Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,999: Line 1,999:


:::::::Skip ''what'' discussion, {{u|Shushugah}}? This is not a discussion. Have you seen anybody respond to my numerous posts? Except in wise guy style banter? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 23:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Skip ''what'' discussion, {{u|Shushugah}}? This is not a discussion. Have you seen anybody respond to my numerous posts? Except in wise guy style banter? [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 23:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::If I'm slow to respond I'm cooking din-din. (Salmon.) [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 23:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


*'''Support''' per Bus stop. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 23:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per Bus stop. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 23:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:37, 17 February 2021

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries

    User is leaving hostile and uncivil edit summaries and comments. Diffs: [1], edit summaries at [2], [3], [4], [5], and generally at [6] See recent edit summaries re:John Park Lambert

    This type of conduct is one reason good and experienced editors leave Wikipedia.

    Second issue is with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz signature. It violates WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and is cumbersome for editors using screen readers and magnification software, so there is an accessibility issue.

     // Timothy :: talk  13:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I will be the first to admit that in a few of these cases I was too hasty in moving people from Category:Living people to Category:Possibly living people. On of the incidents may come from my strong aversion to using the unreliable IMBd at all. I have resolved to try and show more restraint in this matter. For example in the case of Bernard Cecil Cohen I am not sure I found any clear indication of his still being alive. However I figure someone in his position would have their death reported, and my initial search did not show up anything along those lines, so I left him in Category:Living people. The approach used by the editor in question here to this matter has been singularly unhelpful. The edit summary langauge clearly constitutes attacks on me. The fact that he then doubled-down and claimed "You've already been responsible for one of Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments". The tenor and tone of these comments is just not called for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a moment, I had not even realized the edit summary that is #78 above existed. So I moved someone into the possibly living person category, and it turns out they actually are dead. And for doing this I get insulted for it. That does not seem right at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An admin also needs look at the userbox at the top of their userpage.  // Timothy :: talk  15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      My goodness, you don't say. Their talk page is also ten times the recommended length and is in serious need of archival. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no policy requiring archiving of user talk pages due to length. Beyond My Ken (talk)
      For God's sake no one click here. 71.184.139.127 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There is much about 2014 that was good. That episode was not one of them. Nobody emerged happy with the outcome. If you would like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page archived it would be better if you asked him politely, rather than as a shopping list of complaints at ANI. Cabayi (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Cabayi, unfortunately I was not editing Wikipedia back in 2014, so was unaware of that hoo-ha then. I had no intention of having a shopping list of complaints; that was just one of the first things by which I was struck when I visited their talk page. I am well aware of what BMK has pointed out; I had replied to it but that reply was caught up in a RevDel. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To note: HW is under a community-imposed sanction "...Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block." See here. It dates from 2016, but has never been revoked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me make a few points clear at the outset:
      • I believe John Pack Lambert lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia.
      • I believe John Pack Lambert's editing practices are unacceptably lazy.
      • I believe John Pack Lambert does not behave honestly in disputes
    • And there is strong evidence supporting my beliefs. There is no point in euphemizing. Civility policy does not prohibit making statements like these unless they cannot be supported by evidence. And the evidence here is clear and substantial.
    About eight years ago, John Pack Lambert was responsible for what is probably Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments, covered in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books, resulting in criticism from prominent American writers like Joyce Carol Oates and Amy Tan, ending up with sustained public criticism of Wikipedia sexism. James Gleick, "an American author and historian of science whose work has chronicled the cultural impact of modern technology . . . [and] has been called 'one of the great science writers of all time'", wrote a piece entitled "Wikipedia’s Women Problem", where he concluded that "[A] single editor brought on the crisis: a thirty-two-year-old named John Pack Lambert living in the Detroit suburbs. He’s a seven-year veteran of Wikipedia and something of an obsessive when it comes to categories".
    When I referred to these events yesterday, Lambert accused me of telling "outright lies" and "attacking lies", claiming or insinuating I'd made statements which I plainly hadn't. He also falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. It's rather petty, but Lambert has a pattern of using spelling errors to indicate. He waged a lengthy vendetta against novelist Amanda Filipacchi (who had criticized sexism on Wikipedia in a New York Times op ed), incorrectly spelling her name over and over. See, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Lambert refuses to discuss any of the substantive issues related to the deficiencies of his editing [7]. That's a greater breach of civility than I'm accused of, as well as a substantive violation of editing policy. It's far more destructive than occasional sharp language, at least to people who care about the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as opposed to those who see themselves as hall monitors in a gigantic RPG.
    Let's talk about the substantive issues. This dispute centers on BLP editing and categorization. BLP policy states that "Editors must take particular care" while editing BLPs. Lambert doesn't take "particular" care. He barely takes any care at all. He's on a jihad to reduce the number of BLPS on Wikipedia [8]. There's no policy reason for doing this, and Lambert's pattern, once again, is rapid fait accompli editing, behavior that Arbcom has recognized as disruptive. See also the last paragraph here [9].
    Rather than taking particular care, Lambert was blazing through BLPs (selected by birth year), spending only seconds on each. He wanted to find excuses to remove the "Living people" category, without regard to whether there was any real reason to alter the tag. The standard is that the tag should not be changed unless there is some "documentation" that the person was alive in the last decade. Lambert, however, has invented his own, narrower standard, that the article itself include a sourced statement that the subject had done something notable in the past decade. This is utterly groundless, and functions to make Wikipedia less accurate. As I responded to Lambert yesterday, "Any documentation that indicates the subject has been alive within the last decade prevents application. It doesn't have to be in the article, or even be related to something notable enough to be in the article. A photo of them at their 75th high school reunion in their local paper would be good enough. It would be time- and effort-wasting to require that editors prove that elderly article subjects have done something noteworthy at an advanced age to prevent them from being classified as only possibly alive". Lambert has refused to discuss the issue.
    Let's take a look at just some of the articles involved:
    • Ann Turner Cook - Evidence that Lambert is taking no care at all. The first page of a simple Google search turns up five press reports of the subject's birthday celebration in November 2020. Another editor beat me to reverting this.
    • Christian Azzi - Google search turns up an obituary on page 1.
    • Gene Barge - IMDB listing, already in article, shows multiple credits in recent years. Google search shows 2018 newspaper interview as well as several recent video interviews.
    • Robert Basmann - Simple Google search turns up active university faculty listing as well as a 2017 birthday festschrift.
    • Giotto Bizzarrini - Qualifying source already in article.
    • Albert Brenner - Simple Google search turns up 2018 Variety profile on page 1.
    • Peter Whittle - Source in article includes a 2017 video interview.
    Looking at articles with primarily English-language sources, my sampling indicates that John Pack Lambert has an error rate of about 50% in reviewing these articles. That's unacceptable in any context, but especially in editing BLPs. It's obvious from the minuscule time he spends on each BLP and the ease with which the appropriate documentation can be found that he's making no effort whatever to reach an accurate result. That's disruptive behavior and should be sanctioned.
    So that's my position. Lambert is deliberately trying to reduce the accuracy of biographical articles because of his peculiar belief that most biographies don't belong in an encyclopedia. And the diabolical Mr Wolfowitz says that this is evidence that he really isn't competent to edit here. But, you know, WOLFOWITZ BAD is one of the Secret Pillars of Wikipedia.
    I'd also note that this dispute was escalated immediately to ANI without ant attempt to discuss with me, after Johnpacklambert had expressly refused to participate in my attempts to discuss the substantive issues. Under standing principles, that would bring him under direct scrutiny. But, hey, we're going to bring up the same complaints about The Big Bad Wolfowitz that have been rejected over and over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal (re:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

    Based on:

    • The diffs in the original post
    • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's respose above which doubles down on insulting/uncivil attacks against another editor while attempting to justify their behavior and showing no understanding of the problem.
    • Additional reports of problematic behavior since community imposed sanctions were applied (examples provided above by BMK).
    Comment: This is an outright falsehood. BMK identified no such "examples". BMK simply posted a search for my username over the drama boards, regardless of date, regardless of substance, regardless of outcome. It literally picks up every comment I have ever made to these boards, every 3RR report I filed, every time I was pinged to add a comment. A similar search for BMK's username produces more than twice as many results. Now tell me why I should afford good faith to this falsehood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I propose that the indefinitely imposed community sanctions warning (recorded here) be applied, "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block."

    I also propose that their signature be changed per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and WP:POLEMIC and that an admin remove the threatening userbox at the top of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's userpage.

     // Timothy :: talk  07:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. HW may be right about JPL (I've had my own concerns in the past), but that doesn't excuse his behavior here, or his steadily increasingly Not compatible with a collaborative project behavior overall, laced with assumptions of bad faith and casting of aspersions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we need our editors to act like it is one. And the below...thank you for neatly proving my point. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, of course. You don't deny, and you can't deny, that Johnpacklambert's BLP editing is so far below policy standards as to be incompetent. However, you insist that it is uncivil to call an incompetent editor incompetent. It is, however, acceptable for Johnpacklambert to falsely accuse me of lying, because false accusations of dishonesty are civil. You disgrace yourself. You disgrace this project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support warning — I'm tired of mean editors, and our community's long-term tolerance for them. A formal warning is better than nothing. Levivich harass/hound 17:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: Sorry, reading this again, I see I may have misread the proposal. I thought "that the ... warning ... be applied" meant that we log such a warning, not that the editor be blocked. I don't support a block. Given that this logged warning was years ago, I support another logged warning. Levivich harass/hound 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Per proposal, without reservation. The restriction previously imposed was unambiguous. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC) edited 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - HW has been a disruptive influence for quite a while. Personally I would classify him as a net negative to the project. My support for this proposal has nothing to do with his userbox (per El_C), and my !vote does not include approval of the suggestion to remove it. His response to my providing raw data for other editors to consider, and his lashing out at me, are, I'm afraid, entirely typical of this uncivil, non-collaborative person, who (as far as I can tell), never admits to being wrong. I have not looked into HW's wall-of-text complaint about JPL, but even if it's entirely true, it doesn't in any way justify HW's behavior. His sig is a violation of the spirit of WP:POLEMIC and is -- I believe deliberately -- disruptive.
      I suggest that these cumulative factors justify a block of a significant duration, i.e. days, and not hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose "He may be right". No he is right as a cursory look at JPL's editing over even a small period shows. If you look at it over a longer period it just gets worse. JPL is either incompetent and/or lazy in an area where we are required to take extra care. There is plenty of evidence for that. The alternative is that they are not incompetent or lazy and are deliberately flouting various policies and guidelines despite knowing full well what they are. Feel free to pick, because the AGF option here is that they lack the required competence or effort. Levivich it is not mean to tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess. After repeated messes, you waste less time mouthing pointless niceties. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know what you're reading but tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess is not what happened here. There is much more up above. For example, in this thread, HW wrote that JPL falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. Accusing someone of intentionally inserting misspellings into quotations in order to make you look bad, is seriously paranoid. Levivich harass/hound 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      JPL routinely deliberately mis-spells for their own purposes. The alternative is that they are writing out a quotation by hand rather than using copy-paste as normal people do, and inserting their own mis-spellings that they seemingly have no problem spelling at other times. I think the more common explanation is that when people take these petty actions they do it because they are a common troll who likes to be a dick to people. But unlike HW, I am not the target of said petty niggling, so I have a less personal opinion on it. The idea that JPL is accidentally mispelling is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Gotta agree with Levivich -- people do all sorts of weird things (personal favorite example), and retyping quotations by hand seems totally plausible. Like, does JPL not make typos in their own writing, only when quoting other people? I think it would be better to stick to criticisms grounded in actual evidence. --JBL (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally Oppose - Frustration over sloppy editing and calling this out does not justify a block. Not a fan of an indefinite sanction warning over civility from ~5 years ago given the amount of tolerance for other users on this noticeboard. Support shortening link to user page given accessibility concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This does not appear to be a situation where one of them is in the right, and the other is in the wrong. We are faced here with two editors, each problematic in their own way, being problematic against each other. BD2412 T 02:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A fate worse than death...
    • Oppose The problem here is that the category:Living people is fundamentally unverifiable because people may die at any moment and sources about their living status will always be dated. It is logically equivalent to the category:Possibly living people whose name better reflects the inevitable uncertainty about this. Either the two categories should be merged or both deleted. The bickering and busywork will then be reduced and we can focus better on definite facts instead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support- Even if HW is right about JPL's editing (and I think he's exaggerating for dramatic effect) that doesn't excuse the name-calling. But since it's an inclusionist doing the name calling it is impossible that anything will be done about it. Reyk YO! 10:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions. Leaving an uncivil edit summary when another editor decides that a living person is only "possibly living" with no evidence is, if not justifiable, at least understandable. If calling someone's life into question isn't likely offensive to that person, what is? --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think the opposition here is basically trying to give HW a pass on [10] because they do not like JPL's edits. It is possible to disagree strongly with someone's edits without being uncivil; its normal to be civil with people you agree with, civility becomes an issue when you disagree and the stronger the disagreement the more need to pay attention to civility. Hopefully this [11] is not ignored.  // Timothy :: talk  08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The sanction that is indefinite should only be the interaction ban. The warning is a warning and should not mean that HW has been indefinite probation for nearly 5 years. I understand there should be a shorter leash. However, if I gave a final warning template to someone ~5 years ago, I do not expect an admin to block afterwards after I report them for a similar incident today. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If HW has been behaving below CIVIL towards multiple editors recently, that would be justification and those still needs diffs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That, and he didn't just make a random personal attack. He made the uncivil comment while undoing JPLs edit, which makes for mitigating circumstances. I personally see there is some difference between someone saying bad words in general, and Joe Bloggs, firefighter, saying bad things about the person who set the fire that they are currently putting out at this very moment. --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fireman's job is to put out the fire. If there are things to be said about the supposed perpetrator of the fire, they should be said in a different context, and in the proper manner. Someone just called me a "bozo" in an edit summary. The fact is that I made a minor error, and I has happy to see the error fixed, but not very happy to be called a "bozo" while it was being fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • JPL's edits are problematic and may warrant all kinds of sanctions or whatever, but it doesn't mean they get to be a target for incivility. Wolfowitz is problematic in their own ways; they modified their signature a little bit, but I've always thought that claim incredibly whiny and just totally off-putting. I cannot judge if their incivility was bad enough to be blocked, but I do believe that their signature is disruptive and they should change it. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a renewed warning or short incivility block is all that is called for here. An indefinite block on the basis of a five year old warning seems too harsh. signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that HW has been up on this board for incivility a number of times since that sanction was imposed, but no one seems to have been aware of the sanction. He slipped by on those occasions, which is something he should not be rewarded for. It's not like his sanction is slowly disintegrating over time, it should be as usable now as when it was imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed with BMK. The fact of the matter is that the editing restriction imposed was indefinite and has not been revoked. Just because it's a few years old does not mean it should not be enforced. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support based upon editing history and the fact that there's a clear, logged editing restriction. If editors object to enforcing it, then we should have a discussion about lifting it, but nothing leads to recidivist behavior and chronic problems like setting clear restrictions for problematic behaviors and then just shrugging when the restricted editors ignore said restrictions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose messing with HW's signature; support lifting the absurd editing restriction misguidedly levied upon HW for calling out glaring CIR issues when he saw them. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticizing a series of problematic edits involving BLP articles. That is not uncivil. Johnpacklambert by his own admission was disregarding available online sources, and making arbitrary decisions on who is alive or not. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade: "It's OK to let others know when you think they're acting inappropriately". Dimadick (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a huge fan of expecting civility. And HW's comments aren't at that bar. I'm not certain anything less then this will get them to pay attention. But while it could be said much better, is anything said by HW inaccurate? We appear to have an editor who has a very high error rate. Calling them out on that seems like the right thing to do. HW hurts their (important) message here. A calmer approach might have resolved the problems by now. I'm not sure what the right next step is--this proposal seems like it's likely to be used as a hammer. But I don't see evidence that anything less will get HW to pay attention. (I'm neutral on this for now, mostly just musing and seeing where I get to as I type this.) Hobit (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose sanctions if the main or only complaint is reminding John Pack Lambert via edit summaries that his playing around with people's alive status is utterly incompetent. Further, I would WP:BOOMERANG this and ban JPL from changing such categories, given his longstanding display of incompetence in doing so. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Insurrectionists' gallows

    Let me preface this by saying that, at the time of writing this, I have only glanced at this complaint. That I am not familiar with the main participants or their respective histories (I mean: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and John Pack Lambert — I, of course, know and am fond of TimothyBlue). I have less than a passing familiarity with this dispute (seemingly over categories, one of the things I know least about on the project), and I am not committing to reviewing it further by virtue of this comment. So, with that out of the way, here we go. Above, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticized that the top of their user page features Image:Tombstone courthouse gallows.jpg, with the caption: This user believes that Donald Trump gives aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. I'd like to strongly disagree with anyone (TimothyBlue?) who wishes to censor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz from displaying this custom userbox, for whatever reason. Don't want to be associated with a gallows? Don't have your most ardent supporters build an actual gallows in the midst of an insurrection which you are accused of inciting (Mr. Trump). I don't feel that this is an unreasonable position to adopt. It is not incitement, on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz part, nor is it a BLP violation against Trump himself — who, btw, I'd love to see sue Wikipedia over something like this, even though the likelihood of that happening pretty much approaches zero. Anyway, the point is that I believe this is still within the bounds of acceptable userpage political expression (for the times). I realize the very notion of userpage political expression itself is something many find distasteful, even anathema —my own userpage (last meaningful change circa 2008) included— but I would ventrue to remind participants that it is still very much an allowed practice. Jeez, sorry for the length of this. I imagined this much shorter in my head. El_C 15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Whoa, on closer look, it looks like AHullaballoo Wolfowitz actually added that userbox in 2018 (diff)! Which makes them some sort of a prophet...? El_C 15:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh maybe Wolfo only has 25 Minutes to Go...! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered why that was being brought up myself; concur with El_C on this. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I confess to being quite perturbed by that argument. It is one thing to put "this user supports the Democratic/Republican Party" or "this user believes that Reagan/FDR was our lord and saviour" etc, but it is another thing entirely to have a set of gallows next to an accusation of treachery directed to a politician. It seems very much to be a veiled death threat and perhaps analogous to a userbox calling Bush Jr. or Obama a war criminal with a noose next to their photo. Carte blanche should not be given for such inflammatory content on userpages. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to include material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdrqaz, well, I, for one, argue that it is more likely to bring the project into disrepute if we were to censor it. At this moment in time, I find it an arguably relevant political statement rather than a veiled death threat — though, oddly, I would not have thought this to be so in 2018. Talk about unintended consequences! Anyway, the reason for that, again, is because of the actual Capitol gallows, whose significance should not be understated. It makes the usage of a gallows fair game when it comes to Trump "giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States." Because that could be understood in the sense of him having incited insurrectionists to overthrow a branch of the US government. Insurrectionists who also built a gallows on-site. Hope that makes sense. El_C 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I am aware of the new context behind the photo. But given that (as you pointed out) the userbox was added some years ago, that doesn't make it retroactively okay. As far as I'm aware (of course feel free to correct me) there is no grandfather clause for such material on userpages. The soapbox requirement applies to user pages too. Political statements, however relevant, should be confined to Twitter and Facebook than here on Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdrqaz, I think you got it backward. Unless I fix my broken time machine, we can't go back to the past to remove it then. But it's fine now. As for political statements, in general, that is a wider policy matter. It may be frowned upon by many, but it is still generally allowed. Where the line is drawn there is, of course, subject to debate, as it always has been. El_C 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Our interpretations of the guidelines and that userbox obviously differ. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdrqaz, it's all good. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for closure

