuse by User:Drmies

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

---

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

Diffs = 1 2

The context here is that User:Drmies took it upon himself to remove a talk page comment simply because he did not like what was being said. I personally did not agree with the sentiments expressed in said users comment but found the violation of WP:TPO particularly perturbing.

User:Drmies continued to edit war in violation of WP:TPO and eventually stopped after three reverts. He then proceeded to block me, without a hint of irony, for edit warring. Now regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with my actions (I’ve already been blocked for it so it’s settled at this stage), this is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED which stipulates that Admins involved in a conflict cannot take administrative action in such a situation and that if they were to this would be administrative abuse of powers.

WP:TOOLMISUSE clearly outlines this as a serious issue - “Misusing the administrative tools is considered a serious issue. The administrative tools are provided to trusted users for maintenance and other tasks, and should always be used with thought. Serious misuse may result in sanctions or even their removal.”

User:Drmies cannot claim to be ignorant of WP:TOOLMISUSE or WP:INVOLVED due to the fact that one would expect an admin of all people to be aware of Wikipedia’s own administrative policies but also due to the fact that I informed him that blocking a user you are involved in a dispute with is a clear abuse of administrative powers per the above policies. This was 22 minutes before he blocked me so he cannot claim not to have seen it.

User:Drmies therefore has blatantly and knowingly committed administrative abuse by breaching WP:INVOVLED and WP:TOOLMISUSE. In my opinion this seems like a clear cut case and I would respectfully suggest some form of punitive or remedial action should be pursued per WP:TOOLMISUSE.

PailSimon (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Just want to say that I consider Graceland one of the great albums of all time. EEng 23:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Neither a link to the allegedly offending edit nor a notification to @Drmies:'s talk page. I don't think this is going anywhere useful. Reyk _YO! 13:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have pinged Drmies in the section title. As for the offending edits, I should have linked them, you're correct. Anyway, all one has to do is look at the edit history of the page in question or of myself. This shouldn't cause too much trouble hopefully and certainly doesn't mean it isn't going anywhere given nobody has commented prior to you. PailSimon (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • What page - you have made no indication of where the issues have occurred, so no-one can judge the rights and wrongs of the matter.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • PailSimon, you know best which diffs are relevant to the complaint that you're making. That talk page is enormous; I doubt many people will take the time to trawl through it looking for diffs relevant to your post. Mackensen (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Presumably this one--Ymblanter (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes and here is more PailSimon (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC) .
        • Here is the third revert of his against me. PailSimon (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Reyk, it's not a big deal to me: I knew this user was going to come here. Someone that combative, writing edit summaries like this one, they usually land on ANI, sometimes as a next-to-last stop. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  I have now given Drmies a notice on his talk page. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Correction: Diannaa beat me to it. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see User talk:ExplosiveResults#Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol for why he removed it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think it's particularly relevant as to why he removed it. This report is about Drmies breach of WP:INVOLVED which occcured regardless of whether or not he was justified in his reverting of me. PailSimon (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

What exactly made him involved at the time of block? Reverting an editor for disruption doesn't inherently make them involved. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Well the first thing I'd say is there was no disruption. PailSimon (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Having read all of this, I very much think there should be a WP:BOOMERANG against the filer (PailSimon). I believe this report to be in bad faith, and that the filer is wasting everyone's time. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 13:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The Grand Delusion, I disagree. PailSimon hasn't violated any rules, but Drmies has.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how bringing forth an obvious case of WP:INVOVLED is bad faith and should result in action against me, instead of action against an offending user. Could you elaborate? PailSimon (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon, What diffs show Drmies is involved as an editor and not an admin?   // Timothy :: talk  14:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

User:TimothyBlue I don't see how he was "involved as an admin" by simply reverting. A simple revert by an admin would not be "involved as an admin" by my interpretation. PailSimon (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying admins cannot take admin actions against editors who they revert? By that definition oversighting is WP:TOOLMISUSE, as is reverting vandalism, removing personal attacks, etc (where followed by a block/revdel/etc). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

My whole point is that Drmies was not reverting vandalism, personal attacks etc. PailSimon (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• PailSimon, I'd withdraw this and then read Hoist with his own petard.   // Timothy :: talk  14:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a very unprofessional comment. PailSimon (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

no its the best advice you will receive on this matter.   // Timothy :: talk  14:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand why a block was necessary here. PailSimon wasn't making the offending comment but restoring it for what he perceived as a violation of WP:TPO. Calm discussion and explanation that it was (apparently) a DS action not subject to discussion via reverting is what should have occurred. I don't see that from Drmies.
  At the same time this is pretty clearly not a breach of WP:INVOLVED as it was undertaken as a single chain of administrative actions from start to finish. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is it a "single chain of administrative action fro mstart to finish" with regards to myself? I don't see how it could be construed as such by any meaningful sense of the term. PailSimon (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Can non-Admins do closes on this page. I'd close this with at least a trouting to OP (with frozen fish). -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Closure would seem premature, as the discussion does not seem over. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I think its pretty clear this report is erroneous and filed as retaliation.   // Timothy :: talk  14:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Drmies clearly did the right thing here. Close and trout filer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This was not an administrative action or abuse of admin privileges, it seems to be the application of WP:NOTFORUM or WP:NPA (any editor can boldly apply it). —PaleoNeonate – 14:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You say that it was not an administrative action but then also say not an abuse of admin privileges. If it was not an administrative action then it must be an instance of admin abuse given that he blocked me when he was involved. PailSimon (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing the inappropriate talk page posts could be interpreted as an admin action, which would mean he was not involved, but performing a series of admin actions.— Diannaa (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