    Given that this discussion is close to being automatically archived, I request that an uninvolved administrator determines what consensus (if any) has emerged from the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    An additional comment came in not too many hours ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see where someone might think that POTKETTLE was relevant -- even though it's not, because our situations are entirely different, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz being under a civility sanction, whereas I am not -- but "gaming the system" is obviously completely irrelevant here. If that's what he's on about he's grasping at straws. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, they are different. You have been substantially protected and largely avoided any perm sanctions despite your actions. HW has been fucked repeatedly. The argument that they should be punished more severely while simultaneously getting away with similar is not just pot-kettle, its amoral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been "protected" and he's been "fucked repeatedly", huh? You might want to compare our block logs to see how much I've been "protected".
      In any case, this report, and the proposed sanction, is not about me, it's about HW's continuing incivility while under a civility sanction. I understand that the "whataboutthem"-ism of pointing at someone else is a frequently used tactic to attempt to get the heat off oneself -- one often used in contemporary politics to create false equivalences and confuse the public and the press (which should know better) -- but such sleights-of-hand are rarely successful, even when repeated by enablers with hidden prejudices, unless the audience for them is extremely gullible, a category I do not place the Wikipedia community in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Deepfriedokra

    • Really, there are points in this "discourse" where y'all should be ashamed of yourselves, or run for Congress. Just go back over what's been written and consider how it would go down if written by someone else.
    • Request for closure? I don't see a consensus to sanction HW at this juncture. The fallacious arguments, hyperbole, wikilawyering, and false analogies (0n both sides) not withstanding, despite being presented with great gusto and enthusiasm. Some of y'all need to take some calming breaths and regain your composure. Y'all are really great people and great editors when you are calm.
    • However. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is really no excuse for the level of harshness in your interactions. Do we need a list of people to IBAN you from interacting with? Were it JPL alone you've been rude to, an IBAN would be the answer. How do we stop your behavior? I'm a shoot-from-the-hip kinda guy, and am ready to Indef you right now based on your behavior. Cutting through all the sophistry, that's what it comes down to. I await your reply.
    • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz That signature is really disruptive and offensive. Don't you think it is time to move past that? As to the political screed on the user page. If we took all of those down at once, the servers would overload. My opinion is they have no place on Wikipedia, but we let established users get away with that sort of thing. I question whether the community would tolerate it if it were pro-Trump.
    • I see no consensus for any action, and that is one of the many failings of this venue. Partisanship dictates outcomes rather than fairness and objectivity. I'll leave it for another admin to look at. I cannot and will not act unilaterally. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of bad faith and POV derailing

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

    BunnyyHop has a long history of POV pushing sections. On the previous ANI he was warned if he keeps adding POV sections, action would be taken against him. He has not stopped. He has tried add a random paragraph quote in Wikipedia's voice, I reverted these edits as they were disruptive. At which point he accused me of being on a "anti-communist crusade" completely unrelated to the article, assuming bad faith, and attempting to derail the conversation and making useful discussion impossible. BunnyyHop also has prior disruption on the article Slavery, removing sections he doesn't like and tagging them as minor to avoid it being reviewed. BunnyyHop does so here and here. This is not BunnyyHop's first time of trying to derail conversations with accusations of bad faith, as shown by his talk page. Des Vallee (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a side note - I really suggest you to take a look at WP:FALLIBLE. Anyways, even the diffs used here date back to last year, so it's not even what me and the other editor were discussing. There's a long history between me and this user, leading even to the filling of a big WP:ANI report. Related to this report, provocative replies such as «[y]our complete waffle of sources and POV sections aren't allowed» (while these were not even my sources!) and «[y]ou have tried three times to add POV pushing sections into articles and all have failed, every time» made me reply sourly, which I apologised shortly after and opened a report on dispute resolution (as suggested in the ANI report). PS: Apparently the paragraph being disputed here was not even given a diff to. Diff. An ANI is really not warranted here if one is looking to sort this out. I opened a section on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the afterwards opening of this ANI report closed it --BunnyyHop (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the first time you have done this, you did it here, and warned here. You did it when you were reported for edit warring calling, and were warned for it here, you constantly did it at Marxism-Leninism. You also generally are un-cooperative and keep adding POV pushing sections, and editing only off your to push your POV. Des Vallee (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tired of this stalking, following me and reverting what I do for no valid reason. You yourself stated here that you would continue to follow my edits, as well as that I'm «an extreme waste of time [...] as it is clear his only goal is to push his POV, and a toxic one at that [...]». I'm pretty sure you didn't assume good faith. I reached an agreement with the other user until you came and disrupted everything with aggressive provocations trying to get a reaction, and I was too dumb and fell for that. --BunnyyHop (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple other editors have found you to be disruptive, ever since you started removing chunks of articles and tagging them as minor, or adding POV language. You have edit warred with so many users, added POV text to articles and wanted to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes and the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems" to articles. It was only after I pointed out what you are doing that you retracted your comments. As shown previously you have a long, long history of these actions and I don't think you will change, because well it's been over 4 months and you haven't. Des Vallee (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, Des Vallee's and BunnyyHop's behavior is essentially equivalent from opposite POVs. The diffs you provide are BH removing unsourced info from Slavery article about Soviet Camps. Without sources describing Gulag as a form of slavery, the content violates WP:V and WP:OR. Even Nazi concentration camps as a form of slavery is complicated, see Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps#Slavery analogy and I would NOT support adding them to the Slavery article without qualification. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    buidhe, right, if there are no reliable sources linking to slavery it can't be included, despite any opinion editors might have (which holds no water whatsoever). I made concessions with the other editor to include it on the basis of the opinion of one scholar - but is it enough to not be considered WP:FRINGE? And still - even if we have the Gulag sorted out, there are another 2 countries there. This thread closed the one on dispute resolution, what steps should we take now? --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unrelated to this article in specific, there was a clear avoidance (diff) to discuss the changes added here, purposely missing the point(I underlined that the conservative turn in the paper was referred to Maoism and this was interpreted as "completely ignoring" the citation). Remember that WP:CIR, and this is not the first time Des Vallee shows trouble in basic reading comprehension. Anyways - related to the first diff, it was reverted for "lacking consensus" yet there was no response by anyone to the section I opened in the talk page Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies, not even this editor who reverted the edit for "no consensus". Note what content is disputed here - Cultural conservatism in the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party. --BunnyyHop (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many different pages are these two feuding on? I’m familiar with them going back and forth at Chinese Communist Party. Normally I’d recommend a voluntary interaction ban in lieu of blocks or other bans, but it seems that BunnyyHop also has an ongoing and partially overlapping feud with at least one other editor so that might not even be an option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're referring to My very best wishes, I don't consider it a feud, I don't have anything to complain about him, even though it's clear we as editors have very different personal POVs. --BunnyyHop (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is no hard feelings on my part. However, your editing is a matter of concern. For example, here you followed me on a page you never edited before, only to revert my edit in a matter of minutes. And again [24]. And what was your reason for revert, exactly? According to your edit summary, "I should mention that I'm entirely neutral on this and this revert is purely mediation." What? Now, speaking on the content, you restored text sourced to writings that you did not even bother to check (you can't because these references are in Russian, have no pages and not available on line). Why? Because, as you said in your edit summary, these authors have PhDs? You do not know that. And even if they did, their "candidates of science" diploma would not be accepted as PhD by typical US institutions. Do you even know that students of history departments in places like MGU had a second "secret" degree in "military disinformation"? But most important, you did not check what these authors actually claimed, while just blindly reverting my edit two times because ... you are "neutral". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing I can do but swear that I did not follow you, I follow a lot of pages about Lenin. I had been following that discussion for a while, and I even commented here. There was a lot of accusations and no actual linking to WP:REliable sources, so I didn't give much attention to it. This was reverted because there was no consensus on the talk page to remove it, and content shouldn't be removed just because one can't verify it, hence why I added the (request) quotation template. My opinion was neutral because I wasn't taking any side, just in case it was interpreted as such.
    I have accessed the file, and I'll be posting it on the respective talk page. --BunnyyHop (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: BunnyyHop is 7 months old, with ~1,100 edits and in this short period they have been able to create a great amount of disruption:
    I think this individuals contributions,[25] show they are here to push a personal and postive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about Marxist Leninism. Examples on article and talk pages: Marxist-Leninism, Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, Slavery, User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union Portuguese Communist Party, Anarcho-communism. (See editor history for more).
    They have created Walls of text in their attempts to soften or remove negative content about communism related articles. Talk:Marxism–Leninism is a BunnyyHop wall of text; this is an extreme example of DE TE. Other examples can be found by looking at their contributions, eg: Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union continued in Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour and this ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy.
    They have engaged in edit waring to this end (See block log and edit history) and create timesinks using sematics and word games in discussions in order to push a postive pro-Marxist viewpoinit (See talk pags for Slavery, Soviet democracy, and Marxist-Leninism for examples).
    This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to push a positive representation of communism/Marxism. They should be topic banned from anything having to do with Marxism, communism, socialism, broadly construed.  // Timothy :: talk  21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has already come to an end and the conclusion is very clear: No consensus. Don't try to rebuild it here. Thus, I'm not replying to anything within the scope of slavery. Just a side note: I can't help but notice that those who choose to insist I'm a menace to Wikipedia are those who have an extremely opposed view of communism as an ideology (you yourself stated that bolshevism is the moral equivalent of nazism).
    I don't think asking for sources that link said camp to slavery to justify its inclusion in slavery is an outrageous claim? In fact, it's necessary to not violate WP:OR. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I have never edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests neither Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and its talk page multiple times with POV edits. You are right about Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I intended Portuguese Communist Party. Corrected above.  // Timothy :: talk  23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, just manually checked my contributions (only about the editing part, hah.), I wonder why it's not showing up here? --BunnyyHop (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "No consensus" means, definitionally, that a conclusion was not "very clear". There is no policy against discussing things which previously failed to reach consensus (talk about self-fulfilling prophecies!)
    A majority of editors supported a topic ban then, so why would it not be permissible for them to support one now (especially since much more WP:TE has taken place since then?) jp×g 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Quote from the previous ANI closure: A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI. I don't know why the closer chose to ignore the majority and side with the minority. Typically, we go with a majority in binary decisions unless there are reasons not to.
      The editor is very obviously only here to push their political POV. They also apparently have a serious problem with plagiarism; see the log for Marxism-Leninism: [26] We know this is them from the timing of this and because the main copyvio (all the sciencedirect links) was from the International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, a source they favor on their user page [27] and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism [28] (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: [29] Editing Wikipedia is not a right and competence (including in NPOV) is required. This user is a complete timesink and needs to be separated from the topic area. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think BunnyyHop is taking the wrong lessons from the former ANI post. Instead of viewing it as a close call with a block and changing their ways, they seem to have interpreted it as license to double down on their POV editing.  // Timothy :: talk  07:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go — the same group who was rallying to get me banned is doing the same thing once again, the same arguments are being used once again. And note — I only asked for sources that link labour camps to slavery to avoid WP:NOR, but this is interpreted as pushing a POV. I wonder what would happen if we did the reverse? I publicly state on my talk page my political views to avoid any confusion and to show that I have no problem with it — I'm simply here to improve Wikipedia — but this has caused users that have extreme opisition to it to interpret every edit I do as having some secret motive behind, every edit I do is to "soften" my political POV.
    I am tired of being followed, harassed, provoked and not being assumed WP:GF. When my edits are reverted there's always a personal remark — the ones that led me to reply sourly are really blatant. It's not hard to see my edits were being followed, so that when I reached consensus and edited the page they would be promptly reverted.
    This has a clear goal, however. Those who defended me in the previous ANI will get tired and those who follow me will get what they want, because I too am getting tired of this. Edits being reverted and not being discussed, lack of WP:CIR when they are discussed. See how many times POV push was used in Marxism-Leninism and by whom. Also, the "text wall" (you act like I was the only one engaged in that discussion and that I was alone in defending my arguments) led to a RfC and probably major article restructuring.
    Diffs on how my "POV pushing continued" are non existent however. And yes, paragraphs were added into the article that violated copyright, and although I was not the sole editor involved in them I assume full responsibility for it.
    I would really appreciate some feedback by an unbiased reviewer willing to go through the talk pages of this thread (minus Marxism-Leninism due to its sheer size and uselessness — it's a dispute based on what's the scope of the article) and edit summaries. Realising that this witch-hunt will continue until I get banned probably just killed of any joy I had editing this wiki. Harassment wins, I guess. Won't reply soon, unless obliged to. TimothyBlue, I don't even know which content dispute you're referring to, but whatever. BunnyyHop (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies BunnyyHop (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, talking would be fine, but you continue edit warring on the same page [36] during the standing ANI request about you. This is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Newest example of what I said above: diff. Completely provocative edit summary:

    Just because you feel you know Wikipedia's guidelines doesn't mean you do, trying to override consensus by saying "I am right and this a break in policy therefor I can ignore consensus" without understanding guidelines or consensus one bit isn't going to work

    bold and italic added by me
    Well, what did I do this time? A simple [[ ]] edit, with a little note to the previous edit diff, where I affirmed:

    + [[]]; furthermore, local consensus shouldn't overwrite Wikipedia's guidelines, local consensus shouldn't violate WP:NOR nor WP:V

    Most likely didn't even check first what I edited! Why else would I be accused of "trying to override consensus"? It should be noted that the edit was reverted by the same editor a minute later. diff.
    --BunnyyHop (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by BunnyyHop: I decided to make a proper comment after taking a break from this. This ANI report came only five days after the closure of the previous one. The three diffs provided by Des Vallee when opening this report include one Talk page comment I made on 2 February, and two edits I made on 26 October and 26 December of last year, before the previous ANI report was even started. Then Des Vallee posted an additional three diffs: Two edits I made on 24 December of last year and one warning I received on 1 December. In other words, the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an "anti-communist crusade." I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to "continued POV pushing".

    After that, other editors have essentially repeated the exact same accusations made in the previous ANI report, based largely on my previous edit history from before the last report. I wish to emphasize again that it has been less than a week since the closure of that report. In that time, I have only made 24 article mainspace edits, and 12 of them have been small edits of 50 characters or less. It is true that I am involved in several long-running content disputes, and I have continued to engage with those disputes since the last ANI report. Note that I've had 47 Talk space edits as compared to the 24 in mainspace since the ANI report. I am mostly just trying to resolve the disputes that I was already involved in.

    These other editors continuously accuse me of "POV pushing" for what I consider to be simple engagement in content disputes. All I want is to resolve the several content disputes that I have already been involved in for some time, and then move on. But it seems that my very act of engaging in those disputes is considered "POV pushing".

    I have discussed every edit (in fact, one of the accusations against me is that I discuss too much). I would like to ask my accusers what, in their opinion, it would be necessary for me to do in order to engage in our content disputes without it being POV pushing. It seems to me that their only request is that I simply stop disputing the content they prefer, with nothing else being considered good enough. I think that is self-evidently unreasonable.

    I would also ask everyone reading this to consider the dates on the diffs used to accuse me. I can't go back into the past and undo edits I made in October or December. But for the future, as I said, I wish only to resolve the content disputes I am already involved in and then move on. --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BunnyyHop Stop posting walls of text. This isn't only a month ago you tried to add "The independence of Soviet comrades from clandestine monetary systems", you edit warred on Chinese Communist Party a week ago with three separate editors, you have also doubled down on your POV pushing. You edite based off your POV, you add "accuse" to proven facts, add "quote needed" to text you dislike when there is an inline citation, whitewash text like trying to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes, and the rise of the proletariat". Stop trying to redefine the definition of consensus to "I am going to wear out this conversation with walls of text until you don't respond", stop bringing up peoples positions in conversations, stop trying to poison the wells of discussion, don't tag edits as minor that remove entire paragraphs, stop using POV words like "imperialist" "exploiter" "comrade". Stop soapboxing positions by using quotes to state fringe theories on Stalin. You have constantly been a huge disruption to Wikipedia it's clear your just here to try to spread your agenda. Des Vallee (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BunnyyHop This was the edit but it was already reverted. Des Vallee (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have been trying my best to work with Bunnyyhop, today at [37]. They are still changing text to fit their POV [38] without consensus and contrary to what sources state. This is going on in almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic Ban for articles related to Communism/Marxism/Socialism, in both theory and practice, broadly construed.
    I waited to !vote, I hoped BH would stop, but their POV pushing, source twisting, word games, walls of text, etc, are only getting worse and its getting worse on almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute, not POV pushing. If we aren't discussing this in WP:GF no amount of discussion will solve this. I could do the same thing and ask why are you so reluctant to change it from slave camps to forced labour camps, holding to an interpretation of the text which is different from the one seen in Gulag and in every other academic source. I'll explain it (link):
    On the start of her text, she states «The Gulag was the vast network of labor camps which was once scattered across the length and breadth of the Soviet Union, from the islands of the White Sea to the shores of the Black Sea, from the Arctic circle to the plains of Central Asia, from Murmansk to Vorkuta to Kazakhstan, from central Moscow to the Leningrad suburbs»
    In the same paragraph, she states «But over time, the word has also come to signify the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps»
    In the same paragraph, but later, she says «Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself»
    The text under dispute is «Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet Union created a system of forced slave labor camps called the Gulag»
    Applebaum uses «Gulag» with three meanings: to refer to the camps themselves; to refer to the system of repression; to refer to what she calls "the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties". Between 1930 and 1960, they created a system of forced labor camps, like we can see in Gulag's lead. And this is something so minor - these three meaning's Anne Applebaum gave to the word Gulag are fully quoted just below, as well as Golfo Alexopoulos' - an author which I recommended to add. Even Alexopoulos refers to it as a system of forced labour camps. TimothyBlue, maybe if you didn't have such an intransigent attitude towards me I could've gotten your point sooner. As I come to grasp your side of the argument - she doesn't refer to it with three different meanings, but rather one unified bloc. As a matter of fact, I kind of agree with you now.--BunnyyHop (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban at this point. All the new examples cited in this report are just examples of standard content dispute. TimothyBlue cites them changing "slave" to "forced" labor in Gulag, but the changed wording is probably more WP:IMPARTIAL in my opinion. I do admit it would be preferable if BH was more brief in making their points. (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, per the WP:NOTHERE behavior detailed in the last AN/I thread, which seems to have continued as well as expanded in scope considerably. This editor should find another area to contribute positively in. jp×g 22:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to question, but how so? I hardly edited an article's mainspace in the last few days. I can't see how it has expanded in scope considerably, especially because I'm only concluding the disputes I previously had. As buidhe wrote, «forced slave labour» is probably more imparcial wording, and I don't consider Anne Applebaum using it is enough to label it as such in Wikivoice, especially since most scholars simply refer to it as forced labour camps. After looking at scholarly analysis on this to justify the inclusion of the Gulag in Slavery, I suggested the addition of Alexopoulos' comparison between labor in gulag and "other forms of slave labor", which was added by TimothyBlue. All I'm seeking to do is to improve the neutrality in a contentious topic. I concur with buidhe's suggestion. My arguments should also become clearer if I present them in a concise way. diff for my lastest comment related to this - I presented things briefly --BunnyyHop
    • Comment Sorry to jump into an an unrelated discussion, but it happens to be right above the discussion about me. Timothy is making unsourced edits, original research, plagiarizing, and edit warring in [[39]]. To me it's pretty obvious when you look at his edits. To copy/paste what I wrote below:

    Thank you t. In regards to [[40]], the two sources that Timothy cite don't say that 'The United States government recognized the Holodomor as a "famine-genocide"'. As for the first edit, [[41]], the source literally states 'The U.S. government has not recognized the Ukrainian famine as a "genocide,"'. I feel bad for the admin having to deal with this. So much of your edits have huge POV issues or source issues. The two edits above (that you reverted) are examples of this. Also you kept reverting this even though it was obvious plagarism [[42]]. Or this [[43]] when no source said that "The United Nations has passed multiple resolutions commemerating the Holodomor as a man made famine".

    It seems that Timothy's thing is getting onto pages about early 20th century communism, push original research, report those who call him on his sources. Stix1776 (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose a topic ban. I'm reading the justifications, and honestly Vallee and Timothy are POV pushing just as much if not more. The justifications for a topic ban seem way out of proportion.Stix1776 (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The above is simply a trolling comment/vote, from an editor with ~100 edits, clearly retaliation for the ANI I filed below, and from an editor pushing the same POV as BH. Please see [44] for their response to an admin leaving a ds/notice for them in this area.  // Timothy :: talk  11:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Stix1776 See WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, this isn't looking good for trying to get retaliation. Des Vallee (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhm, no, the conversation has moved on from the Applebaum interpretation. I'm stating that those academics that criticized her/their approach should be included, something I'm afraid to do myself because it might be interpreted as "pushing a POV". I have to be careful about including anything that goes against your POV, since you have not made a single compromise, other than when I suggested the inclusion of Alexopoulos, a scholar that made a comparison between "labour in the gulag" and "other forms of slave labour". My reply explicited those who criticized their approach as well as how this affects the usage of "forced slave labour camps" in wikivoice, which returns a total of 1 result in Google Scholar, but these points were not addressed by your comment, which contains the word "You" 10 times. --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: BunnyyHop continues to fight at least four editors, across multiple talk page discussions at Slavery to get their POV perferred wording. WP:IDHT, WP:LISTEN, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Latest Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour, pervious discussion Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union (see OP for others). The WP:BLUDGEON BH has displayed in this thread is a minor example of what they do in articles.  // Timothy :: talk  01:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should either have proper attribution or not be there at all. You claim that slave camp and forced labour camp can be used interchangeably because they're not mutually exclusive, so it's a simple matter of "POV perferred wording", when it's not. Aside from the clear usage of labor colonies, corrective labor colonies, etc., but mostly forced labor camps by most scholars (simply compare Google Academics search: "slave camps" "gulag" - 127 results [some of which referent to the US and other western countries], "forced labour camps" "gulag" - 643 results, "forced labor camps" "gulag", 1320 results). This relies on most importantly on Applebaum's book, a right-leaning journalist/historian (personal bias is important in WP:DUE), whose introduction (this is taken from there) has been criticized by a scholar. When I brought this up you started avoiding content and overusing shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, as you just did, and replying based on "You", "Your", "You're", as well as using this report to intimidate me, instead of discussing content. --BunnyyHop (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban for BunnyyHop. IMHO, a topic ban for Des Vallee and Timothy would be more fitting. After reviewing the talk pages, I see that BunnyyHop is making constructive talk page contributions along the lines of policies like WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALASP, as I think he also demonstrates here. I see no serious issue with an editor who's doing that, regardless of what the editor's content opponents might impute as the editor's "POV." In this light, I see DesVallee's and Timothy's contributions as less constructive, since their behavior looks like a textbook case of several editors WP:STONEWALLING against one. Here we go again: same editors aggressively blockshopping, less than a week after the previous report was closed. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has tried to put in text stating "Following Russia's independence by the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems", tags edits as minor that removes whole sections, warned numerous times on wiki-layering, and blocked for edit warring, constantly brings up personal info. This user's actions are un-defandable. Des Vallee (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't that edit prior to your first report to ANI against BunnyyHop, over a week ago? You already put that into your last report. I thought that was not a good edit, which was why I abstained from supporting BunnyyHop at that ANI report. You know that Bunnyyhop is fairly new. He already admitted that he had made some poor edits and would act more constructively moving forward as far as wording, reverting, and tagging edits as minor. And he is doing that now: he is NOT tagging major edits as minor, adding text about the "success of Bolshevik comrades," or bringing up any "personal info," contrary to your claim. Saying that you were on an anti-communist crusade after the last ANI incident was not helpful (generally, it is more helpful to assume good faith of another editor, even if NOT warranted), but I see nothing substantive since the last report that would genuinely add up to a topic ban now. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Couple things, indeed however it's that inexcusable, BunnyyHop was warned about this POV sections, however even so he keeped it up. This is a place to state completely bad faith editing something BunnyyHop is. Nowhere did I state I was on an "Anti-communist crusade" that is simply made up, I am leftist. This isn't new, this text is from less then a month ago, when he had over 1,400 edits and felt confident enough to constantly espouse Wikipedia policies. He was warned for this at which point he dug his heels in and defended his actions, consistently stating it was a NPOV. Also there is no defense for tagging edits as minor that removes entire sections, let's take the route and say BunnyyHop was acting in good faith and removed a whole paragraphs because he thought it was minor, what is BunnyyHop's rationale? How can someone think such an edit is minor, moreover how can someone not understanding removing an entire paragraph is not minor. Moreover how could they not understand the concept of a "minor edit" when they read previously the information on WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE as seen here, and beforehand here and here. The thought BunnyyHop read up on NPOV and other policies but not "what is a minor edit" has no rationale defense. Des Vallee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Des Vallee, I clearly did not accuse of you of being on an anti-communist crusade. That's something you brought up in your preface to this second ANI report against Bunnyyhop. His response acknowledges that remark: "the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an 'anti-communist crusade.' I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to 'continued POV pushing'. I agree that it was an unhelpful comment on his part; but it's far from an infraction that should merit a topic ban when he has otherwise been totally constructive since the last ANI report. Your other examples may be from "less than a month ago" or more than a month ago; either way, they are from prior to the previous ANI report closed less than two weeks ago, so they were are already looked at. You are relitigating the same set of issues, without demonstrating a case of continuing disruption. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Zloyvolsheb, I can vouch for Bunnyyhop having been disruptive since the last ANI thread was closed. You are right in that Des Vallee does appear to have a feud with Bunnyyhop but that doesn’t excuse Bunnyyhop’s continued tendentious editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, BH continued edit warring even during this ANI discussion [45],[46] on the same page where they did it before: [47], [48],[49],[50],[51]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you characterize this as "edit warring"? The diffs you provide are different reverts made by the same editor to the same article, but they are different reverts of different edits, made on different dates. (Your diffs show two reverts from February, and then some from the month prior.) Looks like there's a content dispute, with about 7-8 editors roughly evenly split among two sides at the talk page. I'm also puzzled that you would choose this among the diffs above - actually looks like a great edit. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That “great edit” is a cut and dried example of edit warring instead of working towards consensus... Perhaps you copied the wrong diff? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How come only BunnyyHop attempted discussion? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry, how does that answer the question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I'd say. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate? Either I’m missing something here or you’re talking in riddles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. You asked if this was the right diff, since BunnyyHop was allegedly not working toward consensus. In fact, he made two reverts of this addition on January 30 (note edit summary), and was the only one attempting a discussion at the talk page, as shown. Did I choose "the right diff?" Think so. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The revert was made at 19:00, 30 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened 01:22, 31 January 2021. The talk page discussion was opened after the edit warring not before, so how can it justify it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion began in BunnyyHop's edit summaries (note that this content was first included without any edit summary) and was taken by him to the talk page a few hours later (at 01:22 January 31). If these two reverts were disruptive or edit warring, the other side looks far worse in this (note date February 1, ignoring talk page). Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Evidence of a feud between the editors filing and pushing the first and second ANI against BH may be seen in this MFD. I have to say that I am thankful to all the editors who participated in that discussion and helped the essay gain better perspective but it has to be noted that the opposing editors used their feud with BH to position their arguments, as I have not stated my position on any of the topics they have used. This is a simple piece of data to show an ongoing feud among certain editors on this thread, for whatever reason, which needs to be resolved. Vikram Vincent 07:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any sanction the majority support, and sorry to see again this mess, did not even read it through, but unlike last time what made me to take clearly sides is this edit today ([52]), ([53]), just noticed...I think this the point when it's enough (and please, noone should explain me that blue is in fact red, or yellow is dark purple, I won't engage in this thread anymore, shall anything happen).(KIENGIR (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    • If you look at what actually happened in that diff, BunnyyHop removed a statement citing "Aubrey" and "Moghadam" with the explanation that the added text was "unsourced." BUT there are no works authored by "Aubrey" or "Moghadam" actually in the references section, so he was correct. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy fix. We don't delete sourced content because of an easily fixed problem.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: KIENGIR's example above is illustrative. I was easily able to fix the problem. BH removed a Summary style section of content with links to sourced articles related to topic with two references as "unsourced" even though it was easy to fix the oversight (sources are in the target articles, no reason to leave them out it was an oversight). They didn't want to see the information improved, they wanted the informaton deleted.
    Almost everywhere this editor goes, they display this same pattern of POV pushing by removing negative information related to communism or softening language to change meaning. Everyone has moments, but this is a consistent pattern of disruption. They do not want to improve the encyclopedia, or fix problems, they want to delete information they which does not fit their POV.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They just removed the sourced cotnent again ignoring the fix with a new objection. POV pushing. First Excuse to remove content, Second excuse to remove content.  // Timothy :: talk  18:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Timothy, to be frank here, I don't think that's a "fix" and I don't think you have even read the sources you found. (Or you may have misread them.) Here you identified "Aubrey 44-45" as the book The New Dimensions of International Terrorism and used this source to reinclude a comment about mass killings by communists, but pages 44-45 of the source you found has nothing to do with it. It actually talks about "state-sponsored terrorism" as a "foreign policy instrument" and mentions a few left-wing Western groups [54], whcih is quite different from describing actual mass killings by communist regimes. You also reinserted "Moghadam" without even providing the name of the work. This is why I think YOU are editing tendentiously. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed content with explanation "sources not listed". Sources were added, but thats not a fix... Now the excuse for removing the content changed - the goal is to remove the content to fit a POV, the excuse will keep changing until editors tire and drop out. This is another pattern in BH editing - exhaust those that disagree.  // Timothy :: talk  20:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Statement by Bunnyyhop: This is an excellent example of how content disputes are suddenly re-interpreted as POV-pushing when I am involved, even when all I do is support the same actions that other editors have taken in the past. Let's look at the history of the article where I am accused of POV-pushing now (far-left politics). What did I do? Did I remove long-standing, consensus wording on a flimsy excuse? No. I reverted an edit made only hours earlier, which had re-inserted text into the article that had been tendentiously added for the first time back in November and repeatedly removed by other editors for months.
    The exact same text was added and removed from that article before, long before I got involved. It was originally added without any sourcing by @Suppcuzz: on 28 November of last year, then removed by @Davide King: on 6 December 2020. Then it was added back and removed on 13 January by two other editors. Then it was re-added by Suppcuzz on 15 January and removed by @The Four Deuces: just 14 minutes later. Then it was added a fourth time and removed a fourth time by Davide King on 27 January. Finally, it was added a fifth time and removed the fifth time by myself. Since then it has also been added and removed by four other editors who were not involved before ([55] [56] [57] [58]).
    There was also a Talk page section about this exact text that got opened on 13 January, without any involvement by me.
    So, once again, we have a content dispute that is presented as POV-pushing simply because I am involved in it. This is the real repeated pattern that TimothyBlue is talking about. In this case, it's a slow-burn content dispute that began without me back in November 2020 (!), and that I only joined yesterday. I count a total of 10 editors who have been involved in this dispute over time so far, on both sides (for and against including the disputed content). There were no accusations of "POV-pushing" until I joined, in spite of other editors holding the exact same position that I hold, and reverting the exact same text that I reverted.
    So, I believe that TimothyBlue is indeed correct that this example is illustrative, but in the opposite direction from the one he suggests. I joined a content dispute and was accused of POV-pushing for simply supporting one of the existing sides in that dispute. That is exactly what keeps happening.
    --BunnyyHop (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the pinging of Davide King and The Four Deuces/TFD in this comment; basically [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose tban. Rando here who sometimes finds this page interesting: Looking at the diffs provided it doesn't seem BunnyyHop is acting in complete bad faith, and so I don't think a topic ban would be warranted. The edits seem to be relatively minor changes, at least not to the level of bringing them here, especially looking some of the examples provided that seem to just be changing wording to be more impartial. These content disputes are definitely getting overly heated but don't see anything worthy of a full ban. I find BunnyyHop's defense convincing enough.  Nixinova   T   C   08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This is a content dispute. Des Vallee has just reposted the same accusations that wasted the time of multiple editors just weeks ago. You would have thought that they would have learned to at least write the complaint properly so as not to waste more time. Moreover, this type of complaint is better suited to AE. TFD (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint can be handled here just fine. And the tendentious editing has not stopped but has continued unabated. POV pushing is a conduct issue. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you appear to have been canvassed here by Bunnyyhop by their ping above. Crossroads -talk- 04:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be kept in mind that this user is also behind User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism along with Bunnyyhop, so weigh this accordingly. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL sure. And as an admin pointed out on the last ANI you can discuss it here. Actually, dont bother. I got it deleted myself since the title was not my interest but rather the concept of biased generalisation of claims for why a few of you are providing adequate examples. BTW thanks to Crossroads, Des Vallee and Timothy for the feedback cause I've improved the essay for abstraction at User:Vincentvikram/Always_keep_context_in_mind_when_arguing_claims. Feel free to come and help further. Thanks :-) Vikram Vincent 05:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You chose to reply here before even replying in the talk page, this is another illustration of how content disputes are presented as tendentious simply because I am involved in it. This could also be considered an attempt to WP:CANVASS. Since then, I replied demonstrating how one of the sources used as a WP:RE, whilst introducing another WP:RE to further back it up. Contrarily to what Crossroads stated, these sources were not assessed for their reliability. --BunnyyHop (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reply was more of the same cherry-picking and WP:TENDENTIOUS argumentation you always do, to promote a pro-Marxist-Leninist POV and engage in apologetics for brutal dictators like Mao Zedong. And you misrepresent here. Crossroads -talk- 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My reply was finding academic sources that supported Gao's. I struggle to see how my edits are being "tendentious" for simply finding sources that you erroneously stated "were checked for their reliablity". Your reply to an article reviewing the book on the peer-reviewed academic journal The China Quarterly was, vis a vis, «"Without exploiting the masses"? LOL. That one is a WP:FRINGE source on its face». You don't believe this disregard of WP:RE sources just because of your personal POV (which you expanded and delinated here for everyone to see) is WP:TE? --BunnyyHop (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized Bunnyyhop's sleight of hand: [59] They tried passing off where a book review of a revisionist-history book from a "radical left-wing" publisher described the book's POV as a claim by the peer-reviewed journal itself that published the book review. This is a perfect example from this very day of how this user is continuing the same propagandizing and learned nothing from the previous ANI. Crossroads -talk- 04:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BunnyyHop should respond, but I saw no sleight of hand. BunnyyHop provided a review of the book in which the author summarizes Gao's point of view. (It's a book review.) BunnyyHop quoted that summary from the journal, noting the high academic reputation of the journal. You mistakenly thought that the summary was necessarily the POV of the author of the journal article and therefore believe that BunyyHop perpetrated "a sleight of hand." However, it means only that you made an incorrect assumption about the nature of the quote before reviewing the source, which BunnyyHop also provided in full. This is not a sleight of hand but a failure to assume good faith. Of course, I don't know for certain what point BunnyyHop was trying to make. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Zloyvolsheb, I even inserted that «[a]ll these achievements were possible without exploiting colonies and without exploiting the toiling masses in China» to not mislead about the nature of the quote. However, I'm convinced Gao is a WP:FRINGE source. I'll try to find WP:RE sources to back what he says and reply on the talk page. --BunnyyHop (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you didn't, Zloyvolsheb. And don't WP:GASLIGHT us. It was obvious even right above how Bunnyyhop presented it as the journal supporting Gao or endorsing his claim. Crossroads -talk- 19:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not gaslighting anybody; please strike your hostile comment. As I said right above, I cannot know anyone's intent with 100% certainty, but what I saw was something different from what you did. BunnyyHop, who seems to not have Gao's book, initially asked PailSimon for quotations [60], didn't get them, but found a review summarizing the content of the book in a well-respected journal. He provided the quotation to you. He also provided the full review for you to look at, but you made up your mind about the reviewer without reading the review. Instead of acknowledging your own error of interpretation, you accuse BunnyyHop of "sleights of hand" and myself of "gaslighting." This, too, is illustrative. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Just going over the diffs that have been presented, this is reasonably sourced and attributed; this is removing a patently WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that had gone completely uncited for months; and this (regarding this edit) seems like a reasonable dispute over sources and WP:DUE weight. That isn't to say that Bunnyyhop is necessarily right in each case, just that these are patently obviously legitimate content disputes, not something that could reasonably be used to justify sanctions. Perhaps Bunnyyhop could be more cautious about assuming good faith, to be sure, but it's a bit silly to raise that objection while simultaniously making accusations of bad faith over a content dispute; and I'm not seeing a lot of presumption of good faith extended towards Bunnyyhop in the talk history of that page, either. Is this earlier comment really indicative of someone who has WP:CLEANHANDS when it comes to assuming good faith in this dispute? --Aquillion (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for admin evaluation and close