There was nothing inappropriate about it is the point I've been trying to make. PailSimon (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. Calling a peaceful protest a BLM riot is super inappropriate IMO— Diannaa (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong, it's an idiotic comment on the user's behalf but it's certainly not in contravention of established Wikipedia rules or guidelines, which it has to be in order to be an admin action.PailSimon (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As an isolated point: that's not true in this topic area, which is subject to discretionary sanctions, allowing admins to take actions they deem appropriate to ensuring an article retains a productive editing environment. Especially so given the hot potato these events are. Whilst I note the block itself was not marked as arbitration enforcement, the entire article is still under heightened scrutiny. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify what specific policy you believe was violated by said user? PailSimon (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the topic area, and this article specifically, falls under WP:AC/DS. Admins can take actions against editors, or edits, which would not be valid admin actions elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Where does it specifically stipulate that Drmies actions are permitted in the page you linked? PailSimon (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree with Sphilbrick.---Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think I'm missing something here. This is Drmies' original edit, removing ExplosiveResults' comment: [353]. It's unclear to me whether Drmies is acting as an editor or an administrator in doing so, and frankly the justification for it isn't as obvious to me as it is to some people. If Drmies is acting as editor, then revert-warring with PailSimon over the edit and then blocking him is absolutely an INVOLVED action and inappropriate, although I don't think much should come of it. If Drmies was acting as an administrator, then that's not at all clear from the context nor from the edit summary: 'not going to let you equate mostly peaceful protests with "riotous mobs"'. Again, perhaps I'm missing something. Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  The accompanying user talk message seems to be a clear warning that DS will be applied and strikes me as being an admin action. - MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse Drmies mopping. We don't need people adding political fake news to Wikipedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, but the talkpage guidelines are different to mainspace ones. This seems to be an issue that arose from the talk pages. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Some editors seem to be dismissing this complaint out of hand. I'm not sure removing the "riot" comment was in line with WP:TPO. The comment did not seem to be an obvious violation of the criteria there. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: First, I think Drmies's actions were good faith and the idea that they should be penalized in any way is wrong. However, I think the removed text was close enough to on topic and a direct and reasonable reply to the edit above. Thus I think NOTFORUM doesn't apply and the refactoring was improper. This is not endorsing the opinions in the view but there was an original !vote, a reply and then a reply to that reply. If reply to reply was FORUM then the reply was also FORUM. Either both the reply and reply to reply should stay or both should go. Springee (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm hearing you, Springee, but I don't fully agree. "Reply to reply"--not all replies are the same. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• We cannot have the equivocation and whataboutism in Wikipedia spaces that we find on social media. Equating mostly peaceful BLM protests with the seditious, violent behavior of a riotous mob intent on disrupting the very business of democracy is exactly that kind of thing. So yes, as far as I'm concerned it was a highly insulting FORUM post, which is why I removed it, and I explained why I did that here to ExplosiveResults and here to PailSimon. The latter's attempt to turn my repeated revert of unacceptable content into an editorial conflict about content is amusing but unconvincing: if that is upheld, then Recent changes patrollers should be very wary of the consequences. In addition, there's PailSimon's insults ("grow up" and taunting; if you want to know what this editor thinks Wikipedia is for, there's this edit summary. I encourage admins to look at their other work--edits like this for possible AP2 sanctions, and sections like this for ridiculous accusations. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that we routinely allow insults towards Trump and the alt/far right to go untouched on talk page discussions, I do think it's a bit disingenuous to try to combat one editor's opinion about the BLM protests being riots and not other things. We can flatly ignore that opinion or point out that no RS seriously considers the BLM events as riots, and thus invalidate the point if needed, or if the editor continued to fight on that point, then there's WP:TE aspects to engage. But starting to patrol on ideological aspects like this when we have a clear blind-eye patroling other areas is a bad approach. Taking blocking action against the editor, on the other hand, is well justified. --Masem (t) 15:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Masem, I think you know that I block Trump-haters as much as I do Trump-lovers, and I have revdeleted quite a bit of insulting content from articles related to him--more than about Obama and Clinton, for instance--and blocked tons of Trump-insulting usernames. BLP violations and disruptive content cannot stand anywhere (and I actually think that the comment I removed from the talk page was a kind of BLP violation), and should be removed everywhere. I do not believe that we "routinely" just let everything slide if it insults Trump or whatever, but I don't see everything, of course: what I do see is editors and admins like GorillaWarfare and Neutrality deal very carefully with possible BLP violations and partisan content. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Masem, I think that is a problem of certain editors despite their experience, as they bring in their biases. However, that does not seem the issue here. Vikram Vincent 09:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• George Floyd protests covers rioting and looting, including in the lead, sourced, e.g. see [354]. The 2020 BLM protests were mostly peaceful, but not entirely peaceful. Comparing rioting at the Capitol with rioting that happened during the 2020 BLM protests is inapt, not a comparison I would make, an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE, but it's not FORUMing, it's directly related to discussing article content, and it's not a WP:BLP violation (no identifiable person or group of people were named in the comment that was removed). It's no cause to remove someone's comment under our PAGs. Drmies should not have removed ExplosiveResults's talk page comment, e.g. here, and should not have blocked PailSimon for restoring it. I don't think Drmies actions violate WP:INVOLVED because all the actions were made in an administrative capacity (anytime an admin issues warnings, it's as an admin, not as an editor; you can't take off that hat), but I just think they were not-policy-compliant admin actions in the first place (not compliant with WP:TPO and WP:BLOCKPOL) . Comparing the capitol riots with BLM protests may be inapt, even offensively inapt, but we shouldn't censor (nevermind block) editors for making comments we disagree with. WP:NOTTHOUGHTPOLICE. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (off-topic, but still): I don't agree that "anytime an admin issues warnings, it's as an admin". I sometimes issue warnings on articles where I would be precluded from taking admin action per INVOLVED. But surely I could still issue warnings in my capacity as an editor?— Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

    That's a good point. I wouldn't go so far as to say that an admin who is INVOLVED and issues warnings in their capacity as an editor would thereby be taking an admin action in violation of INVOLVED or any other PAG. So in that sense, yes, you could still issue warnings in your capacity as an editor. However, I don't think it's a good idea for admins to do so, because even if the warning is in their capacity as an editor, it will be perceived as coming from an admin, with all the implications of such. At best, it will confuse editors (as we see here) regarding whether a warning is made in an administrative capacity or not (I suppose that could be mitigated with an explicit disclaimer). Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

    Hm. This is giving me furiously to think. I've definitely given warnings in cases where I was working as an editor and had no intention of taking admin action. I guess I should start making disclaimers. This message provided as a nonadministrative warning. Wonder if there's a template for that? —valereee (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, there's a template for that: {{burma-shave-notice|involved}}. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm partly with Sphilbrick and Ymblater here. Partly because I'm not opposed to strict WP:NOTFORUM enforcement on highly active talk pages on emotive issues. But if we are going to strictly enforce it with talk page deletions, we need to be fair about it. Plenty of people have compared the attack on the US Capitol to BLM protests both supporters and opponents of each in various ways e.g. police treatment. The contested comment no matter how much we may disagree with it is not so far beyond the pale that it warrants deletion while leaving other forumish comments alone. Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  BTW @PailSimon: I don't see that anyone has made this explicit yet but please re-read the orange box you see when editing this page or the red text at the top of this page. "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." I.E. no one cares if you pinged Drmies in the section title, it's not a valid response to that part of Reyk's comment. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, noted.PailSimon (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nil Einne, that the comparison between the two police responses is compared doesn't mean that therefore the demonstrators need to be compared (I mean, that seems obvious to me), and certainly not in those terms. If anything has been made clear these past few years, and this past week, it's that majority-Black groups of people are treated (and called) very differently from majority-white groups. We should not be doing that. Masem also commented on this idea that "we leave other comments alone", but I call bullshit on that. First of all, OTHERSTUFF. Secondly, I don't believe that we do; it's a red herring, and I showed Masem on their talk page that I certainly don't look the other way when there are violations by "the other side". Drmies (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Drmies: It's impossible to compare the police responses without comparing the demonstrations in some way. As I said, you've already left alone the plenty of forumish responses while deleting that one, so sorry you did "look the other way when there are violations by "the other side"'. That's very harmful to Wikipedia since effectively you've appointed yourself the censor of what sort of off-topic responses are okay, only allowing those that fit your personal PoV. While you are entitled that PoV as am I, we shouldn't be only allowing people with certain viewpoints on Wikipedia, except for certain viewpoints that are so beyond the pale that they shouldn't be allowed which this was very far from. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• The issue concerns a border-line call on whether a particular comment should be removed with a variety of views expressed above. Regardless of what guidelines might say, removing ill-considered posts is done. In the context of the debate, I can see a rationale for the action by Drmies that makes removal desirable. BLM protests/riots/whatever had destructive elements but they were never intended to overthrow an election or to halt confirmation of election results. Repeating the canard that the recent protests/riots/whatever at the Capitol were equivalent to BLM could be seen as an attempt to promote a fake equivalency to deflect from the significance of recent events. Whether the removal was desirable or allowed by the rules (see WP:BURO) should be settled in discussion, not by edit warring. PailSimon should discuss contested actions rather than edit war. That is true regardless of what the other editor (Drmies) is doing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think Drmies was at all in the wrong here. Drmies was properly enforcing Wikipedia policies and looking at the list of edits he made to the page, it doesn't appear that he would even be really "involved". Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Hmm, so let's have a look here.