    • I request an admin evaluate this and the previous ANI for DS sanctions on eastern europe and topic bans replated to Eastern Europe, and Communism/Socialism/Marxism.
    Closing statement from previous ANI: "A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI". I believe this alone Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour merits a ban, especially considering examples from other articles/talks.
    Arbcom has requested that his open ANI be resolved before considering a case.  // Timothy :: talk  16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This statement by Barkeep49 on application of discretionary sanctions seems relevant. Vikram Vincent 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The close of the past ANI and the continuing problem shows there is enough to merit action based on WP:BLUDGEON, WP:IDHT, failure to WP:LISTEN, being DE/TE. (if admins wish me to explain why I believe DS applies I will).  // Timothy :: talk  20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And this statement by Timothy claiming, complete lack of experience in this area, which means that their opinion would carry no merit. Vikram Vincent 06:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment request that all the frequent commentators on this ANI thread find an appropriate study group. Wikipedia is not the place to evaluate political lines and consequent practice. The discussions degenerate into tedious polemics since none of the participants' contributions can be judged fairly—Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If the discussants can not agree on reliable sources, or don't know any, there is not much chance of active encyclopedia building. Recommend voluntary topic avoidance for all revolutionary thought topics, to include talk pages and especially ANI—to be reconsidered in twelve months. There is no chance of any of the discussants reaching a consensus and no particular desire of anyone else here to devote attention to their problem. — Neonorange (Phil) 06:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Devlet Geray

    Devlet Geray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user is making a range of WP:TENDENTIOUS by attempting to Turkify several articles. At Template:Turkic topics he has added loads of non-Turkic entities, most notably First Bulgarian Empire, Old Great Bulgaria, which he claims to be "Turkic" (were not they Turkic? think twice). He has refused to take his concerns to the talk page and instead has resorted to edit warring.

    He has already been reported here before [61], and by the looks of it, this conduct of his already got him banned in the Russian Wikipedia.

    More WP:TENDENTIOUS here;

    [62]

    [63]

    Not to mention he isn't shy of casting WP:ASPERSIONS/making personal attacks;

    Hello. Please refrain from ethnic vandalism and historical revisionism on English Wikipedia.

    tendentious pro-Iran nationalist vandalism

    simple vandalism

    Your revisionism is amazing

    (f***, are you so sick that you still keep track of my contributions? i know that this page is not in your watchlist

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The topic-starter tries to violate neutrality based, as I understand it, on his pro-Iranian position. For instance, here [64] he removed a huge text with sources only because he didn't like it. Here a removal of a large text [65] based on his attempts of historical revisionism. He claims that First Bulgarian Empire, Old Great Bulgaria weren't Turkic (apparently Iranian). Let's see. Here is the information from the First Bulgarian Empire article The First Bulgarian Empire (Old Bulgarian: ц︢рьство бл︢гарское, ts'rstvo bl'garskoe[12]) was a medieval Bulgar-Slavic and later Bulgarian state that existed in Southeastern Europe. Let's see the article Bulgars: The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. Now let's see Old Great Bulgaria article: Old Great Bulgaria or Great Bulgaria (Medieval Greek: Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία, Palaiá Megálē Voulgaría), also often known by the Latin names Magna Bulgaria[3] and Patria Onoguria ("Onogur land"),[4] was a 7th-century Nomadic empire formed by the Onogur Bulgars on the western Pontic–Caspian steppe and It is generally believed to derive from the Turkic verb bulğha (to "stir", "mix", "disturb", "confuse"),[9] possibly suggesting that other Turkic peoples regarded the Bulgars as a "mixed" people[10] or as "rebellious". Devlet Geray (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When did I claim that they were Iranian? Please show revisions for this. I am not "pro-Iranian" either. And no, I did not remove anything "because I didn't like it" or because of "historical revionism" - I literally stated why. More WP:ASPERSIONS/personal attacks and whatnot. I guess you forgot to add the part from the article where it literally says that the Bulgars were eventually Slavicized? Claiming that the two Bulgarian dynasties were Turkic would be like claiming modern-day Bulgarians are as well, this is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Pinging admin @Ymblanter: (I assume this isn't canvassing?) as he seems to be more knowledgeable of your past actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I repeat it again: think twice. 1. I didn't add/mention/write about modern Slavic Bulgarians, I wrote about historical Turkic Bulgars. 2. I didn't write that you claimed that they were Iranian, I wrote "apparently Iranian". Devlet Geray (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is useless, I'll let the admins deal with you, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerning First Bulgarian empire, it could have been moved to Turco-Slavic (or Slavo-Turkic) states section (it could have been created, as already done with Turco-Mongol states or Turko-Persian states. It's clear that I'm not against it. The previous section doesn't mention that the state was completely Tukic either, it's just the state that is related to Turkic history, that's all), but this does not seem to be the appropriate reason for reverting everything. As for your pro-Iranian position, you mentioned it on your page "this user is proud to be Iranian" and I especially say "as I understand it", but I may have been mistaken (you on the contrary say that I attempt to "Turkify several articles", which is not true at all) Devlet Geray (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just taking a random example above [66], the user does not see a difference between his personal position and encyclopedic material. I propose a topic ban from everything related to Eastern Europe and Turkey, broadly construed. For EE, it could be arbitration enforcement. I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking into account Ymblanter's cross-wikipedia persecution and attacking me [67], this "I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past" sounds at least inappropriate Devlet Geray (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For those who can not read Russian, the above "persecution and attacking" was in fact removal of copyrighted material (a text of a poem). When Devlet Geray restored it claiming it is fair use, I removed it again and said that the fair use policy must be adopted forst on that wiki.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this was the previous instance Devlet Geray was featured here, though I could have missed something.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • the fact that you was looking through my contributions to Crimean Tatar wiki shows that it was a clear persecution. Your taking part in the previous discussion on the noticeboard and your mentioning about my contributions to RuWiki, which is unrelated to this Wiki, proves it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I joined the Crimean-Tatar wiki when it was still in Incubator (I was in fact one of the people who helped to get it out of the Incubator) and have been editing it every day ever since. I check all edits on that project, but, indeed, before your edit I have never detected any copyright violations, not mentioning that I had to edit-war to remove copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just saw that topic-starter was involved in the conflict on the same topic (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tarik289) just two days before, which seems to me like he creates conflict situations, preventing the editing of articles in a direction - towards a neutral presentation - that does not coincide with his views. As for Ymblanter and Каракорум who previously mentioned me on this noticeboard, they are both from Russian Wikipedia and both harrass me cross-wiki Devlet Geray (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not from the Russian Wikipedia. The last user who had pleasure to call me a "Russian admin" and would not stop against my objections, was recently site-banned by the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And, well, to claim I am not an active English Wikipedia user is ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was right to remove the link to Encyclopedia Iranica in the article. Encyclopedia Iranica is an encyclopedia with a focus on Iran (and may be a RS for Iranian history), but it's coverage of topics outside it's purview is subpar, to put it mildly. The specific article linked to in question was absolute monstrosity of misinformation, steryotypes, misconseptions, distortions, and generalizations, - all contradictory to the text of the Wikipedia article itself - and ergo should not have been linked to. Removing it was the appropriate action.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Encyclopedia Iranica is known for forgeries and inaccurate presentation of information. It's not me who says it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know you didn't even bother to read the article that PDF was referencing, so here it is [69]. At no point does it state any accusations of forgeries or inaccurate presentation of info. All it states is that Yarshater being Baha'i and its description of pre-Islamic Iran means it's opposed by elements of the Iranian government. Your false presentation of news is yet another example of disruptive editing. --Qahramani44 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Iranian/Turkic world for Devlet Geray. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is way too mild. It should be an indefinite topic ban or even a long-term block. The issues have been ongoing for several years.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was willing to hand out a final straw of WP:GF, but, looking at his final response in relation to my comment above, I believe this won't change anytime soon. User:Devlet Geray is indeed not here to build this encyclopedia, and thus, I will support a block as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree with this. LouisAragon was involved in conflict with me (knowing that Iranica was accused of being propaganda, I deleted it - but when it was returned I didn't revert it again), Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki and is clearly prejudiced against me, Каракорум (the user who created the first notice on this page) harrasses me cross-wiki, these are Ukrainian Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata. I've never broken the rules of English Wikipedia and always acted with sources (see my reverted edit). Devlet Geray (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The statements "I've never broken the rules of English Wikipedia" and "Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki" are demonstratably false.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the indefinite blocking on the Russian Wikipedia, it was Devlet Geray who began to harass me in Commons and on the English Wikipedia, canceling my edits without explanation, like this [72]. He began corny to take revenge on me for the fact that I dared to resist his pushing on the Russian Wikipedia. Therefore, Devlet Geray is lying again. Каракорум (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I see that Devlet Geray is obviously not interested in addressing his own behavior and tries to excuse his year-long disruptive editing that other users "keep track" of his contributions. Could an admin please just block him, preferrably indef. Last ANI thread was closed because the general sentiment was that someone is importing conflicts here from other wiki; in this thread it is clear that Devlet Geray is disruptive on the English Wikipedia, and in addition he tries to import real or imaginary conflicts from elsewhere. Thos thread should not go forever, there is enough proof given here that he is not capable of editing Wikipedia in an appropriate manner.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What "my own behavior"? Adding information with many authoritative sources and then just got it reverted with one click? Yes, I reacted slightly emotionally on this mass-deletion of what I added, I shouldn't have done it and I'm sorry for that. All other conflicts were solved long ago. I edit conflicting topics, it is obvious that it may cause far more conflicts than if I were editing articles about nature, this should also be taken into account Devlet Geray (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support a block: Looking over this users contributions it's clear they're not interested in reliable sources. They're not interested in amicable discussions. They're not interested in a neutral representation or the widely accepted interpretations. They are just pushing their view, and anyone who disagrees with them is clearly wrong. They are simply not compatible with a collaborative project. Canterbury Tail talk 17:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This whole section is proof your actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support indef (topic) ban: Per WP:NOT HERE, WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:NPA, lack of WP:COMPETENCE.. I could go on. The fact Devlet accuses me (among other things) that I like to "create conflict situations" because I reported a editor for whose disruptive actions he got banned [73] really says it all. It's almost as if he can't see anything wrong with the banned users actions, which would explain his own conduct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • You are a topic-starter, it's clear that you are for my block. As for your claim, it's a simple falsifications/forgery of my words (not for the first time). I said, quote: "seems to me [I even stressed it] like [=as if] he creates conflict situations", I didn't say that you "like to create conflict situations". I leave now. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I started this topic indeed; because you were unable to behave accordingly. Okay, I accidentally added "like", my bad. But you do realize there's ultimately no difference between the two? Both are equally inappropriate. The fact that you can't see that says it all. It's a even bigger wonder you haven't been blocked yet after all the accusations and attacks you've made towards me in this noticeboard alone. I hope someone is taking notice of this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No topic ban, but a brief block for incivility could be appropriate. The block should be brief because this is a long-term contributor without prior blocks. But he definitely needs a wikibreak. Sorry man, I know how you feel. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    But some his edits (like that) do look highly opinionated. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary block. The user is problematic and mean as proven by the diffs provided, however, they made overall helpful edits to the project in the past. So, I feel like a temporary block can help the editor take some time to cool off. If they continue their behaviour again after the temporary block, then a permanent block or topic ban would be appropriate. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's unrelated to this, but probably you voted for my block because I added Turkic origin to Safavids (then probably i'm "pro-Turkic", if I'm "pro-Turkic" I can start adding anti-Armenian information/propaganda to wikipedia - so just to be on the safe side you supported my indef block - it's your option). But, fyi, I renamed article about Armenian Genocide from "Fake Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian Genocide" and removed all propaganda from it, which wasn't done by Ymblanter who claims that he "checks all the edits" there (another proof of what I said above). So, don't be that prejudiced about people, if everything I wrote is true. If not, I'm sorry Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      For those who think that Devlet Geray can edit "unproblematically" may I please note that this is the second time in this thread he implies that I am lying. Without having any credible reasons for that. I am sure if he escapes with a topic ban he is going to be back here soon because of his unacceptable behavior (casting aspersions and personal attacks).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, English is not my native language, and it may cause some problems, something may sound like doubling down. For instance, here, which was "a random example above" of my violations mentioned by Ymblanter. So, i didn't mean that these "republics" are fiction or something like this I meant that these are puppet states (марионеточные государства) (Crimea unrecognized not only by Ukraine but by the whole world. And de-facto it's a part of Russia - we cannot say that Crimea is of the same status as this republics, as they were not annexed by Russia - we should differ them, don't we?) and the word fictitious (фиктивный) was the first to come to my mind (To understand more what I meant there is such collocation as фиктивный брак which means legal registration of marriage without the intention of starting a family, but for other purposes, for example, obtaining citizenship, benefits from state or municipal services. This is close to what I meant). I agree that this is my fault that I didn't find a better word, but I just want to show that I didn't assume bad-faith Devlet Geray (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DNR and LNR belong to Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states. Crimea is currently [annexed territory].My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban. (after edit-conflict). Devlet Geray's editorial behaviour is uncivil if you ask me. He reverts edits without looking if some of them are helpful or not and his edit summaries are too hostile. This suppresses useful activities of other editors and creates unnecessary conflict situations. Even here in the discussion, his comments reflect his attitude towards other editors.--Renat (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef ban. On the Russian Wikipedia, where he was blocked indefinitely, here on the English Wikipedia, at Wikimedia Commons, Devlet Geray is behaving aggressively, pushing the Crimean Tatar POV. You can be sure that in case of blocking, he will create sockpuppets, as it regularly does in Russian Wikipedia. So you need to monitor it to avoid damage. Каракорум (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't see any proof of the endless stream of accusations (such as "he's not interested in reliable sources" or "pushing Crimean Tatar POV" — attempts of removing soviet anti-Tatar propaganda/adding another well-sourced point of view to maintain a balanced presentation may seem "Crimean Tatar pov-pushing" on Russian Wikipedia, but I have a patroller status on Ukrainian Wikipedia). Second, it was RenatUK who deleted sourced information adding his information and after revert, instead of going to the talk-page and discuss, he decided to start an edit-war (though it was not a conflict situation at all before he started to bring the RuWiki, which was completely and for sure unrelated to the discussed topic). I agree with the fact that I shouldn't have accussed the topic-starter of vandalism/revisonism because of a mass-text deletion and had to go to the talk-page and discuss everything (as I see now he is not a vandal (as I mistakenly thought then) and has more than 50 thousand edits) Devlet Geray (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a piece of advice. Continually replying to everyone and posting isn't going to help you, in fact it's much more likely to hinder your cause and is considered bludgeoning. Also ultimately what happens on other Wikipedias is not relevant here, we're only interested in behaviour on the English language Wikipedia. If there's evidence of issues on other languages it may be taken into consideration, but it's about edits here that people are concerned about. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "there the opinion of one Vozgrin, a member of the Mejlis. This is a partisan source, at best". To make it clear, Valery Vozgrin is a Russian professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences who worked at Saint Petersburg State University, the Russian-leading university, until his death. Saying that phrase at the beginning of a peaceful dicusion doesn't seem to be an intent of a constructive dicussion. Moreover, there is a whole article (Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe), fully dedicated to this topic, there is no need to repeat all these again and again in the aricle about a modern people Devlet Geray (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vozgrin is a specialist in the Scandinavic countries. His works on the Crimean Tatars are tendentious and were criticized by specialized specialists. For example, the Russian Wikipedia carried out an analysis, and after that they refused to use Vozgrin's works on the history of Crimea. Каракорум (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban Having a look over the diffs, and looking over the talk pages involved, the editor in question is clearly incapable of conversing in a civil manner at the moment. Of course, as with all bans, it should be made clear that they are welcome to request that the topic ban be lifted, if and when they are able to communicate in an effective manner, rather than continuing the incivility and edit warring. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban The provided evidences show obvious signs of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POV. Plus I support additional definite block as a serious/final warning because the reported user's comments prove that he still thinks he did nothing wrong. Wario-Man talk 11:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Outcome

    Looks like there is a consensus on this issue. - Kevo327 (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the result? Каракорум (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't go to the archive without a solution. Каракорум (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, can some uninvolved administrator look at the above fairly supporting info and make a call on this one please. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty embarrassing if this doesn't get a outcome. Can a admin please step up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ??? Каракорум (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To prevent this from archivation--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not closing as such, but I am providind a summary of the opinions expressed so far in the ban/block thread about Devlet Geray:

    • LouisAragon — block, in addition to a six month topic ban on all topics related to the Iranian/Turkic world.
    • Ymblanter — indefinite topic ban or long-term block
    • Canterbury Tail - support a block
    • HistoryofIran - support indef (topic) ban
    • My very best wishes - No topic ban but a brief block for incivility
    • CuriousGolden - temporary block
    • BD2412 - support topic ban
    • Kevo327 - support indef topic ban per HistoryofIran as well as a forced “vacation”
    • Renat - support ban
    • Kansas Bear - support topic ban
    • Каракорум  - support indef ban
    • Nicoljaus - support topic ban
    • EggRoll97 - support indef topic ban
    • Wario-Man - support indef topic ban

    Summary: Fourteen editors expressed an opinion of some kind:

    • 10 favored a topic ban, 1 opposed a topic ban.
    • 5 favored a block of some duration. Nobody expressed opposition to a block.

    At present this discussion leans toward both a topic ban and a block. Please let me know of any errors in the above summary of what people said. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Userid1438

    User:Userid1438 has been repeatedly removing the sourced mention of 'Urdu' from longstanding version of articles, which is has been granted 'additional official language' status throughout the state of Uttar Pradesh (49 of this source), from the articles they come across [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. They have also replaced Urdu with Sanskrit which is not an official language, alongwith unsourced additions here. Removed mention of another language which is regionally spoken here and typically also adds unsourced content, for example here. In the Noida article especially, they are edit warring with typical WP:OWN like comments 'I live in Noida, I know more' [80], [81], [82]. The user fails to understand Wikipedia policy despite multiple warninngs and explanations in the edit summaries. Looks like they have WP:CIR issues and/or is politically motivated, considering their removal of 'Urdu' from the articles they come across. Pinging @Fuzheado and Arjayay:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    More POV removal of Urdu and addition of unsourced content here, [83]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring continues [84] and in Noida article, they are on the verge of breaking 3RR [85]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruption continues also in Uttar Pradesh [86]. — kashmīrī TALK 17:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again removed the sourced mention of 'Urdu' here. Seems like they wouldn't stop. Pinging @Oshwah:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay i might refrain myself from removing 'Urdu' until and unless I provide some hard legal source. I thereby apologize for my unsourced edits. Userid1438 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Urdu is mentioned as an additional official language of Uttar Pradesh in the sources, you have to prove through latest sources/circulars that the 'additional official' status of Urdu has been revoked now. Obviously you have to discuss those sources first in the talk pages. Secondly, you seem to add original researches and unsourced content in articles, which need to stop (WP:V). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks like edit warring. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Informed analysis

    I have seen this user charge into GAs and FAs and rewrite bits of them, introducing errors or going against consensus. To try and forestall this happening on Genesis (band), I decided to rewrite the entire lead from scratch this afternoon and left a talk thread here to try and resolve the dispute and a constructive note here, only to get reverted with "I do not care if it is FA if is is wrong." (which misses the point I was trying to make that charging in full pelt to a GA or FA where other editors have done lots of work, means you might get blowback and have to discuss changes) and putting grammatical errors in. I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring.

    Elsewhere I see him edit-warring on Katharine Hepburn, saying "Leave this alone. No one else object months last year or weeks now. Leave it alone." and on Aerosmith, saying "I do not understand why the other editor appears to have no concise writing skills and insists on re-adding repetitive and obvious text. Do not do again." which suggests an ownership problem, and his talk page has a bunch of warnings for edit warring and generally being disruptive.

    Can somebody else try and have a chat with this user? I feel like I've got a sore head. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Four other editors have either implicitly or explicity agreed with the additions I made in the Genensis lead. Look at the history. For example, why is only the fact Invsible Touch had 5 top 5 singles in the US mentioned. Where any of those successful anywhere else? Turns out only the titletrack and Land of Confusion were. The cherry-picking of only specific high success many editors do is in fact a contravention of the point of view policies. Why is mentioning the popularity of Mama and another signficant song wrong? People want to know some of their popular songs. Why is saying which was their first top 10 ablum in the US was X wrong and what their highest platinum level in the US was wrong? That was stated in several other articles.
    I should add some of the text which Richie cited as wrong was not text I added. If it was wrong before I added other stuff why was it in there?Informed analysis (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you analyze at the text I deleted there you would indeed see the old text was repetitive and inconcise. The text had Aerosmith repeatedly going on more and more extensive tours. The Aerosmith lead is the longest of any lead on any band I tried to add a key fact of their original breaktrough that is provien by the chart info and dates - that Dream On was re-released 2 years later after Sweet Emotion mde the top 40 and then became their first huge hit, and that editor has reversed in 4 or 5 times even though I explained my rationale several times. He prefers to have info in about rollercoasters and video games. He is exhibiting unobjective ownership. No one else expressed any concern.Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Informed analysis, That is not the point I was trying to make. My point is you seem to get angry and upset when people disagree with you and bark at multiple editors not to change stuff. That is incompatible with a collaborative environment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Richie - you made massive reversions without thinking or acknowledging some of the text may have been useful. You were angry when you made the massive reversions. You did not make any collaborative effort. You should be restricted from making massive reversions. That is the truth - I think a read of the history will show that - you blindly added back in text that I had already explained in my changes was wrong .Informed analysis (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not correct. If you look at the statistics for Genesis, you will see a number of editors who have worked on the article besides myself, including LowSelfEstitle, RoderickSilly, Joefromrandb and MrMarmite. As far as I'm aware, we've all edited the article at the same time without any issues, and I've had no cause to complain about any of their edits, nor vice versa. The only person who seems to have a problem is you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You inserted text saying a certain album was their first to chart in the UK when it was in fact their second. You also inserted text saying they had success in mainland Europe first when the only country the album had charted in was Italy (at number 1). Admit your error. If I made an error in something, I will admit I did. Of course, if you are adding text saying which their first to chart in the UK was, why would we not add text saying which their first to hit the top 10 in the US was?Informed analysis (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked Informed analysis to loosen their grip on the Bryan Adams bio, and I warned them that this edit summary was unacceptable, telling others to stop editing, which demonstrated WP:OWNership issues. I have had a few very spirited jousting matches with Informed analysis regarding how much detail was appropriate for the lead section of musician biographies (I argue for streamlined prose and less detail) one of which can be seen in the Pat Benatar editing history. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Binksternet and others just completely revert with no discussion large amounts of text that I had gradually inserted over weeks or months with no one objecting, including by cutting/reduced clearly overly detailed text on tours, record companies and members, and Binksternet and some of those others think that is fine and appropriate behaviour fro them to undertake?? Why? Read the history - Binksternet exhbits excessive, totally uncollaborative behavior over the Pat Benatar article. THe Def Leppard page noted above is one where I had carefully found ways to cut out less important text in order to add relevant text. Why is whether a video was one of the first played on MTV important to the overall impact of a band? It is not. Statement of greatest success "from early 80s to 90s" was partly wrong as they did not have hardly any success from 80 to 82 and is obvious when they read about the 3 albums from 83, 87 and 91. Why is simply saying they had 7 hits in the US from an ablum (which was wrong - a number 80 peak is not a hit - that is biased) adequate without saying how those tracks did in any other countries? It is not - I added key info to which Def Leppard single off Hysteria had actually had success in the most other countries or the only one that was a big hit in the UK.Informed analysis (talk) 13:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Informed analysis has also made a few thousand edits logged out, working on the same articles as when logged in. See Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/204.40.194.0/21.
    Starting in September 2019, Bettydaisies and Larry Hockett tangled with Informed analysis at the Gregory Peck bio. They might have some thoughts about the behavior of this user. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Binkersternet, I gradually added text over several weeks on the Benatar article - no one had any concerns - he then deletes every single word I added - that sure is collaborative. That is warring! He could have reviewed the text and deleted or reworded text he felt was truly wrong. I keep in as much of the text already but reduce its length to more concise/cut out repetitive and then I add informaation that many people seem to have found useful. What song and what country was her first top 10 song. What was her first top 10 song in the US? What was her highest charting single in the US? Stuff that is found in other leads but that Biskernet just did not want to include it here. What albums were her first big hits in other countries. As I full illustrate in the explanation of changes to Benatar segmnets, his text made no sense on which Benatar's biggest album was and suggested her success in Britain ccurred at a different time than it did. It was vague and misleading. As well, many leads give 2 or 3 lines about the band's or artist's early years/origins - for Genenis it gives needless detail on my members/organizers; I added what Benatar did in school and in her early 20s, right from the main body - Binksternet just deleted in without discussion.Informed analysis (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Further regarding Binksternet, for Alanis Moressitte's main article (not lead) I gradually added fully referenced chart information, sometimes aggregated i.e. "made top 10 in several countries in Europe" for her entire career over the period of weeks. I pointed out how she how her 4 number one singles in Canada had been number one for something like 30 weeks in a single year. The original article mostly mentioned the US and was wildly inconsistent, i.e giving all chart positions for some minor hits later in her career whereas for signficant hits early on it gave virtually none. So, I had added a larger amount of info so that the article was completely consistent like an encyolpedic article should be. No one had a single objection. He just came in a month latter and reverted every single item of text I had added. Every single item. Clearly that is warring, uncollaborative, acting angerly, and possessive. He should be santioned even moreso than myself. Same with Ritchie.Informed analysis (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! I have encountered this user regarding Peck’s page. They expanded if, but users on Talk: Gregory Peck thought it much too bloated. I made substantial revisions to Gregory Peck to improve its readability based on the concerns. The user expressed on my talk page unhappiness at this, stating I “began to destroy” “the most thorough” assessment of Peck’s work ever written.
    My personal feedback would be that civility should be kept in mind - as well as syntax and professional language. WP employs summary-style to write informative, digestible biographies. The relevancy of the primary subject to information is paramount. The most prominent issues here are struggles with WP:OWNERSHIP and collaboration. Constructive editing cannot be done without the user having a thorough and ensured understanding of the latter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found this editor impossible to deal with, in that they're just not interested in abiding by WP:NOR. After clashing with them over this issue at Hard rock, I've seen the editor rewrite leads and article text at other GAs (the Who, the Rolling Stones) where their main aim seems to be to present a more international picture of chart success than just mentioning the UK and US markets. Which would be fine as long as the sources supported that, but most band biographies and books on 1960s and '70s rock music do not discuss a song or album's chart performance in, say, Australia and Canada. Wish that they did.
    So, most of these changes at the Who and the Rolling Stones will have to be undone. But I get the feeling that other editors are (like me) holding back until they've got the energy to deal with what most likely will be another head-to-head confrontation, because Informed analysis makes it an issue of personal opinion between themselves and any editor who challenges them – when it's not that, it's about a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The chart statistics I inserted are completely accurate - in some articles I added them to the body first; in others they are from body or from the Discography page on the artist or the page on a specific song. Nothing has to be redone. It is amazing how every different lead on different artists has totally different level of information - some only state singles, some only state albums, some extra short, Aerosmith extra long talking about Rollercoasters and cultural phenonmon without any reference at all. One person says 5 paragraphs should be used, another says 4, another says 3. In every case, I try to include as much as the original text that is there as possible respecting what someone else earlier found important. They should be more similar and when you read all the differnt ones it is like what is going onhere. Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Informed analysis: Once again you're sidestepping around the pertinent issue – that is, whether the additions are supported by sources in the article, or whether they're original research in the context of the article because the information is unsourced. You're just choosing to focus on their accuracy and, as you see it, the need for such information.
    In the lead at the Who – through your contributions and those of an IP user, admittedly – we currently say that "My Generation" "went to number two in the UK and Australia, number three in Canada and the top ten in parts of Europe"; there's no source for these details, and they don't appear in the main body, sourced or otherwise. Same situation for "Substitute" and "I'm a Boy" being top-five hits in the Netherlands, "Pictures of Lily" and "Happy Jack" going top five in "several countries", "Jack" hitting number one in Canada; and for "I Can See for Miles" being a top-ten hit in Canada. It continues in the lead – Tommy as "the first of nine straight top ten albums in the US and Canada", inclusion of Canadian chart success of "Pinball Wizard" and "See Me, Feel Me", The Who by Numbers being "their fifth straight top five album in France". Nowhere in the 1964–1978 section of the article is any of this non-UK and -US chart success discussed.
    A lead section is supposed to summarise main points from the article. The lead's therefore been compromised by the inclusion of unsourced information, which amounts to original research; and it means that the article fails the Good Article criteria, specifically: 1b it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections ..., 2c it contains no original research ... After Ritchie333 reverted your first batch of changes, in January, none of this original research was there.
    Just because your additions are "accurate" and the information can be found at the artist's discography doesn't mean they belong, and it certainly doesn't get around the WP:NOR and GA criteria issues. So of course they have to be redone or removed if the article's to retain its GA status. And to echo a theme voiced by other editors in this thread – and despite your constant protests to the contrary – no one's going to thank you for compromising the quality of GAs and FAs, and you are in no way collaborative by continually ignoring warnings and other concerns raised on your talk page over the years. You're either wilfully ignoring WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and the like, not to mention WP:BRD with regard to working with other editors, or it's your competence that's the issue. And Ritchie and Binksternet are excellent collaborative editors, by the way.
    Your 7–9 February edits at the Beach Boys show you're doing the same to the lead there. You've not added any sources to support the information on the band's Canadian, Australian and mainland European chart achievements. JG66 (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I inserted ALL the relevant chart information with exact references into the Alanis Morisette, Pat Benetar, Foreigner, Rush, Bryan Adams, Abba, Journey and some other articles - go look at them. Then Binkersnet reverted ALL my additions of that to the Alanis M article three or more times, and refused to allow me to add anything at all; and deleted my addition to the lead of the Pat Benetar article 4 or 5 times. In Hard Rock my additions were mainly to the body and they were deleted. Due to Binksternet and a couple others, I gave up spending a week or more adding all the references to the body before adding things to the lead as it would just get deleted so I just went straight to the lead using information all found at the discography page for the artist or the page for a song or album.Informed analysis (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Hard Rock above, that article had random references to the chart positions that certain songs had reached, such as No. 12 for Don't Fear the Reaper and several others. I added the chart positions for some of the acknowledged agree-upon most integral early hard rock songs - Born to Be Wild, Girl, You Really Got Me, etc. and Baracudda by Heart. The other editor just blindly reverted what I added without any explanation - that is edit warring. I asked the editor to explain why the chart positions for certain songs was fine to include but not for more important songs and he did not respond. I added references to songs by certain artists who had no songs mentioned - the songs are listed on external lists of all-time best or most important hard rock songs and he deleted the names of the songs. Sounds uncolaborative. Informed analysis (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My frustrations are similar to the above. After he started synthesizing conclusions from movie critics over and over again (example here), I tried (and failed) to explain WP:SYNTH to him (on the Peck talk page, his user talk page and my user talk page). In hindsight, I could have provided more detailed explanations and showed more patience, but I was frustrated after the IP irregularities became apparent and most of my attempts to explain were met with deflection. (Example: Part of the edit summary for the SYNTH edit above says "go in a delete such statements from all other articles".) Larry Hockett (Talk) 00:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another editor at the Peck page kept telling me I should add the exact quotes of the movie review, so I did. Larry kept saying, the the reviews of 1 editor or 2 editors do not represent all reviews of the time period...so I looked up virtually eveyone available and for recent decades focused on 8 or 9 most well-known sources. I bascially did what 2 other editors directed me to do. Some people told me they thought it was an excellent read - there are books (Christopher Tookey) that specifly do that. If you read the point of view guidelines, simply including the quote of one reviewer on one actor's performance in a movie should not be allowed as that is not presented a broad perspective.Informed analysis (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues with synthesis (such as saying “Critics agree that ..." when no source describes such agreement) were brought to your attention about fifteen months ago. I'm disheartened because there is still not much evidence that you've attempted to understand the guideline. We work all the time with honest editors who have genuine misunderstandings, but when you respond to these IP address concerns by saying you forgot to log in a couple times, that is going to create a certain distrust that makes people lose patience. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. Hockett - as I have said then and above - why is simply stating the opinion of one critic is isolation proper point of view?? It is not. It is suggesting that that one critic's statement is better than everyones elses. I got heck for just stating one critics opinion on other pages and even at Peck's. That is why I gathered quotes from 12 or 15 critics AND included the exact key part of the quotes PLUS links to the actual webiste, where availabe, and then said "The majority of reviews were positive citing such things as X or X", and then including the most interesting quotes AND allowing them to link directly to all the quotes. The I said "the few negative reviews focussed on X with one saying...." I cannot see how in the world that is wrong compared to someone just including the comment of one reviewer who someone simply decided to be the one they include. I explained this all to you 4 or 5 times in 2019.Informed analysis (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Informed analysis, I think you're missing the point Larry Hockett is making. I haven't reviewed the article, but from what you've just said it sounds like you're making an unsourced assertion about 'the majority of reviews'. If you collect a bunch of individual critics' comments about a piece of work, they can be used to support assertions about those individual critics' opinions, but presumably none of them say anything about what the majority of critics say, and thus they can't be used to support an assertion about what the majority of critics say. GirthSummit (blether) 14:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    regarding inclusion of only one critics opinion of movies, here is text from wikipedia's article on wikipedia:

    "Finally, Wikipedia must not take sides.[95] All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article. This is known as a neutral point of view (NPOV)." This is why I included quotes of numerous critics both from the time a movie was released and in recent decades, not just one quote or viewpoint from one critic that so many other people feel is appropriate, in contravention of wikipedia's principles.Informed analysis (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Informed analysis I'll try to explain this again. The problem is not using more than one critic. The point is that if you have a bunch of sources, in each of which an individual expresses their own opinion, you can't go from that to say what the majority opinion is - that's where the WP:OR comes in, you are performing research by sampling a bunch of reviews, and determining that that's what the majority view is. I hope that's clearer. GirthSummit (blether) 10:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    TO EVERYONE: I challenge you to just read the history on Genesis (band) to see Ritchie's methods as he is the one launching this review. You will see he just massively deleted text I added whereas I tried to explain my changes. I challenge you to read the history on Pat Benatar with Binksternet - he was the warring one whereas I tried to reach middle-ground.Informed analysis (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I admit that I have not read any articles involved and stopped reading Informed analysis's comments above after seeing that this editor considers that getting to number one in Italy was not success in mainland Europe. Anyone who doesn't know that Italy is in mainland Europe cannot be considered qualified to be involved in writing a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out that Italy was the only country it charted in - it did not chart in single other European country. That is not "success in Europe." Success is Europe means at least 3 or 4 countries. I wonder how many of you seemingly Americans consider an album going numer one in Canada but not even charting in the US "success in North America" Even when a song has success in 3 or so countries in Europe, people have tended to write "parts of Europe" or "Scandinavia" if that was were the countries were?Informed analysis (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To everyone - I propose a vote of each person who reviews all the above comments - read the current leads on the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, The Eagles and Genesis, and tell me if you do not think they are an excellent summary (all at length that is still less than Aeorsmith's and the one of Bette Davis - which some other person was trying to add more length too) of those band's careers. You could add Rush to that. No one has objected at to the Rush lead for a few months - but what if Binksternet or Ritchiee suddendly don't like it and revert everything from months ago? I guess that would be fine? For some of these bands, old lead did not even mention they were in the Rock Hall of Fame - how was that not in there???Informed analysis (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Everyone - look at Beach Boys lead - on December 8 editor ILIL rigigdly reversed additions I made listing some of the band's top charting hits (previous version only mentioned 1 or 2 songs) and despite myself explaining my additions (and deletions to make other things more concise) he repeatedly reverted even my moderate, half-way additions. He was showing rigid ownership. I gave up. On Feb. 7 I decided to just add TWO of their number one US ongs to the lead (which is done in many, many other leads). Now someone else (Merjin2), totally on their own, I swear this is not a co-worker (204) or friend of mine, has gone in on their own and added more info on their top charting songs. Clearly, other people agree with adding more on important songs, their chart positions, including outside the US. The problem here is mostly editors who feel they alone own a particular band's article refusing to allow someone like me to objectively analyze the situation and to add other useful information that a vast majority of people have not opposed and in some cases are adding back in themselves. Wikipedia needs to focus on the quality of the leads, and making them consistent which is clearly, in any objective analysis, what I have been doing.Informed analysis (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Logged out edits with Toronto IPs