• Drmies removed the offending sentence, and PailSimon restored it. Drmies then warned PailSimon. [355]
• PailSimon restored it a second time. Drmies then added to the warning to PailSimon on his talkpage, explicitly, that if they restored it again they would be blocked. [356] This should have made it clear that Drmies was removing the statement in an admin role.
• PailSimon's response was not to say "OK, I won't restore it again" or head for the talkpage, but to tell Drmies "You can't do that, you're involved" [357] They then restored it again and were blocked. Followed by "I'll be reporting you!" [358]

• So frankly, if PailSimon is either incapable of parsing the fact that edit-warring disputed content back in three times (and twice after being warned) is not a good idea (which leads me to think CIR), or they did it deliberately believing Drmies wouldn't block them, which is just disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I find these arguments compelling, especially the second one. The user seems to have taunted Drmies [here]. I find it likely that they were almost daring Drmies to act and that behavior is uncivil and disruptive. Also, looking at the edit log, Drmies only made 6 edits to the page in question, and all of them were either minor fixes or changes to reinforce the existing consensus and Wikipedia policies, so I don't find that he was involved at the page as a regular editor and not an administrator. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Wikipedia operates under an archaic system which in the name of accessibility, allows for anonymity to be used to spread fringe and extreme pov theories and fake news. The counterweight to these problems is strong moderation. An editor placed comments which use wikipedia as an ideological forum (WP:NOTFORUM) for particular talking points (WP:BATTLEGROUND). Drmies didn't do anything outside of the boundaries of moderation and his actions were independent of any editing dispute (WP:INVOLVED). --Maleschreiber (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• This is a borderline issue, I think the call could have gone either way and we need to extend a bit of leniency to admins when a topic is so active. In some ways the comments make the issue resemble a rorschach test, those with deep political sensibilities either see malfeasance or heroism depending on which they are predisposed to see. What I see here is an admin who got caught up in the moment and an editor who just wouldn't stop being disruptive or back down even when faced with administrative action. I think we should seriously consider a WP:BOOMERANG for PailSimon and enact a topic ban on US politics and East Asian politics (or maybe just politics in general), baiting/taunting admins is not a good look and from their edit history most of their edits in the political space appear to be disruptive. For an example see Talk:Taiwan#One-China Policy, they repeatedly tried to insert WP:OR into the article and then when reverted claimed it was a WP:SKYISBLUE situation and yet when challenged was unable to provide even a single source which supported the statement they wished to add to the article. At the very least this constant WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ICANTHEARYOU behavior has to stop for this person to become a constructive contributor to wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @PailSimon: for the record, an "administrative action" is any action that requires administrative privileges to perform, such as un/protecting a page, un/blocking an editor etc. Any edit made by an editor who holds administrative privileges, that could have been made by any IP or registered editor, is by definition not an "administrative action", and thus there can be no "admin abuse" connected to such editing. Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks for letting me know.PailSimon (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for PailSimon. Most accept that the comments reverted by Drmies were inappropriate. This is an emotive part of AP2 (which is itself an emotive topic, hence the DS we give admins). Drmies gave both editors explicit notices on their talk pages as to why the comment was reverted and that it was an administrative action. Whereas ExplosiveResults moved on, Pail Simon became very aggressive with Drmies, and even went to ExplosiveResults talk page to get them to follow suit. Having reviewed Pail Simon's behavior, and evidence of their other AP2 edits (given above), I cannot see that they are suited to editing in AP2. I could not see their AP2 edits as being useful to readers, or contributing to the integrity of WP's AP2 articles. Britishfinance (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems rather drastic to me to topic ban me over one single talk page dispute (not an article dispute).PailSimon (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m suggesting (and I believe these other fine editors are as well) that we topic ban you for a pattern of disruptive behavior in a particular topic space. Behavior it seems you are currently continuing on my talk page[359][360]. It is unfortunate but its far from drastic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Next to nobody is calling for a topic ban. I have no idea why you're linking those talk page edits.PailSimon (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Dude... You just accused me of wikihounding[361] you and then immediately made three edits to Tankie [362][363][364]. This sort of thing cant go on, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Horse Eye's Back for explanation. PailSimon (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any Tban: I don't think I've ever interacted with PailSimon but I don't see anything here that would warrant a Tban. It looks to me like they felt they were right to restore a comment that, in my view, was not a FORUM violation. It might be helpful if rather than telling PailSimon how wrong they were we told them how to best handle this case in the future. Normally I would say if editor A blanks a talk page comment and editor B restores it, then it needs an admin or consensus to blank it again. Drmies is an admin but a relatively new editor may not have been aware of that or aware that Drmies warning was official vs from just another editor. As such I can see how they could have walked into this while feeling like they were in the right. So what is the objective here? Is the intent to tell PailSimon what a horrible person they are or to help them better handle similar situations in the future? Springee (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see any reason to censure Drmies. PailSimon should learn to communicate to reach common ground instead of bickering in the edit summaries and making snide comments towards a user attempting to uphold civil discourse. A topic ban seems senseless; however, an additional block is warranted if this conversation and behavior continue. Nihlus 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• I can't see that Drmies did anything wrong, and PailSimon seems -- from the evidence of this discussion -- to have a rather BATTLEGROUNDy approach to editing. I would say that it's likely that if they don't change their ways, they're probably heading for a ban of some sort, not from this discussion necessarily, but sometime and somewhere in the future. Whether that happens or not, and whether it's in the near future or the distant future, is entirely in PailSimon's hands. This thread should be closed with no action in regard to Drmies, except a pat on the back for doing what was needed, and a warning to PailSimon that the attitude they've presented here is not one that's conducive to editing Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I know that Drmies deservedly carries a lot of respect around here, but am I reading a different set of diffs to everyone else? This is not even close to the worst comment I have seen ignored on a talk page. Removing it makes no sense either as they were esentially repeating their first comment which was left alone. This was unnecessarily dismissive and quite conceited. The comment still stands as of my typing this so no other editor has deemed it bad enough to remove; in fact as far as I can tell apart from the original commentator no one else had been involved in this edit war. The fact that Drmies blocked them for disruptive editing is not okay. An admin blocking an editor they are involved with in a content dispute is clearly inappropriate and has lead to harsh sanctions in the past. I can only think that most editors commenting here are not looking at the diffs and basing it on the reputation of the involved editors. This is a valid report and should be treated like one. AIRcorn (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Drmies does have a well deserved good reputation. However, looking at the specific edits on the talk page I feel they got carried away. The edit war over the talk space text was not required as strict article space rules cannot be applied. I feel Drmies, while acting in good faith and as per the responsibility of an admin, did overstep bounds. Hence a warning would be apt. Similarly, PailSimon does need to be given a warning as their behaviour does appear out of place. Vikram Vincent 14:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for PailSimon from politics and history. This user behave intentionally confrontational while editing highly controversial subjects. Of course one could give him "more rope", but I think this user will just create a lot of trouble and waste everyone's time. This his posting on the ANI is an excellent example. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Technically, admin involved - I agree with Levivich, Sphilbrick, Springee and Ymblanter. We are dealing with a situation that is highly volatile at a time when admins are expected to be extra cautious and definitely uninvolved. We cannot, in clear conscience, call Drmies block uninvolved, regardless of who is right or wrong - he was involved. He should have contacted another admin or taken it to AE. Atsme 💬 📧 19:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I think some of the folks here need to actually read WP:INVOLVED because I do not think it means what you think it means. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support a warning to Drmies They removed a users talk page post that did not violate talk page guidelines, edit warred to keep it removed and then blocked the editor they were edit warring with. There are so many things wrong with the way Drmies acted here. I don't know the history of PailSimon, maybe they are the disruptive editor people seem to be implying here, but from what I have seen of this incident their only crime was to edit war and then complain when they were blocked by the admin they were edit warring with. Drmies could have handled this much better. I am more dissapointed though with some of the above editors (many who should know better) who are proclaiming topic bans, CIR issues, boomerangs for bad faith, troutings, etc. Editors who have a greivance against administrative action, no matter the popularity of the admin, should be able to come here and report it without being baselessly attacked like this. AIRcorn (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support a warning to Drmies as per AIRcorn. "not going to let you equate mostly peaceful protests with "riotous mobs"" does not strike me as a reason (per WP:TPO) to remove the comment. Even if it was, Drmies made no discernible effort to explain the policy behind the removal beyond "Yes I am", posting a warning template and "The editor equated mostly peaceful BLM protesters with "riotous mobs": that is unacceptable.". Don't get me wrong, it can be very tiring to deal with perceived bad-faith editors and I am hugely grateful towards any administrator who puts time into Wikipedia, but Drmies could have taken it to AE or brought in another admin if they were too short-tempered to spend more time on issue (not hugely difficult given that the topic is not particularly niche). PailSimon's actions have not been commendable ([365] [366]) and I would be in favour of a sanction, but that doesn't mean Drmies couldn't have done better. Best, Caius G. (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Addendum: "No, you may not refer to the mostly peaceful BLM protests as "BLM riots"" How is this grounded in policy? I wouldn't call what happened "BLM riots" either but we can't tell anyone not to characterise them as such. Caius G. (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: any sanction against Drmies. They were clearly trying to prevent disruption, battleground, notforum behavior, on an article covered by DS, separate from alledgedly being involved in a content dispute. This report is in retaliation for an admin doing what they should do on an article that could easily spin out of control.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   01:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• If I may be blunt, the suggestion that a warning be issued to Drmies because of this situation is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Over-zealous use of 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.

---

I am concerned about the behaviour of a user called David J Johnson. Although he clearly makes good edits himself, he is far too zealous, in my opinion, in handing our aggressive warnings to other users about vandalism and disruptive editing, when in fact they are mostly making good-faith edits that can simply be reverted. For example, he recently issued me with an aggressively worded warning about vandalism and deliberately adding false information when all I had done was re-arrange, for clarity and better English, existing copy. I could not have reasonably known that the existing copy contained incorrect information and made was clearly a constructive edit in good faith, but received a very unpleasant warning. When I challenged him, and subsequently, his attitude had been extremely arrogant and high-handed. I have noticed that he has been issuing lots of other, similar warnings and in most cases the offending edits have simply been good faith edits, and clearly not vandalism. I really believe someone needs to tell David J Johnson to calm down and differentiate between good faith edits and deliberate vandalism, which are two very different things.Neilinabbey (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The big yellow box you see when creating a new discussion asks you to "provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors". Please add. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I will try to do so tomorrow, once I've checked the right way to do so.Neilinabbey (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You appear to have already received an apology three days ago. --JBL (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Per JBL's comment, not only did you receive an apology, but you also received a (now-deleted) warning from an admin about your overly aggressive response and a suggestion that demanding apologies isn't usually a productive pursuit. And then you made this inadvisable edit. Grandpallama (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a very grudging apology and more completely unwarranted high-handed lecturing.Neilinabbey (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Inadvisable? That's opinion, not a fact.Neilinabbey (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'll take care of the diffs for you: Your edit of an allegedly-false claim, correction approved by David, David warns you, your subsequent exchange. Honestly your conduct is insanely uncivil and obstinate right now, you apparently reworded a false, or inappropriately-worded comment, maintaining the inappropriate aspects of the wording itself, which was misinterpreted as you deliberately endorsing/maintaining said content. This is not a big deal, it requires nothing more than a simple reply saying "My mistake, I didn't realize", instead you demand an apology when you were the one in the wrong, going so far as to accuse the editor of "moral cowardice" if they don't issue this unnecessary apology to you? David's apology was sincere, not grudging, it was simply not unconditional, it was accompanied by still-important context about how you're responsible for the edits you make and that being ignorant about the content you're taking responsibility for is not not a particularly good excuse. Rewriting a false claim may seem be an innocent mistake made in good faith, but it's still a mistake that you need to learn from. You should not be loudly and proudly demanding that others apologize to you while declaring your ignorance as if that's some sort of good thing, and rejecting all feedback and being hostile. Clearly you should be listening and learning, not demanding that editors "not lecture an experienced editor". You don't know how to post diffs and you don't even know how to properly reply on a talk page, I've had to repair your comments here. You're clearly not as experienced as you think you are. You need to start collaborating in good faith, and that means heeding advice and warnings, or you're going to end up blocked. Competence and effective communication is required. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  Add to this that the subsequent exchange isn't even the original conversation on David J Johnson's page, but the second, after he removed the first, in which he also repeatedly asked Neilinabbey to stop posting to his talkpage, which they explicitly refused to do. And there's also the ranting at Acroterion's page, which isn't a good look. If Neilinabbey isn't willing to drop this, a boomerang is merited. Grandpallama (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I asked Neilinabbey nicely to stop. They aren't listening, and they appear to expect to be able to dictate terms to other editors. Added to that, DJJ is experiencing health problems, and really doesn't need this kind of harassment right now. Acroterion (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Wow, I didn't even see those. I thought we were bordering on a boomerang even without that additional context, and that just makes it all the worse. I agree with Acroterion characterizing this as harassment as well. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

My wife has just got me out of bed re: the above. I was not aware that Neilinabbey had posted here - as they are required to do. My original intention was to stop incorrect information still being added to the page, just because it did not fit with Neilinabbey's version of text. I have apologised if I caused any distress and that apology was sincere, although I still feel that it is better to correct info before changing to an individual's concept of correct English. This issue has gone on for far too long and it seems that it has been blown-up out of all proportion. Regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I have clearly been tried and found guilty, but let me at least put forward my case.