    Informed analysis has acknowledged that they "forgot to log in a couple times", but the problem is much bigger than that. The range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 has made a few hundred edits, and some were clear violations of WP:MULTIPLE, for instance this sequence from yesterday in which Ritchie333 reverts a series of edits from Informed analysis, which is quickly reverted by 2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:69EF:EFDF:8697:2E80. Back in October–December 2019, Informed analysis made a concerted effort to fool others into thinking that there were two different people involved in the Gregory Peck article, when it was simply Informed analysis editing logged out using Toronto IPs of the range 204.40.194.0/21. Informed analysis referred to this other editor as "204" in the following edit summaries: "this addition of editor 204 from famous writer Shipman seems useful so I am re-inserting", "I discussed this with editor 204", "204 - these changes show the exact text you need to insert to do it properly..." and "204 - the soft break template shows up in red..." This is bad faith falsification, using two accounts to take advantage of other editors. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    204 was a friend at work who I used to talk to about making changes. She would make the herself. I could not control what she was doing and aver a year ago she lost interest in doing any more edits and since we now work from home I have not talked to her in ages. I don't know what else to say. This does not excuse Binksternet's repeated huge reversions without working collaboratively or trying to meet halfway as is explicity shown in Pat Benetar and Alanis Morrisette.Informed analysis (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not creative writing class. You and the 204s have the same edit summary style: "the changes I made are totally valid" and "this change is totally valid". Same with you and the 2607:FEA8 IPs: "paragraphing" and "paragraphing". You are all the same person. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because at work our supervisor and entire unit used the term totally valid and discussed changes to reports we prepared to go to the minister has valid or non-valid. We talked about using that term in our wikipedia edits.Informed analysis (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)th[reply]
    Color me disbelieving. Binksternet (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gee, are you going to accuse me of being Merjin2 at the Beach Boys and Floydian at Genesis too? They are both explicilty agreeing with my changes. And in numerous cases various editors went in and corrected minor errors that I may have left behind, obviously generally agreeing with my changes and trying to assist in their implementatin/finalizationInformed analysis (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see Binksternet or Ritchie defending their mass, repeated reversions, refusal to collaborate, and ignoring the explanations I provided. That is because their changes are completely undefendable and they acted in totally inappropriate, edit-warring fashion.Informed analysis (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see at the top of the thread, I wrote I've got to stop work on this now before it starts to look like edit warring and that's why I left a lengthy message on the talk page to resolve the dispute. You also asserted I did not discuss my revert on The Who as mentioned by JG66 upthread; which is not true. You also said Floydian supported your changes on Genesis (band) which is not true. If you continue saying things without backing them up with evidence, people are just going to tune out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an example where the 2607.fea IP accidentally replied to a discussion between me and IA on my UTP (before deleting the reply). Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Good example, and the person says they have more "contacts" who agree with them, obviously referring to the IPs working with IA in violation of WP:MULTIPLE. And then a few edits later on your talk page, the IP editor continues the charade by implying they are not IA, which is completely false. Purposely violating WP:MULTIPLE for more than a year now. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No substantial talkpage participation

    It appears to me that Informed analysis is mistaking this board for a content discussion forum, having saved all this discussion up for years with no talkpage participation, least of all on a bunch of GAs and FAs. Given that the wall of discussion above appears to be in lieu of any article talkpage participation on any of these articles since ... click, click, click ... I give up, at least since last November, I can understand why editors are complaining. IA, you are expected to use talkpages to explain your edits and to gain participation. Your complete absence of such engagement is disruptive and contrary to the editing ethos of this site. I see a whopping 62 talkpage edits on 3902 total edits, apparently with no talkpage participation at all for years. No wonder people are irritated. In short, stop posting here, go to talkpages and make use of them, and make no major changes without gaining consensus first, most of all on high-profile articles. If you return to jumping into articles with big boots and no discussion, you will face sanctions Acroterion (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The proof is in the pudding - it is clear that in most articles there is only one editor (the one who feels they are the owner) objecting to the additions/reductions I made, often gradually over weeks; sometimes they only objected several weeks later. As I provided evidence of, some people explicitly and others implicitly agree with the specific and type of additions I made. In most cases, the talk pages have had no discussions in a long time - probably only the one objector would even check there and, given their obvious evidence of rigidly reverted any changes, they would have disagreed on the talk page anyhow. I note that two to three years ago on some webpages I engaged in talk about a few article and got agreement from the only person who commented. Then 1.5 years later someone else came in and changed everything. I objected at first but then gave up. Even the persion who had originally agreed with my approach changed their opinion.Informed analysis (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You appear to be under the fundamental misapprehension that you don't need to explain anything. Your edits are being disputed. It's 2021. Use talkpages - this isn't optional. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal : 1RR restriction

    I have to admit my patience is now being frayed. Despite working with MetalDiablo666 on the lead at Genesis (band) yesterday, and carefully documenting our findings on the talk page, cross-referencing the MOS where necessary, and despite Acroterion leaving a "seriously, use talk pages" message, I come in today to find Informed analysis has reverted without discussion again.

    So I would like to propose : Informed analysis is restricted to the one revert rule. That means they must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Violations of this can be enforced by blocks. Logging out to evade scrutiny and attempt to avoid the restriction can also be enforced by blocks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IT SURE IS AMAZING THAT RITCHIE REFUSES TO DISCUSS WHETHER A BAND'S ONLY NUMER ONE SONG IN COUNTRY SHOULD BE MENTIONED. OR IF THEIR FIRST SONG TO GO TOP TEN IN SEVERAL COUNTRIES SHOULD BE MENTIONED. THIS SITE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT QUALITY INFO NOT ABOUT ONE MAN AND MAYBE ONE OTHER PERSION IMPLEMENTING THEIR UNIQUE VIEWS IN A CERTAIN LEAD. He's like Donald Trump spreading false information or news.Informed analysis (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    People - before you issue your "support" for the above, go read the version of Genesis that I last inserted and compare it to the last version issued by by Ritchie333. Think - his version contains minute detail about some guy name King who helped the band do their first recording etc. etc. etc. His version talks about recruition of some guy named Ray Wilson for their last album. It does not mention their only US numbr one single. It does not mention what single was their first to go to the top 10 in a good number of countries (their first true "international hit") and in the US. It omits any mention of the songs considered to be their most significant songs. It totally omits any detail on their most successful albums? Does anyone who reads the lead, who has no prior knowledge of Genesis get a true sense of when they achieved success by the current text? Do any readers read it and when they see a key song listed think "oh yeah, I recall that song - I do know who they are after all??? In response to a point Richtee made, Florian specifically said he/she supported the gist of what I was adding - look it up.

    The Genenis lead deviates from what many othe lead articles covered even before I made any changes. He and one other persion have some strange focus on keeping the content they like - BUT that is not the content that the average reader would find useful. If any Univeristy prof read the Genesis lead proposed by Ritchie33 and gave it a mark, they would give it probably 60% - extra detail where not needed and important detail excluded. THINK PEOPLE. This should not be about protecting the unique opinions of someone who thinks they own a page, but about creating a high quality product. Some of the above persons specifically said the only issue was that the seemingly useful detail should be in the article, which I began to do with the Who article.Informed analysis (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    I've blocked Informed analysis for 60 hours for continued abuse of this noticeboard to argue content and to disparage other editors. I expect them to address their own behavior, and this action does not preclude continuation of discussion here about further community sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Users who are frequently and incessantly using pejorative language and WP:ATA in deletion discussions

    @Carlossuarez46: and @William Allen Simpson: used pejorative terms in a recent CFD ( Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent ) we were involved with, namely "Delete another useless descent category (see User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories) without any indication that "Lower Yangtze descent" is definable or meaningful. " and "That's because your premise is both absurd and useless. " Upon closer inspection these two users also have a long history of using such terminology in deletion debates even though it is specifically advised against in WP:ATA. As such I find little faith of their ability to participate in CFD with integrity. I'm only posting here because I have spoken directly to both of them about it, and they refused to even strike their offending comments, whereas a third user who used similar language has taken this exact action.

    Carlossuarez46 has also indicated he will report me for canvassing and inappropriate talk page usage. I will agree to stop messaging either of them directly about matters related to this issue.

    --Prisencolin (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Carlossuarez46, these highlighted comments are an example of "belittling a fellow editor", see WP:IUC. Please be kinder in your comments. A simple apology would have avoided this escalating. Fences&Windows 22:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, thanks for advising me about this discussion, because contrary to the instructions the OP did not so notify me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I indicated my intention of bringing the issue to this board to both of you a few days ago, I think that's enough. If it pleases you I have now posted the notice template to both of your talk pages.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Prisencolin: it's not and never is. When the big box says you must notify, it means around the time you start discussion. (Most people notify immediately after, but it would be fine to post just before.) People shouldn't have to follow your contribs to know if or when you follow through with your plans in a day or two. (Obviously if an editor says something like, thanks, I will follow you contribs, you don't have to notify me again then it's fine to follow that.) And pings aren't enough even after you said you might do it a few days ago for the same reasons they aren't enough if you never said anything. Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those statements are commentary on the contributions, not the editor. Not pleasant to receive but not personal attacks, not "belittling a fellow editor", and certainly not a reason to raise steam at ANI. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also like to highlight a larger pattern of these two editors systematically ignoring my evidence (supported by reputed scholars in the field), and relying on their own subjective judgement about a topic they know little to nothing about. WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS appears to be at play.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless you've got some better difs, I can't see this ending any other way besides "Well that wasn't all that nice, but they're not even really personal attacks, let alone anything actionable". Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those would relate to my second concern which is the fact that they are consistently ignoring whatever reliable sources I put out. I've asked about this issue on IRC and they suggested I take that concern here too.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know how you think that is heading towards something actionable either. I think you all just need to disengage for a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The more I look through the these users' recent history with CFD (see the sub-section), the more I realize this is actually a small part of a broader issue, which is potentially damaging to the project. I don't know whether it's an issue with the users, the CFD process or something else.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The way I see it, if your argument and sources really destroys the argument of the other two, then the CFD should clearly close in you favour and no major harm done. If the two name editors really persistently add useless comments to CFDs and are always wrong, perhaps we will take action. But we're not going to take action over two or three or even ten CFDs. Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • How would you even go about proving this though? In a discussion a few places above this one, there is a discussion concerning possible sanctions over a user’s obsessive AFD activity. It lists the discussions and outcomes of 30 nominations given by the editor. I personally have little interest in compiling this kind of data, but I do hope that some kind of increased oversight over the CFD process can come out of this notice board request.Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? —Prisencolin (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't understand what you mean by "increased oversight". You've presented zero evidence of an actual problem with CFD. As always, since it's a consensus discussion and not a vote, if someone's arguments are not persuasive e.g. because they ignored sources, then they will largely be ignored. If someone is wasting people's time by making them read an excessive number of useless comments, then perhaps they can be sanctioned e.g. topic banned from CFD. But you will need sufficient evidence that this is a problem, which is either more than 3 discussions, or extremely excessive participation (i.e. a lot of comments) in 3 those 3 discussions. Frankly, having looked more closely inspired by RevelationDirect's comment below, your participation seems to be the bigger problem since you're coming awfully close to WP:Bludgeoning considering you seem to have replied to nearly every !vote. While most of your comments are short, it is unlikely there is something so unique about each comment that you need to repeat yourself 8 times or whatever. So I'm even more perplexed what sort of increased oversight you want. You could just stop posting to that discussion rather than asking for your actions to be restricted. Nil Einne (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In the CFD discussions, there is often a healthy tension between subject matter experts in a topic area and those more familiar with the categorization processes and notability generally which I think is what's being described above. Rather than being a negative, those differing but complimentary viewpoints generally produce better results for the encyclopedia's categorization. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Nil Einne, I had to repeat myself numerous times because the same few editors would make the same remarks that were untrue, and did not bother reading my previous replies to other comments about why they were untrue. Namely, in this discussion, William Simpson made a !vote saying "delete both per nom, not an ethnicity", I then (after a few other comments) presented evidence that it is considered an ethnicity. In the follow up CFD, Simpson reiterated the same sentiment he had before, to which I also correct him with another example, and he does not reply further. This kind of stonewalling is why I'm rather frustrated with this particular user, and if you look at his talk page it appears that others have had issues with him as well.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Misc. conduct in CFD

    To further illustrate examples of questionable conduct at CFD please refer to: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_4#Category:One-thousanders. A user put up an earnest question about a series of technical classifications for mountains used in the sport of mountaineering, and Carlossuarez46 inserted his opinion that they should all be deleted as he believed it to be some arbitrary measure invented by editors. This was apparently done without WP:BEFORE finding out more about the subject matter. I believe admin action should be taken if he continues down this pattern of behavior.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently, Prisencolin has been busy posting a WP:VERBOSE attack here overnight, the same as much of her/his "discussion". This is abusive.
    1. Obviously, I've A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines; I've been involved in writing them for ~16 years, and am a former developer who was involved in creating Categories for Discussion.
    2. Carlos has been active for even longer, and is a long-time administrator.
    3. Prisencolin recreated a nearly identical category after deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_5#Category:Hong_Kong_people_of_Lower_Yangtze_descent, resurrecting Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 20#Category:People of Shanghainese descent.
    4. That is against WP:CSD#G4 policy.
    5. We don't categorize descent of people "by city or region". Descent is a WP:CATNAME#Heritage category. The place of birth is rarely notable and therefore categories that designate place of birth are discouraged. The place of birth or emigration status of ancestors is even less notable.
    6. I was the original editor of the Heritage and WP:CATNAME#Residence subsections of our guideline.
    7. Prisencolin is abusing Wikipedia review processes (both here and at CfD) as method of attack, both personal and procedural.
    Please suspend Prisencolin for a suitable length of time. I'd recommend at least a week, so that related CfD can run to completion.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I posted the discussion to WP:HELPDESK and another editor suggests that my participation in the discussion is not even particularly long to warrant WP:WALLOFTEXT objections (he did suggest it could be WP:BLUDGEON based on my insistence to reply to everything, but I think that's just a result of my being the only person to defend niche content on an obscure board.
    1. Nothing to say, you have both worked on the project for a very long time for sure.
    2. --
    3. It's clearly not G4 because it's intended to be a much broader category than the first one, a fact that you summarily ignored when I pointed out to you
    4. The admins appear to agree at this moment seeing as they G4 categories in CFD all the time. Given that I was the only one to work on the category, I requested WP:G7 deletion, in order to focus on a WP:DRV which was recommended by the closing admin when I spoke to him direclty. It is not WP:FORUMSHOPPING because DRV is a widely used path of negotiation.
    5. "We do not classify based on descent of people "by city or region" is literally just a made up policy that you insist on re-stating over and over in these discussions; it does not exist in the guideline you linked (If such a policy exists somewhere I apologize for misunderstanding and will remove this statement). Such categories do actually exist as well, I may add. e.g. Category:People of Catalan descent, Category:Bavarian emigrants to the United States. This classification is also not exclusive to people who's place of birth is Shanghai, so that part doesn't apply. --Prisencolin (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I think about it, I'm not sure why we're arguing the WP:CFD over here as well. I wish to redirect attention back to the hasty and uninformed deletion of content performed at CFD. Perhaps they have been working at CFD for so long that they have become too accustomed to using their intuition rather than search for answered when a challenge confront them.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prisencolin is out of line; he or she is posting on CFD participants' talk pages, in their user space, all to forward some agenda that is specifically targeted to anyone who disagrees with him or her at CFD. This has got to stop. Will someone uninvolved talk sense to them before they cause more problems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will attempt to explain my recent talk page messages to the best of my ability as I believe Carlossuarez is conflating a few things, using the chronology I found using the advanced contribution search. The first message I sent in relation to the CFD was an attempt on 28 January to get an explanation from User:Good Olfactory about the closing of Category:Hong Kong people of Shanghainese descent. Soon after I messaged User:Marcocapelle, who had nominated the CFD, about re-creating the category now that I added more information to a header article Shanghainese people in Hong Kong , Marcocapelle did not directly reply to the new evidence, but stated the CFD had already closed. I then went ahead and created a new category on that same day, and the category was put up for CFD (and not tagged for G4 directly I may add) by Marcocapelle a while later on 5 February. At this point I messaged him about the nomination again, and asked why the new one did not satisfy inclusion criteria even though I had worked extensively on it, and he gave a similar non-response. During the course of the CFD the two users who were mentioned in the initial ANI post made !votes on the CFD, and I took issue with the way they phrased their comments. I messaged both about this issue, and asked that they strike the comment I perceived as uncivil (per WP:RUC) but did not get a reply immediately. On 7 February a third user, User:RevelationDirect, used similar language in their !vote, so I spoke to them about it, and they agreed to strike the comment on that same day, and thanked me for taking it to their talk page, rather than the CFD discussion, thus implying that my course of action was correct. I went to User:Good Olfactory about my intentions to go forward with a DRV. William Allen Simpson replied back on his talk page, choosing not to comply with my request. I informed Carlos Suarez and William Allen Simpson about an impending ANI notice on 8 February, and got a reply from Suarez which I interpret as WP:BAITING ("Go ahead. You will not intimidate me. ") and he suggested that I may be breaking WP:CANVASSing rules. Carlos Suarez alludes to my activity on his userspace, and that regards a message I posted on his essay User talk:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories, in which I express concern over his appearance as an authority on academic disciplines which study ethnic identity and descent, where he doesn't appear to have any credentials in this field. This was not related to any specific discussion, but rather I felt the need to do this because he will often post this essay to CFD threads. Anyone who wants to review my claims can see my contribs filtered by User Talk space. I will also refrain from directly posting to anyone's talk page for at least a week.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, it's best to keep the conversation in CFD so we can all follow it. (The one on my talk page was fine since it wasn't on the substantive category discussion.) It looks like you were on every talk page of anyone who !voted, correct? - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There were only 6 !voters and I think I messaged 5 about their wording. To be honest I'm having trouble recalling the events between the two CFD's.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That must have been very frustrating. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sound advice. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time this is also a good advice to User:Prisencolin, namely please avoid bludgeoning. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Forum shopping by Prisencolin

    Prisencolin started an RFC on the Talk page of the nominated category. Rather than a short statement, it is yet another WP:WALLOFTEXT. I've closed WP:RFCNOT. Please suspend Prisencolin for a suitable length of time. I'd recommend at least a week, so that related CfD can run to completion.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The RFC is not about "Renaming categories," which is prohibited by by WP:RFCNOT, it's about creating a definition for said category with help from actual experts in history and geography. (this should be obvious if one actually read the text of the RFC...) The outcome is intended to have no bearing on the CFD. One again, you are ignoring everything I have to say..--Prisencolin (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if it's forum shopping, but it certainly does not seem productive to start such a conversation there since, if the CFD is successful, the associated category talk page would also be deleted so you would lose any of the input you are trying to gather.- RevelationDirect (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the RFC, you can see that I was trying to find a way to move the text back into the CFD (which is commonly done). Also, talk pages of deleted pages can be permanently restored (eg Talk:Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence/Archive_1 (although now that I think about it it may only be there because the admin forgot to delete it...) .—Prisencolin (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support for racism in category names by Prisencolin

    Prisencolin's most recent comments are beyond the pale:

    We do not remove content that can be construed as racist WP:NOTCENSORED and all social science (and science in general), is going to be biased in some way. Some fields (like IQ research) can be criticized more frequently for their biases, but I don’t think that’s a reason to exclude WP:POV depictions of said research on the encyclopedia.