This argument started with an edit to the article on Rockall, which read: Rockall is an uninhabitable granite islet which the United Kingdom claims is within its exclusive economic zone situated in the North Atlantic Ocean. It is claimed by the United Kingdom as its territory."

I felt this did not read very well, and so amended it to: "Rockall is an uninhabitable granite islet situated in the North Atlantic Ocean. The United Kingdom]] claims that Rockall lies within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and is a UK territory."

I subsequently received an aggressive message from David J Johnson saying "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Rockall, you may be blocked from editing.

Now, my edit may not have corrected information I did not know was incorrect, but that does not make it vandalism; nor did I deliberately or otherwise introduce incorrect information, the information was already in the article. I merely made change to improve how the article read, and that is not vandalism. The edit was, to any reasonable person, clearly a 'good faith' edit. I therefore left a message - an angry one, I admit, due to the nature of DJJ's message and the threat to block me - on DJJ's Talk page. In the meantime, he re-edited the Rockall page with the comment "Revert nonsense" (although in fact, my edit remains substantially in place as the wording of the current version of the article, so was hardly nonsensical). There then followed the numerous comments you are aware of (in of which, incidentally, DJJ accused me of "lecturing other editors" - this was a demand he made of me, not one I made of him, as one of the posts above falsely claims).

I subsequently noticed that DJJ has been handing out a lot of warnings and cautions - five cautions and nine warnings in the last six days alone. While some of these were clearly justified, others - including, but not confined to, mine - really were not, as the edits were not vandalism and no threat of blocking was justified. A simple reversion of these edits with the comment "reverting a good-faith edit" would have sufficed, and in these circumstances, accusations of vandalism and threats of blocks are aggressive and unnecessary. That is what got me so riled. I freely admit that I have been more angry over this than perhaps I should have been, but in years of editing Wikipedia articles I have made just a fraction under 2,000 edits and never once have I been accused of vandalism or threatened with being blocked. To issue such threats in the circumstances shown, as DJJ did, is not "collaborating in good faith" to use the words of one of the posts above, so I believe I am right in saying that he needs to calm down too and stop issuing such threats willy nilly. Also, the fact I wanted to check how to use diffs correctly before applying them does not invalidate the edits I make, it simply shows that I have not had to use diffs before. I would also add, as it's been mentioned above, that I am also suffering from a serious health problem, one for which I am unable to get the urgent treatment I need due to COVID; I have also lost my entire surviving family in the last nine months as well as my job and income, so I also do not need this aggravation; I just choose not to make a thing of thing of this information on my Wikipedia page.Neilinabbey (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Boomerang Since they appear unwilling to drop this, or listen to other editors, or provide the diffs of the behavior they claim, or even understand the inappropriateness of their own behavior, Neilinabbey should be formally warned by an admin that any future instances of their non-collaborative behavior and aggressive responses to other editors (a quick look at the history of their talkpage, and of the sections they have deleted, shows this has been an ongoing problem for years) will result in a block, and this should be closed. Grandpallama (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a case of being unwilling to drop this - I am very happy to do so, want to do so, and made it clear that I do not need this hassle - but I am allowed to put forward the case for what I initiated on this page, that's only natural justice! And one incident five years ago, when I was attacked for making legitimate amendments, does not constitute "an ongoing problem for years". I have accepted that my response was inappropriate, but it seems the fact that I was the one initially messaged in an over-aggressive way is being continually overlooked or ignored.Neilinabbey (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It has not been overlooked or ignored. 'You already received an apology. You have declared it "grudging" for no discernible reason, and are still dragging this out. Just stop responding or else the boomerang is going to land. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment please close the thread. Vikram Vincent 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Kjgm

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

---

• Kjgm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tox (protocol) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jami (software) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I attempted to send this to AIV, but it got no response and went stale. User:Kjgm's only actions have been to add a hoax to articles. The two main articles are Tox (protocol) and Jami (software). His claims are that Tox is developed by "Tox,Inc" and founded by a man named Augusto (diff diff) and Jami is either developed by "Jami,Inc" or the previous "Tox,Inc" and founded by the same Augusto (diff diff diff). Looking at both subjects' home pages quickly shows that these claims are false. Tox's about page shows that it is a free and open source project developed by volunteers and is not a company or any other legal organization. This press release on Jami's site clearly shows that it was developed by Savoir-faire Linux. Neither site mentions Augusto. He has been previously blocked for this and has received plenty of warnings, but shows no hint at stopping. Would an admin mind stepping in? Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 13:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Could be worth a block to get the user to talk. But I really don't think there's any good faith here. This has all the hallmarks of a student putting his or a friend's name into an article as a gag. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive move / delete attempts

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

---

• Oliver Emanuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cover page/temp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kavex98162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 82.132.219.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Due to intervening edits, I can't rectify this: Cover page/temp should be moved back to Oliver Emanuel, and User:Kavex98162 / User:82.132.219.153 asked to stop their disruptive editng. If there is an issue with the article, there are other means to solve this. Their whole editing career has been one of problems so far. Fram (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and the IP from editing so we can get this tidied up without interference. I'm seeing a lot of stuff revdelled, and some stuff they posted at WP:BLPN appears to have been oversighted, so there's obviously some sensitivity about what they've been doing. The page move history is a little complicated - moves aren't my forte and I only have a few minutes, would someone else be able to put things back the way they're meant to be? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Page 1/temp should probably be deleted, R3 possibly? I think Cover page/temp and Oliver Emanuel can just be pageswapped, and the Cover page/temp probably qualifies as another implausible redirect. The history looks more confusing than it actually is, because the editor tried to remove the redirect, not realising that they can't suppress it, by creating Page 1/temp. A pageswap should do it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (talk)

Thank you all. Fram (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

LTA block neded

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

---

Pcrowz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Long-Term-Abuse. Please nuke the creations and don't forget to revisionDelete all edits. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Nationalist POV pushing, personal attacks and accusations of vandalism by Friendly Batman