    — —-Prisencolin (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    speaking of racism...—Prisencolin (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond the pale means "bounds of morality, good behaviour or judgment in civilized company." That there was a pale in Ireland, and a pale in Russia, and there have been others, does not mean this expression has or ever has had anything to do with racism. (The Pale is the monthly newsletter of the SCA Middle Kingdom where I'm located.)
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrassment by Prisencolin

    @Prisencolin: should be talked to about his or her behavior such as [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2021_February_11&type=revision&diff=1006455344&oldid=1006453101%7Cad hominin attacks]] since retracted and apparently trying to impersonate me on another editor's talk page. [[87]]. He or she retracted the first and corrected the second, but this editor's behavior - originating in a content dispute - moved into wikilawyering (I hope this editor realizes that he or she is misciting various policies or accusing me of violating essays), and has now moved beyond that. See our policy of Wikipedia:Harassment where "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." I don't get this behavior; it's repeated on many of the people who disagree with this editor on content matters and this editor attacks editors about their knowledge, opinions, and credibility. I ask that it stop and that some admin make it stop. Whether there is an element of racism or not as posited above I haven't fathomed but the behavior - regardless of its motivation - must stop. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea why I was misidentified by another user as you, it was a legitimate mistake in not signing my comment, and I further have no idea why you are accusing me of impersonating you... My complaint, which I have tried to illustrate on this board is that you and probably others on CFD are carelessly... no let's use a more neutral term, just voting for deletion given your own opinion with WP:BEFORE carrying out the checks. Admittedly BEFORE is a guideline for AFD, and for nominations, but I feel it should still apply for voting. CFD resembles Wikimobocracy due to the small number of users involved, as the high proportion of categories deleted (from a cursory glance). Further, it almost feels like a bit of a trap when an editor brings up a category for renaming, and the category immediately gets voted for deletion even though that was no their intention. Perhaps Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion should be spun-off. It's not for me to say whether it was harassment or not, but so far no one seems to what I did was otherside the lines of civility other than yourself.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason you were misidentified is likely because you forgot to sign, but did link to Carlossuarez46's talk page at the end of your comment. [88] I agree you clearly weren't trying to impersonate anyone, but an important reminder why you should always make sure you sign. If people are voting in CFD, that's a problem. But AFAIK, you've presented no evidence people are voting at CFD. Nil Einne (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly why I misidentified the poster. FWIW, I would have taken the same corrective action regardless of which editor brought it to my attention. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing against consensus by Prisencolin

    Closed as keep Prisencolin is an involved party, and therefore not eligible to close. This is currently at 7 delete (most of them speedy G4), to 1 Keep (Prisencolin).

    Fortunately, it was promptly reverted.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what happened there, maybe a misclick (I've never used XFDcloser so I have no idea what it's like). But while closing would clearly be inappropriate, I don't see any reason to worry about a close reverted the same minute it was performed. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Wikipedia:XFDcloser, I think a quick close could easily be performed in two clicks very close together. Probably especially easy on a mobile device. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This was clearly accidental, as third parties have noted. Why is this even being reported to this board?--Prisencolin (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not possible to "misclick" XFDcloser — it requires at least 2 clicks to operate, and a final click to execute. The problem is this removed the discussion from various groups and pages. The revert in place did not restore them. Clever method to limit discussion, and nevertheless a problem caused by a problematic editor.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @William Allen Simpson: You're completely wrong. See Special:Contributions/Nil_Einne. I should have trusted my instincts and the documentation. If you use the quick close, only 2 clicks are required, and these are very close together as I said in my first followup above. Basically you click quick close then options appear below it and you click one, and then by the time you managed to click abort, you find you've made 30 edits you need to revert if you stupidly chose a CFD with lots of categories for discussion. I guess you've never used a smart phone or tablet, but believe me this would be very easy to do accidentally on one. A little harder on a device without a touch screen, still not that hard. If Prisencolin did not properly revert their close, you should talk to them about it rather than wasting ANI time on stupidness like this. There's no evidence this is anything but an accident, your lack of knowledge of how the XFDcloser works, and how people use devices not withstanding. (Yes I'm incredibly frustrated because I just wasted 10 minutes and messed up Wikipedia because I decided to trust you but you were wrong. Okay yes I chose a terrible example to try this on, and should have killed my internet connection before trying but meh.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Prisencolin view on reliable sources

    Followup to Prisencolin's original posting:

    Please tell me that Oxford University Press and the Los Angeles Times are "absurd and useless." I may be inclined to believe you if you argued they are absurd and useless leftist propaganda machines.

    — Prisencolin (talk)

    This section of diatribe reveals possible political motivations for relentless attacks on fellow editors. It is congruent with the expressed support for racism in category names.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In a series of edits to 24-hour clock and Talk:24-hour clock User:JohnMiller414 has added links to http://www.militarytime.site/ https://militarytimeconverter.org which appears to me to be the personal website of someone named John, who does not give a surname.

    In at least one instance the description of the site, after the edit, was misleading.

    In another instance the editor refactored another editor's talk page post. I will not revert any further edits by this user to avoid violating the three-revert rule. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC), link fixed 9 February 2021.[reply]

    It appears the website in question has been taken offline. Nightfury 13:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally such a website adds nothing not already in the article. The article already tells you how to convert (hint it's ridiculously simple) so a website that does it for you is completely unnecessary. Canterbury Tail talk 17:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Heads up

    (Continuation/resurfacing of: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Users_excessively_posting_about_Caliphs_of_Islam_at_help_desk)

    Google's search results have reverted back to displaying the pages on the Ahmadiyya Caliphate and Mirza Masroor Ahmad as the top results for people looking for the current caliph of Islam. Keep an eye on the edit filters, the talk pages of those articles, and on the public newcomer desks (WP:Help desk, WP:Teahouse, etc.). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    More pain for us.... Are those Caliphate Disruption filters still running? JavaHurricane 10:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They are, but only logging for now. As far as I can see, there's no 'featured snippet' (which I think was the main reason for the disruption), or am I missing something? Pahunkat (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, just found that searching for "who is the present caliph of Islam" returns a knowledge panel. Pahunkat (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: It appears that Google's taken down the knowledge panel. Pahunkat (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact they brought it back in the first place is kinda concerning. For what it's worth, this seems to be unique to Google - DuckDuckGo, Bing, and Yahoo! don't return either of the articles above (their top result is List of Caliphs instead) and both Bing and Yahoo! have what seems to be a Knowledge-Panel-esque thing at the top of their results explicitly saying there isn't one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit more investigating on my end:
    • The string [current caliph of islam] returns Ahmadiyya and Ahmad as top results on Google, while DDG, Bing, and Yahoo! return List of Caliphs as the top result (and the latter two have something at the top stating that there isn't such a thing)
    • The string [who is the current caliph of islam] returns identical results on Google and pushes the list article down one or two spots on the other three, with websites discussing the matter being ranked higher. Bing and Yahoo! lose the Knowledge-Panel-esque header.
    So this issue is entirely with Google, it appears. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    can wiki software handle a noindex tag for just the information box? It seems google respects codes that protect part of a page. Various codes here
    Slywriter (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This wouldn't help, as part of the issue is Google teturning those pages as top results. It's not entirely because of the Knowledge Panel, and even if it were Wikipedia is far from the only source the Knowledge Panel pulls from (as the occasional "My photo is wrong in Google" helpees learn in #wikipedia-en-help). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a shame teturning isn't a word, because it sounds like it would be really useful in the right situation. EEng 02:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bori claws are not conducive to typing. Like boxing gloves. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 03:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

    He’s editing my comments to make me look bad

    Please can someone tell the User:Quisqualis to stop being such a stupid bully https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quisqualis&diff=prev&oldid=1006007082

    He’s editing my comment on his talk page to make me look like an idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quisqualis&diff=prev&oldid=1006007082

    This is clearly not allowed because the policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#EDIT says you shouldn’t do this. Make him stop please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.170.10 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This really isn't very civil, and choosing to double down on it wasn't a great idea either. That being said, the OP calling them "stupid" is not ideal either. SQLQuery me! 17:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left both editors messages to that effect. SQLQuery me! 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that Quisqualis already has an open section on this very board that is unresolved, here. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, it's maybe not a slam dunk but it's fairly obvious that Quisqualis is being targeted by a blocked user, jumping to different IP addresses with impunity. In theory a perfect user would sit there and patiently take it, not rise to the bait, and wait for the SPI to go thru. It's not reasonable to expect people to be perfect. I've told socks of blocked users to fuck off my talk page before (yes, I know, conduct unbecoming etc); I see no reason to hold Quisqualis to a higher standard. How about this: I semi-protect Q's talk page for 3 days, they agree not to fake a header anymore, and we wait for the wheels of justice to turn slowly at SPI? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Хомяк1520

    User Хомяк1520 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of 1Goldberg2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see ru:Википедия:Форум администраторов#Бесконечный цикл or the same block descriptions in ru:Служебная:Вклад/1Goldberg2 and ru:Служебная:Вклад/Хомяк1520. 1Goldberg2 is banned for BLP violations, please ban Хомяк1520 to prevent them. Wikisaurus (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What is it that you base that assessment on? I'm only seeing 2 edits and I, at least, am unable to drawn an immediate link between these accounts. El_C 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The .ru links show that both accounts were blocked as part of the same sockfarm, if I'm reading it properly? Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff states this is an alt account of 1Goldberg2; there were no further socks at this point as far as I see. I blocked indef, since here it is block evasion.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Wikisaurus (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethnic slurs

    Could someone please review the casual use of ethnic slurs by TheOtter (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints? Specifically [89] [90] [91][92] I'm involved, and to be honest I'm not certain if this kind of "free speech" should be tolerated on Wikipedia, as I've never run across another editor saying the kind of racially insensitive things that TheOtter is. ~Awilley (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, the editor doesn't appear willing to abide by site consensus on style-guide manners for MOS:LDS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a message about this on their talk page. My thoughts on this are more complicated than people who know my politics might first think, but they don't really matter. I'll just say I don't think TheOtter needs a block at this time (mostly because they are not being intentionally used as actual pejoratives directed at other people), but I do think a block will be the rather quick result of continuing to casually use ethnic slurs to make a point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you User:Floquenbeam, that is perfect. ~Awilley (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was in Salt Lake City as a tourist 50 years ago and went to the visitor's center at Temple Square and took a tour of the areas that non-Mormons were allowed to enter at that time. The guide used the word "Mormon" dozens if not hundreds of times, and was especially proud of the world famous Mormon Tabernacle Choir which has a famous pipe organ with 11,623 pipes. It used to be on national TV a lot. Current U.S. Senator Mitt Romney has run for public office many times as a self-described Mormon, including his 2012 presidential campaign. His father George Romney, former governor of Michigan, described himself the same way. For much of the 21st century, this church ran a sophisticated advertising campaign called I'm a Mormon that featured dozens of the celebrity members of the church, proudly declaring their Mormon self-identity. All this came to an abrupt end in October, 2018 when the 93 year old head of the church decided that the word "Mormon" was suddenly unacceptable to describe members of this church, relying on "divine revelation" to justify his decision. The word "Mormon" was rapidly stripped from the choir. The advertising campaign was abruptly cancelled and the formerly embraced term was transformed into a slur by edict. This happened less than 29 months ago. Now, we have an editor going around indignantly insisting that "Mormon" is a slur and that all editors must accept the edict. This editor advances their argument by aggressively asserting that "Mormon" is equivalent to actual recognized racial and ethnic slurs, which the editor slings around freely. This argument is equivalent to imposing George Orwell's Newspeak on this encyclopedia. In my view, this is disruptive editing of the highest order, and if it continues, I recommend a topic ban on the LDS Church and "Mormonism", broadly construed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that background. I was scratching my head wondering why "Mormon" should be considered a slur, but now I know. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Anyone who says "Niggers" had it better than "Mormons" in regards to 1800s-1900s American history should get their head checked, read a history book, and be topic banned from editing related to Mormonism. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to a topic ban on Mormonism, I would also suggest one on race, very broadly construed. CUPIDICAE💕 13:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. There's no comparison between using a racial slur that has for well over a century, at least, been a slur, and using a term for a member of a religion that was accepted as a self-description by members of that religion until a couple of years ago. There's nothing wrong with writing any word if the discussion is about the word and it is necessary in context (as not here), but in this case the editor seems to just be looking for as many possible opportunities to use the "N" word. And, I have to wonder, where do black members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fit into this heirarchy? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, interesting point, seeing as black people couldn't be full LDS members until 1978. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a topic ban as well. ~ HAL333 20:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be pointed out that the official YouTube site for the Church has the film "Meet the Mormons" up on their channel, is still promoting it and was replying to comments on it as recently as last week and using the word over the last year. So it seems they officially aren't particularly bothered about the use of the word Mormons, even by themselves. In fact just a year ago they posted new videos entitled and logoed as "What Do Mormons Believe About God" and "What Mormons Believe About the Godhead". So to claim it's a slur and that the church doesn't use it is quite blatantly incorrect, and in fact supports the opposite. They even promote it as a commonly used term on their official website. So quite frankly TheOtter is blatantly wrong and the church in fact doesn't seem to care much about using the term Mormons. In fact TheOtter just comes across (appears this way) as an extremist in this matter that isn't supported by the church at large. And if they should continue that line they should just be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 22:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    COI and other problems at Danny Porush

    In 2013 Dporush1 (talk · contribs) created Danny Porush about himself, who is notable from The Wolf of Wall Street book and film. Since then he has made repeated attempts at whitewashing the article, almost always without a reliable source. He has been given numerous warnings, including about COI. He also has edited from several IPs located in or near Boca Raton, FL, where Porush lives. Now that edits on the article require review, Dporush1 returned with the same issue here and here. I hope his account will be indeffed. I also hope the page can be semi-protected because of his use of IPs. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed from editing the Danny Porush page. This action does not preclude any admin taking further action in excess of this PBAN (i.e. it may be upgraded to a full indef without needing to consult with me beforehand). Mjroots (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by 165.230.224.80

    In Mehmed the Conqueror, this IP adding "Category:Pederasty" and other irrelevant category, which the quote is Mehmed had a "reliably attested" passion for his hostage and favourite, Radu the Fair.. which is clearly outside mainstream view. This article request for protection at WP:RFPP by Beshogur, but because it is only happened in a single IP, i planned to report this to WP:AIV but will taking long respond, so i report this IP WP:ANI to give administrator actions to it. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Partial block. Yes, this is of a sensitive nature, so I expedited the usual. Anyway, I've directed that contributor to the article talk page, so hopefully, the matter will be resolved there. El_C 00:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of interest editing on KS Tiga Naga

    In KS Tiga Naga, two IP users changing the location of the club from Kampar Regency, Riau to Bandar Lampung and changing the stadium location from Tuanku Tambusai Stadium to Pahoman Stadium, which seems that they conduct conflict of interest editing as well as adding unsourced content regarding the location. Two IPs were gave warning by MRZQ and myself, but they are still adding same behaviour. Please take an action to partially block that users because it had requested for protection in WP:RFPP. 36.65.47.156 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's been years, also did the same thing in idwiki and xwiki related to Lampung, such as people from Lampung, stadiums, companies, football clubs, etc., often changing many places to Lampung, are users paid?? Range ips that stumble 114.4.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) 114.5.0.0/16 (talk · contribs)120.188.0.0/16 (talk · contribs). --MRZQ (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:wallyfromdilbert's persistent OWNBEHAVIOR, warring & MOS misuse after warnings

    User:wallyfromdilbert, despite warnings is engaging in persistent OWNBEHAVIOR at Jamie Raskin.

    • At this point, it was clearly OWNBEHAVIOR disguised as a content dispute.
    • In response, despite what I said, the user was only fixated on the MOS.
    • Then finally, since we had discussed the minor heading issue and there was no reason for there to be any problem with restoring my edit, I put it back here.