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

---

Friendly Batman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly called the edits of other editors vandalism. For example this, this, and this. The latter diff is best viewed at this section of the article. They replace what appears to be well referenced content (I have no prior history with the article) with completely unreferenced claims, including BLP violating claims that a two living historians have engaged in dishonest scholarship, a claim they repeat several times here on the article's talk page. Due to me removing the word "decisive" from multiple infoboxes (Template:Infobox military conflict says not to use it) they made this comment of You have been vandalizing all the battle pages of Hindu as well as Indian victories. IMO you are some islamist who is vandalizing factual analysis based information/article accroding to your own ideological inclination, despite being told previously not to refer to edits as "vandalism". FDW777 (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You can see their response to this report here, Certain content moderators who are radicals ideologues and have Pro islamists views are not allowing academics/historians to fix the factual errors related Hindu history as well as Indian history. They have been vandalising and deleting factual information on several battles involving Hindu kings & India and pushing pro islamist narrative. Speaks for itself. FDW777 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I find this diff as well as this diff the most disturbing. It's clear that Friendly Batman has removed referenced content and replaced it with unreferenced content. I also take note of the personal attack that was made in response to a discussion regarding the article, where Friendly Batman does not acknowledge the issues being raised, but some possible "typos" with their edits - which is clearly not the issue. I've partially blocked Friendly Batman from the Battle of Talikota article for two weeks. I'll leave the user unblocked from the article's talk page, so that they can contribute and make positive discussion if they wish. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

POV Pushing Issue in Macedonian history/political 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.

---

• Forbidden History (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all,

So, a couple of weeks back, User:Jingiby made an article on the Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour (a statute enacted in Macedonia just after WWII against Bulgarian sympathizers in the country). Not long after, they submitted it to DYK, which is how I became involved as it was the QPQ submission I reviewed for my own article submission to DYK. I also watch-listed the article, since I often do that for things I end up passing at DYK. Anyways, not long after that point, User:Forbidden History found the article and began making large changes, with edit summaries like

"Inserted the image of the statute (there is no Law), translation of the statute, official census results (that proves that this whole article is driven by propaganda) and added a Bulgarian source - historian that claims that it is nothing but propaganda."

I ended up reverting most of the changes and began engaging with Forbidden History on the talk page along with Jingiby. Things haven't gone much better since then, with repeated reversions of Forbidden History's additions by myself and other users, including User:SeriousCherno, and with Forbidden History then going on to add in some sort of census numbers on Bulgarians for some reason. Presumably as some sort of representation that Bulgarian population numbers went up, so no persecution happened? Along with an addition to the third paragraph there in the lede that seems to be some sort of "Bulgaria did bad things too" sort of random inclusion. I've tried to explain both OR and Synth on the talk page, but that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Forbidden History also hit 5 reverts today the 11th, but I felt like there was a bigger ongoing issue here that the 3RR board won't be fixing, since they would likely just return after any block time period. The article was eventually protected by Darkwind today (thank you) to prevent more chaos from happening. Any suggestions on what to do here? I would like to remove the random census addition from the article, among other fix-ups, but that would require unprotecting it and that would probably be a bad idea at the moment. Silverseren^C 06:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I have notified Jingiby and Forbidden History. Along with SeriousCherno due to my inclusion of them above. Silverseren^C 06:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that "forbidden history" sounds a lot like "truth" and WP:OWB #72 comes to mind. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: From this article history, I see Silver seren, Jingiby, and SeriousCherno (and other contributors) working collaboratively on the article and Forbidden History seems determined to disrupt the process based on a POV, including edit warring on multiple occasions. Tag bombing an article repeatedly that is under active improvement rather than using the talk page is disruptive imo. Talk page comments such as this, this are uncivil, show clear POV and and hostility. They posted a clearly disruptive PROD when the consensus was against them. I don't see how Forbidden History could become a positive contributor to this article given the history. The article is now protected so no one can edit it; since Forbidden History is at the root of the edit warring, they have completely disrupted the article improvement. The edit history at Drama uprising, Bitola inscription, Mirče Acev shows the same conduct.   // Timothy :: talk  07:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I would really like to get involvement of another Administrators, to see what's going on with the Cited sources by Jingiby (sources 1,2,3,4,6 and 7-none of them stand for what they are quoted). What SilverSeren, tries to defend the Bulgarian POV about the Census table results is definitely a valid point, to show the percentage of Bulgarian minority developing in post war Macedonia-since the article claims that ethnic cleansing was happening there, that Macedonian people were forbidden to declare themselves as Bulgarians (and that is why there are no Bulgarians in Macedonia). Then the article continues with mixing the trialed collaborators of the occupiers by the Court quoted in the article, with the trials of the Macedonian people sentenced by the Primary Courts. I added a Bulgarian historian as a source that also claims that none of this happened, and I'm here accused by SilverSeren, that I didn't allow those people to change those facts and push their own POV. In fact I was the one that send messages to SilverSeren, but he didn't replied to none of them (that tells how much he wanted to contribute in solving the problems), but obviously tendentiously attacked me here-there is no balance in the article, nor NPOV - if editors like SilverSeren, SeriousCherno or Jingiby are constantly deleting cited sources that are proving that those events are not black and white as they are presenting them in the article. Three persons are deleting cited facts (which is vandalism) and I'm the only one editor that is working to write the other side of the story (so, yes 3 persons x 3 reverts might come up to 9, if you gather more Bulgarian editors to dominate on the article to push their POV and deploy your edit warring to 3 times on each of you and on the other side I need to revert them, that doesn't make you innocent, but an organizer of edit warring and POV pushing vandalism). I will take all the consequences that you might find me guilty of, but please check the whole article starting from it's name "Law of..." - there wasn't any Law but a "Court of..." (equal to Military court-Tribunal). In an article in which an editor claims that people were not allowed to present declare their ethnicity it is more than valid to include a census result done by ethnicity-and if that not copes with their sources (which are imaginary by their own Bulgarian Historian), how can that be my fault for preventing the deletion of such source? Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Hello everybody, In my opinion, the user Forbidden History systematically disruptes some of the rules of Wikipedia, especially concerning WP:RS; WP:OR and WP:BIAS. Although many editors, including me and even administrators, tried to explain to him that he is not always right, and how to edit correctly, he continues to do whatever he wants, without heeding the advice he receives. In my opinion, his usual agenda is "I am right" and "the others are wrong". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingiby (talk • contribs) 08:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I share similar concerns as the comment above, based on my interaction with the same user on the talk page of Bitola inscription.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, everything has already been pretty much highlighted. Forbidden History likes to add information that is not directly supported by sources, then spamming the revert button to prevent any changes or improvements to the article that he doesn't approve of. To add to this, it is obvious from his edit history that he is not here to improve Wikipedia but instead to push a POV. I tried to calm down the situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SeriousCherno#Law_for_the_Protection_of_Macedonian_National_Honour but to no noticeable effect. --SeriousCherno (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Any admin is welcome to issue a topic ban here per WP:ARBEE as Doug Weller provided the necessary notice less a year ago. Ideally, this would be at WP:AE, though... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone still explain what was that notice was in a first place?I received the same day I joined Wikipedia? First was attempt of Jingiby to frighten me that I have joined Wikipedia, and one hour after him, Doug Weller send that notice. The editor Jingiby is "welcoming" all the Macedonian editors with his bullying way, you can see more of that here and here, and here, and here, and here, and here...I can find tons more, same repetitive bullying action towards every newcomer on Wikipedia which is totally against WP:BITE, but yet he is still allowed to do it for several years and not sanctioned for it. His acting of WP:OWNERSHIP, on every History article related on Macedonian history, doesn't seem to apply to him and he still acts like every article belongs to him. Not to talk about edit warring and vandalism (deleting well cited sources).Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Forbidden History: we're referring specifically to this notice [367]. I suggest you re-read it carefully. Regardless of what Jingiby may be doing elsewhere, the alert was clearly appropriate as you are consistently editing in that area and it was given by a neutral admin anyway. As the alert explains, the area you are editing in is one rife with problematic behaviour including from new editors and so we are a lot stricter in enforcing behavioural norms and editor limitations. If you want to continue to edit in that area, you need to obey such norms and limitations. If you do not, you will be prevented from editing in that area. If Jingiby's behaviour is really so bad I don't understand why you don't just behave properly. Then perhaps we'd be discussing Jingibu's behaviour rather than yours. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi,Nil Einne - thanks for involving in. That is one of the things that I just got pointed out by someone, initially this Admin report is for totally different thing, so since everybody started throwing here everything, I also tried to show what the editor Jingiby is doing. And once again, you are pointing out a diff, created two hours after I logged in for the first time in my life on Wikipedia - what possibly have I did wrong by entering on Wikipedia? My first activities are on Talk Pages first, then on one article, you can see here. Maybe you forgot how's the feeling entering somewhere for the first time and receiving a Warning sign (first by Jingiby-accusing me of having multiple accounts), after an hour someone an Important Notice sign...In fact you can see how that resulted-of me being inactive from that day till October-so, I guess someone should take care of the "welcoming board bullier" as well. Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

""@Forbidden History: it's not surprising that you were asked about any prior accounts given your good knowledge of Wikipedia markup you showed in your first few edits, even if this one was a bit bizarre. But you caught that and fixed it in your next edit. Anyone seeing those would think you had prior experience. I don't know what you don't understand about the notice I gave you and it's a concern that you didn't try to find out if you didn't understand it. You got it simply because you were editing in the area. As for the links you show above, they seem to go to problematic editors, eg this one[368] where text and source were reverted on the basis the text wasn't in the book. Well, it is, I just checked. This editor[369] that you replied to doesn't seem new to me and reverted large chunks of sourced text (no comment on the quality, but at least some was sourced) When this was complained about the editor thjreatened to have Jingiby's account suspended. They all seem to have one thing in common besides Jingiby, they are basically single purpose editors who appear just to do a few edits and vanish. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, and yet you are forgetting the fact that those are newcomers that did their first edit and they are not accused of what they edit, but accused of having multiple accounts and doing some coordination in the background? I listed 6 and there are far more on Jingiby list...I don't see a point revitalizing the acts of Jingiby. Thanks, --Forbidden History (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Shortly before the registration of this editor, I was warned on my talk page of a special webinar of United Macedonian Diaspora, called Wikipedia warriors: The new frontline of the battle for Macedonia. It was dedicated on my participation in Wikipedia and how to be discredited were commented on all the time. This made me to have reservations about the appearance of this editor. Check the warning on my talk-page here please: How to deal with non-scientific propaganda warriors. Jingiby (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

So, that gives you right to bully every newcomer on wikipedia? to delete sources that are not of your taste? to discredit the authors cited that are not of your taste? or what? There are always two sides of the story as there are good and evil, love and hate, right and wrong...etc. Playing innocent now would not magically free you of your acts. So, now you are going to accuse everyone that are in some kind of organization against you? Is that it? Get serious, thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, the editors you linked to appear to be meatpuppets, and we treat them as socks. I've got no reason to see them as good faith editors intent on following our policies and guidelines, and their disappearance after editing in the topic is evidence enough for me. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors that was bullied by Jingiby-are you accusing me of meatpuppeting now or what? What do you expect from the newcomers to stay on Wikipedia and argue with Jingiby after his accusations towards them minutes/hours after entering for the first time here? I wonder how you know what was Jingiby thinking when bullying them, but OK it is your opinion and I respect it.--Forbidden History (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Were you inspired to come here by something on the Internet that might have been encouraging people to come here? And yes, I certainly expect people to stay, not to simply vanish after 3 or 4 edits. Maybe one, but so many? Doug Weller talk 20:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Doug Weller, for what is worth, my experience with Forbidden History is that the user is extremely conservative in accepting other people’s edits, but quite liberal, when making edits. I moved one (1) sentence from the Bitola inscription main article to the talk page, and was bombarded with comments, which were not quite polite, or even polite at all. For the record, it seems that this user and myself are born in the same country, which today is North Macedonia.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски,Actually it is quite opposite, I didn't delete anything from the article but I added cited source, which was misrepresented by Jingiby and you deleted it. That tells who is conservative and who accepts other people opinion, which is quite opposite of what you described above. So, my experience with you is that you also cannot accept cited sources and you stick to the conservative Bulgarian way of writing the history (POV), a country which even today in 2021 is not accepting the reality around them, that there is Macedonian country with Macedonian nationality. That actually explains where your intolerance towards the editors that try to edit the problematic misrepresentations on Wikipedia, is coming from.Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Forbidden History. It is a perfect illustration of what I have described above. You are right that I don't accept "other people opinion"..., when it is not supported by the facts, or when - as it was the case in the article - it's an opinion of someone about someone else. Aslo, it's not only me, who makes a difference between opinions and facts, it's Wikipedia actually. The rest of your comment above is not relevant for the discussion here, so I am not sure why you included it at all? Although, I have hope other readers will see that it's very easy for you to move into a different territory, away from Wikipedia.Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. As it was already mentioned above Forbidden History's usual agenda is "I am right" and "all the others are wrong". Such behavior is not acceptable. Jingiby (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said In my first comment I will accept all the consequences that Admins thinks I'm guilty of, but I won't accept double standards for you and your crew mates. What makes my "agenda" different then yours.--Forbidden History (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I strongly suggest that you take this to WP:AE. That's the place to ask for a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: as this investigation did not start on my own initiative, I think it is right @Silver seren: to do it, for which I kindly ask. Jingiby (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If someone were to open a new thread on this subject at WP:AE, I think it is reasonable to ask for a topic ban of User:Forbidden History. His name, as well as his edits, suggest he does not intend to edit neutrally on Wikipedia. Though the North Macedonians may have reason to be angry at Bulgarians for some bad things that happened since 1900, it may not be helpful to our articles on related topics to have people who are determined to right great wrongs. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Doug Weller: and @EdJohnston:, I have done so here. I suppose I should also ping @Jingiby: and @SeriousCherno: about doing so. Silverseren^C 22:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Richmondjosephlegisma

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

---

• Richmondjosephlegisma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2021 in Philippine television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user listed above appears to be putting hoaxes in 2021 in Philippine television, some examples are this, this, and this. The user has done this despite multiple warnings. -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 19:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Shift674, per policy written near the top of the page and when creating the report, please notify the user on their talk page. You may also want to provide particular WP:DIFFs for reference. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the 'rerun content' again...which has been a major issue with the Filipino 'years in television' articles, as reruns can be acquired by anyone and air any time, and this simply violates WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It's getting to the point where pending changes may have to be required on this series of articles, as they have been out-of-format with WP:TV's basic standards for years. Eleven sources for an article detailing hundreds of shows is far beyond an acceptable ratio.Nate • (chatter) 21:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Shift674, not only that, he has been also involved in creating nonexistent 'Blocks' of various TV network articles such as this one at Disney XD. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent WP:BLP issues at John Weaver (political consultant)

• John Weaver (political consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John Weaver (political consultant) has been protected, but the issue persists. Continued addition of defamatory content, based on published accusations. Please rev/delete if necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:FD6A:C363:55CE:A99 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you need to be way more specific than this. Provide diffs. You can't expect editors to go digging through all of the article contributions themselves in order to determine the full scope, and the veracity of what you're alleging. People are generally happy to take a look, but this complaint is lacking any details whatsoever. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the is worried about edits like these [370]. Their concerns seem justified since the sources are Twitter and The American Conservative which per WP:RSPS is mostly only suitable for attributed opinions. It's only been a single editor who has caused problems after the semi-protection. User:OnlyFactsMatter a username with great shades of WP:OWB#72 has now been given a BLPDS and other warnings. IMO we can leave that aspect for now. If other auto-confirmed editors come along, make a request at WP:RFPP for protection to be extended to ECP. If OnlyFactsMatter doesn't get the message, report them either to User:Johnuniq if they seem active or at WP:AIV explaining the BLP problem and that they've already been warned. (You could also use WP:ARE or here, but IMO that's the simple violation that hopefully someone at AIV will be willing to act even if it's not technically vandalism.) As for the rev-deletion I'll leave that for admins to decide if it's justified. Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Symmachus Auxiliarus: Here are the diffs from John Weaver (political consultant) that require Wikipedia:Revision deletion due to grossly defamatory BLP violations.

1. 07:18, 10 January 2021 (1)
2. 07:18, 10 January 2021 (2)
3. 17:59, 10 January 2021
4. 00:23, 11 January 2021
5. 03:51, 11 January 2021
6. 04:00, 11 January 2021
7. 13:37, 11 January 2021
8. 21:12, 11 January 2021
9. 18:17, 12 January 2021
10. 18:18, 12 January 2021
11. 03:57, 13 January 2021
12. 04:43, 13 January 2021

NedFausa (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Symmachus' comment, I preferred not to post diffs of potentially defamatory content; there's a case to be made that I could have taken this straight to oversight, but I wished to get a read from administrators. Further, it requires virtually no effort to find the edits, and I trust that an admin will see the issue very quickly. The persistence to include the accusations appears to come from an account with an agenda, namely correcting what they perceive to be a leftist bias on Wikipedia. So there's that. 2601:188:180:B8E0:FD6A:C363:55CE:A99 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Symmachus Auxiliarus, I fully support the IP's perhaps cryptic reference here. IP, maybe it's best to post BLP matters on AN rather than ANI. Thanks for noting it, Drmies (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected; discussion on talk page is ongoing. I'm looking into some of the accounts that added this material. The material is published in sources that, as NedFausa indicated, are at the very least suspect--yet they rise above the blog and tweet level, and for that reason I am not comfortable with revdeletion. IP, you know I don't usually hesitate with pushing that button, but I do here; I would like to hear from other admins: GorillaWarfare, Muboshgu, The Bushranger, I appreciate your opinion. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, thank you. Well explained. If nothing else, I really wanted more eyes on it. 2601:188:180:B8E0:FD6A:C363:55CE:A99 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: In my opinion, edits that include any accusations sourced to tweets should be revision-deleted. If a revision contains information that is entirely supported by The American Conservative or similarly marginally reliable sources, it probably doesn't need revision deletion. I'm going to go ahead and revision delete with a fairly heavy hand, and if any of my deletions need to be reversed we can do that—I don't want to leave BLP content hanging around in the page history while we determine precisely which revisions need removal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, thank you; I appreciate your help here, and I completely agree with the tweet - vs. biased source assessment. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My humble two cents: I'd only use Twitter as a primary source for "X said about X", only if nothing else was available, and mostly for businesses (a lot of racetracks and racing series these days, for instance, only post their news as Tweets, which is a major pain but I digress) and never for BLPs beyond "this person said X[Tweet cite] and there were reactions[in normal sources]". As for the other sources...I wouldn't use them but I probably wouldn't rev-del them unless the source itself removes the formerly-used 'source'. Hope that makes sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The edit warring continues. The content is controversial enough that it needs more reliable sources than The American Conservative. I leave it to admins to figure out how best to handle the content and the accounts that continue to add it. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:KILLERXR

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

Since 4 December 2020 this user has repeatedly made the same edit and then, often immediately after, self-reverted (initially another editor reverted the edits). The edits and the reverts have never been explained. I requested the user stop these edits but they continued (I did not have time to bring them here on that occasion). When they resumed they were warned again but they continued with the edits almost immediately.

The sequence of the edits is as follows:

1. 4 to 7 December 2020: 5 edits, 3 self-reverts: First edit, reverted by another user, same edit amongst other changes, reverted by me, same change, reverted by another user, changed again, self-reverted a minute later, changed again, reverted again a minute later
2. 10 December, reverted by another user, same day, 11 December, reverted same day, 12 December, self-reverted shortly after, 14 December
3. Above edit reverted by another user 4 January 2021, changed a few hours later, reverted same day by me, changed 5 January, reverted 6 January by another user, 7 January, self-reverted a minute later, 11 January, self-reverted immediately, 12 January

In this edit I noted that this user appears to be the same editor as at least 4 blocked accounts. This was their response. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The first and fourth in that list look to be the same? Either way that looks like serial account-creation-and-abandoning which is (IIRC) technically not against policy but is certainly bad optics. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops! Fixed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: IMO the problem remains that User:Kimley Labasan is blocked. Further a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kimley Labasan/Archive shows it's hardly a small number of accounts. Actually I think they will even qualify for WP:3X. I've never been a strong believer in editors coming back, even after a fair while, without dealing with their block/ban first, but this seems to be a very strong case where even those who do support allowing it may have second thoughts. If KILLERXR no longer has access to the Kimley Labasan account, they can make an unblock request on their KILLERXR explaining the situation. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that's a point. Yeah that is not of the good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I've indef blocked due to block evasion. Fences&Windows 17:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)