    Whew! So I've seen my share of MOS fanatics, but none who are so stubbornly and blindly determined to ignore the difference between guidelines and policies - nor one who so consistently misapplies those same guidelines - nor one who exhibits the persistent, textbook OWNBEHAVIOR of this one. The user also refuses real collaboration, compromise or AGF, and thinks nothing of repeated 3RR vios. This is beyond ridiculous. And User:wallyfromdilbert is no newbie. The user has been here for two years. When I pointed that out on their talk, the user even claimed that a personal attack, which in context, was nothing if not ironic. But honestly, this is the worst case of OWNBEHAVIOR I've ever seen and I've seen folks topic banned and indefinitely banned for less. Go down the list of telling behaviors and User:wallyfromdilbert literally checks off the first 3 boxes under OWNBEHAVIOR Actions and half the OWNBEHAVIOR Statements. And again, that's without all the rest. So make no mistake, this is not merely a content dispute. This is a user in need of serious WP policy education, behavior modification and sufficient discipline to make the points stick.

    In the past few months wallyfromdilbert has already been blocked 72 hours for warring. Obviously that instruction didn't stick. Because the behavior has gotten worse. So any new response should reflect that. X4n6 (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I see WP:OWN here. It looks like you made changes and wally disagreed with those changes. At that point, the burden is on you to find consensus on the talk page. Edit warring to restore your changes, then telling the other person not to edit war before even going to the talk page, isn't typically persuasive. If you think wally is wrong or disagree on interpretations of MOS, it's probably a good idea to solicit a third opinion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was never aware the style guidelines at MOS:BIB to place an article subject's publications at the end of an article were even controversial. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I included lots of links here, and it's a lot of reading that likely invites skimming. But if you go through it, chronologically, the OWN becomes pretty blatant. But the bulletpoints are: I explained my edit to the user[93]; invited the user to discuss rather than revert[94]; went to the user's talk page to repeat that request[95]; never issued a former 3RR warning; invited the user to offer their own compromises[96] - they declined[97]; warned the user about OWN[98]; so I invited the user to RfC rather than edit war.[99] Instead, the user edit warred.[100]. X4n6 (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    this seems like a good example. If I understand correctly, you're reinstating your preferred version that wally disagreed with (and which differs from the long-standing section heading). But you're operating under the assumption that your version is the default, and that the burden is on wally to convince you or run an RfC rather than the other way around. WP:BRD. I'm not saying it's not a totally frustrating position to be with, dealing with people with strong opinions about MOS, but BRD still applies here. It's on you to find consensus for the change (whether through normal discussion, soliciting a 3O, RfC, or whatever). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's start here, since this was the original edit that started it all. There's nothing controversial about it. Certainly nothing that should have required prior discussion or consensus. Actually, if you read the paragraph, which was mainly about the subject's education, including education in the heading was common sense. So the question becomes, was there a problem with the edit? The user changed it with this. New info and new heading. Perfectly fine so far. But now the heading did not include all the information in the section. So I did this. Then I realized there was enough content for two sections, so I split them and did this. Well that was apparently a bridge too far and the user reverted to the original heading despite all the new information and said this. That put us right back to the original heading, which, now with the new info, was even more inadequate. So I did this. From there I was reverted, tossed a misinterp of MOS and told I needed to talk to discuss this obvious - and obviously minor edit. Seriously? Sorry, by that point that's not RfC. That's OWN. But don't take my word. Read the first line under Actions. And if there's still doubt, this comment is an almost perfect mashup of lines 3, 4 and 8 as described in Statements. X4n6 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are definitely correct that you did not need "prior discussion or consensus" to make the change. WP:BEBOLD and whatnot. And just to be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong in your edits or that they should be considered controversial -- only that they were challenged by someone. I don't understand how most MOS disputes wind up getting so heated. I suspect it's because both parties see their edits as completely natural and uncontroversial, and they resent the other for making them waste time on it. But such is Wikipedia. I digress.
    WP:OWN is a very hard case to make here concerning active contributors, for better or worse. My take is that this is premature -- there are dispute resolution tools that haven't been used yet such that, absent a pattern across multiple articles and over time, I don't think you'll have much luck with WP:OWN claims. That said, I'll shut up and let other people voice opinions at this point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Having just become WP:INVOLVED in that discussion, I will note that I am also finding Wally to be very stubborn and very much insisting that his opinion is the only correct interpretation of WP:OVERSECTION - even when I quote the language of that guideline to him. With that said, I agree with Rhododendtrites that this issue should be worked out at the talk page. More people might be inclined to join the discussion if they aren't put off by each comment becoming an endless, repetitive argument - approaching bludgeoning. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Listen, in one sense, I've actually already achieved two of my three objectives here. One was to simply point out to folks - and to this user - that they were being... what I'll charitably call problematic. And to say that certain behavior will land you here. Which is never any fun for anyone. But when it becomes clear that the other user isn't really warring with you - so much as they're acting as the "guardian" of their views about an article - or a rule or guideline - that needs to be addressed or "enforced," then you've got a real problem. So, many thanks to Rhododendrites and MelanieN for your input. Especially to MelanieN, because you actually dipped your toe in the water and saw firsthand what I was dealing with. But the third part of what I wanted still hasn't happened? What happens next with this user? If all that happens is we all agreed with nary a word or action re: this user, then what was the point? And what exactly does he learn going forward? And what incentive or deterrent is there moving forward? As I said early, I noticed this user got a 72hr block for warring just a few months ago. But that obviously didn't alter behavior. I haven't done a dive into his edit log, but everything tells me this wasn't some isolated recurrence with just me. I'm guessing there are lots more alleged WP/MOS grievances, and unreported warring. And if nothing happens now, there'll certainly be more. And this kind of stuff is a prime reason why folks get chased off the project. When their joy in editing gets unreasonably disrupted. X4n6 (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor using WP:AWB to violate WP:NOTBROKEN

    Mandarax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using WP:AWB to "fix" numerous redirects in violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. The AWB Rules of Use say that users must "Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices". DuncanHill (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds like a WP:COSMETICBOT issue, although I will note that there are circumstances where direct links are preferred over redirects, and mass-editing to effect them (particularly following a page move of the linked page) has generally been considered permissible. BD2412 T 02:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without knowing (or caring) about the content issue, I'm just supremely disappointed that this kind of think is being brought here, 7 minutes after your first message on their talk page, when they haven't edited since. You've always struck me as a reasonable person, I'm really at a loss for why you came running to the Great Dismal Swamp to tattle as an initial step. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      disappointed that this kind of think is being brought here – That's right, there's way too much think going on around here. EEng 16:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fuck it then, just ignore me. DuncanHill (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DuncanHill - Oh c'mon... there's no need for that. Floquenbeam was just trying to say that they haven't edited since your warning on the user's talk page. No need to throw down the towel; Floquenbeam was just trying to help. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was "just trying to help" and I get the playground omerta called on me, and find I've "supremely disappointed" someone. DuncanHill (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you had discussed this with me instead of immediately running to ANI, I would've suggested that you read all of the WP:NOTBROKEN section, where it says "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect." That's what I was fixing. (Unlike you, who undid my edit and restored a misspelled redirect.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I don't understand why this is even on the noticeboard. I've made countless minor edits in the past with the edit summary avoid redirect attached. Mandarax's version restored. El_C 07:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I suggest that if fixing a typo then "fixing a typo" would be a more appropriate edit summary, and less likely to cause confusion? DuncanHill (talk) 08:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? It's a redirect, avoid it. Anyway, you're welcome to do as you see fit with your own editing, but I'm content with precision and see no reason to alter my longstanding practice. El_C 10:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The way this was brought here is highly deficient, and the edits are mostly beneficial. Just one thing, Mandarax, if I may; here you change [[Diego Velazquez|Velazquez]] to [[Diego Velázquez|Velazquez]], which means that you correct the part no one sees, and leave alone the actual reader-facing bit: preferably, it should either be the reverse, or both should be changed. Fram (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing that out. I do try to take care of such things, but there were a lot of changes in that edit, and apparently as I scrolled down, I missed that one. Higher up on the page I had changed "the [[Diego Velazquez|Velazquez]]" to "Velázquez", because there was already a link to him in the previous sentence (and the "the" was extraneous). I've now taken care of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CANVASS regarding Mary Ann Mansigh

    User:Ema--or seems to be getting a bit carried away with the promotion of Mary Ann Mansigh.

    This involves WP:BLUDGEON of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ann Mansigh and it's talk page, and also Talk:Mary Ann Mansigh.

    Plus more seriously, WP:CANVASS of potentially at least these projects:

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj cheetham (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this here before any substantive discussion with the editor?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ema--or advised how to post a neutral notification of AfD's to Wikiprojects. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And despite that, she left another non neutral notice here. I didn't look at the quality of the other ones, but there are more. There's also a WP:POLEMIC on her talk directed at a particular editor. It's tyme for a timeout. She's still bludgeoning the AfD, even though it appears it's going to be a keep.174.254.192.137 (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Failing to drop the stick and other disruption at Talk:Wright Flyer

    Hi everyone! I'm here to discuss the editing behavior of Wright Stuf and the user's failure to drop the stick on Talk:Wright Flyer, as well as their continued disruption on the page. This issue was first brought to my attention on my user talk page here by BilCat. Wright Stuf and other editors have been engaging in discussion on the article's talk page here, but it has quickly turned into finger-pointing, incivility, and other drama - and I believe this to be mostly caused by Wright Stuf. If you see their user talk page here, it is littered full of warnings, requests to drop the stick, and requests for the user to stop their disruption there. It hasn't stopped, and I believe that action is required in order to put a stop to the disruption. I'm not sure exactly how I should go about handling this properly, so I'm turning to the community for input. Should this user be partially blocked from the article's talk page? But then, in my mind, the discussion and finger-pointing will just move elsewhere. If I fully-block the user, I fear that it'll just continue after the block expires, and will only set them off and make them cause further disruption. How should I go about handling this? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    He's way over 3RR. Far too invested in his own notions to collaborate. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone reviewing that case can clearly see that I Dropped the Stick and walked away 3 times. Each time in my absence, my posts were tampered with. It is my GREATEST DESIRE to exit that page. Exit cleanly. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wright Stuf - ...But you came back after others removed the discussion, restored it, and continued to edit war over it. Why? Dropping the stick means that you move on, and you clearly haven't done so. As evidenced by your responses here and here (among others), you clearly haven't discussed the issue peacefully, and you're continuing to push your thoughts when others have indicated that it's time to move on. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I committed to staying away for the remainder of 2021. I hope that Admins will choose to uphold WP:Consensus on this issue. Among other WP violations I've flagged.
    As for 3RR, I never once did more than 3 reverts on anything. Binksternet's claim is a distortion.
    And you'll all see that the MUCH BIGGER ISSUE at the root of the entire discussion is lack of Policy. This entire mess could have been easily avoided if WP:Colorization existed. But it doesn't. LOTS needing to be fixed here. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: pushing my thoughts...
    The part I have been insistent on since I walked away the first time days ago is simply that my posts remain unmolested in my absence. I see this to be perfectly reasonable. Especially since I was the one conforming to long established consensus. Established in 2014. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclosure: I'm the editor who first reverted Wright Stuf's addition of their colorized photo and their simultaneous deletion of the historic black & white photo of the first flight in two articles: Wright brothers and Wright Flyer. Their argument is based on the fallacy that consensus about photo colorization among editors in another article (Ilia Chavchavadze) compels the same result in these two articles. That's what they are referring to when harping on the idea "that Admins will choose to uphold WP:Consensus on this issue", "established in 2014". (Postscript: someone just swapped the colorized photo back to b&w in the Chavchavadze article, so the "consensus" there is not as certain as WS believes.) DonFB (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You FAIL to grasp the concept of Consensus. The rationale presented (here) for removing the colorized image for this new b&w image was that it was a "better quality photo". Notice that in SIX AND A HALF YEARS, absolutely no one has posted any rebuttal whatsoever to Centpacrr's excellent rationale for using the colorized image:
    Talk:Ilia_Chavchavadze#fake_photograph
    Consensus from 2014 remains standing to this very day. Swapping to a higher quality image which happens to be b&w does not change the long established Consensus on the proper use of colorization. --Wright Stuf (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR violation at Talk:Wright Flyer

    Wright Stuf reverted many times at Talk:Wright Flyer.

    I count six reverts in 24 hours, or seven if you count the null edit which was technically a manual reversion. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    By my eye, those look like SEPARATE ISSUES. Never more than 3 on any.
    Furthermore...
    Permissible reverts on VANDALISM is unlimited. I made multiple requests for anyone to explain why my posts being repeatedly tampered with was not vandalism. My requests were repeatedly ignored. By Binksternet, among others. --Wright Stuf (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:3RR policy says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Your argument is invalid, that you were attending to "separate issues". And if you read the policy page at Wikipedia:Vandalism you will not see any support for your second argument. Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wp:VANDALISM is very clear on what constitutes vandalism. What happened on the talk page for Wright Flyer does not meet the criteria for vandalism. WP:3RR is very clear on how many reverts an editor may perform to a page outside of vandalism. 3RR applies to any page on the encyclopaedia, not just article pages. 3RR is also quite clear on the exceptions allowed, and the reversions on Talk:Wright Flyer do not fall into those exemptions. 3RR has quite clearly been exceeded even after the editor was warned. Yesterday Wright Stuf even posted the policies on 3RR exemptions on their talk page, so it's clear that they had read them. They have chosen to interpret that policy in a way no one else is interpreting it and continue to double down in their disruptive editing to push their editing preferences (preferences which are clearly against consensus on that talk page and are in my opinion violations of WP:OR, colourising an image is original research to determine what the colours were, their hue etc.) I think it's quite clear what needs to be done here so I have done it. They keep claiming they wish to walk away from it, if the editor returns to editing after the block it may be an idea to block them from the Wright Flyer article and talk page if disruption continues. Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury Tail - Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Canterbury Tail - I concur. - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Expressing an opinion which runs counter to Consensus does not change that Consensus. --Wright Stuf (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep talking about a consensus, yet there is no such consensus on the talk page for the Wright Flyer. Please point out where a consensus is for using a colorized picture on the Wright Flyer article. Anyway I'm not concerned with consensus (which having read the talk page of Wright Flyer extremely clearly exists and the consensus is to NOT have a colorized image), that is a content issue on the page. When I blocked you I did not ignore consensus as you have claimed on your talk page, I simply acted due to edit warring and disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 02:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    After a 24-hour block, Wright Stuf is back with a disruptive edit to the same talk page. I have tried, along with other editors, to encourage them to move on (on that talk page and on their user talk), but all we get is very long indignant speeches and no improvement to the actual article. I would like to propose they are blocked from editing on Wright Flyer and the article talk page. -- Ariadacapo (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My return to that Talk was after I found key policy guidance which I had hoped would shed light. It was not to discuss. It was intended to illuminate, and then I leave for the remainder of the year. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "key policy guidance" is still based on your totally unfounded idea that a previous consensus was established. There was no previous consensus for what you want to do at the Wright Flyer page. The more you insist there was previous consensus, the deeper you dig your hole. Let it go... Start to work on a new consensus, or work to establish project-wide guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I announce that I leave for all of 2021, and people cry here, telling me to let it go. I have. I have no plans to return there. I added no "very long indignant speech" whatsoever. --Wright Stuf (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point I honestly think you're just trolling now. At this point it's becoming apparently clear you are fast approaching being unable and unwilling to collaborate with other editors. It appears that you're only interested in making demands and hurling around accusations that people are ignoring a non-existent consensus and are approaching Wikipedia editing as it being a WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you continue to accuse or mention to other editors again that a consensus exists, that they're ignoring a precedent or consensus, or continue to make demands you will be blocked. If you wish to discuss with other editors in a civilized manner to see if you can amicably resolve your differences and maybe make some traction on pushing forward a solution that involves colorized images on Wikipedia, then great. However if you continue to bang on about some consensus for Wright Flyer that quite clearly at this point only exists in your mind, and continue your combative approach to this, on any page space be it talk, mainspace or user, then it's clear that you're no longer compatible with this project and you will be blocked indefinitely. Canterbury Tail talk 03:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Site ban proposal

    Just a glance over the editor's behavior is appalling, and after taking some time to analyze the editor's responses to the accusations levied against them, the behavior that is on display both in this thread and on the editor's talk page is a flagrant violation of the most basic expectations of conduct on this site. For example, [101] "Either that, or you don't know how to count to FOUR." This is clearly unnecessary, and in my view, at least, borders on a personal attack. Somehow, the editor has additionally accused other editors of "gaslighting" for telling the editor to stop their problematic edit-warring behavior. [102] Accusations of "gaslighting" should not be flying around, and are clearly incivil and unnecessary. After being given a short block, they have continually attempted to light more fires, and, as far as I can tell, have not made any significant contributions to the project, but instead, have taken the time to write attacks against other editors, sometimes lengthy, sometimes short.

    And it is because of this clear pattern of behavior that I propose that the editor be indefinitely site-banned. The editor is likely to just continue on their talk page, however, so I would also place as a provision of this site ban, that their talk page access be revoked, and that an appeal to the community be sent through email to an administrator, or through UTRS. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn in favor of the below proposal. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose User has only been blocked once and that was for this. Moving to a site ban seems precipitous, given lesser remedies having not been tried. WS seems emotionally engaged with his whole colorization thing and is not thinking clearly. Perhaps time away from the subject will help them clear their mind. Oh. Need to amend my TBAN proposal to include colorized images. @Wright Stuf: is there some non wiki reason you are so het up/emotionally invested in colorization that it is affecting your judgment? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal TBAN on Wright Flyer for WS

    Let's not be overly hasty and fly off the handle. Six month TBAN on Wright Flyer, enforced by partial blocks, with the understanding that WS edit constructively and collaboratively on other subjects. Understanding that further disruption or incivility will result in further blocking. With the understanding that the TBAN applies Wikipedia wide, including their talk page. To be reviewed after six months. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Amending above to include image colorization uploads. Seems to be stuck in WS's craw. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Much better idea than the site ban proposal I made above. My support of this is for the same reasoning as the striked out portion in the above section. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to support because I am unable to confirm the so-called consensus they refer to. That is tendentious IMO & worthy of break from the topic for the benefit of WP. But the wording is confusing. What if they do not violate the TBAN re: the article, but they are uncivil or uncollaborative elsewhere; would the article TBAN be lifted but the other restrictions remain? Why not just partial block from the article now, and if they don't violate the other requirements, then lift after 6 months? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per my notice above. --Ariadacapo (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Having looked over the history, the overall problem appears to be that WS is trying to exercise ownership of the page, which is why they came back to it after saying that they were leaving it and were satisfied (but then someone else edited it). The more specific problem is the edit-warring over the colorized image. A topic-ban, enforced by partial blocks, is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dtt1 and Ashish Chanchlani

    Dtt1 is tendentiously attempting to create an article on this Youtuber. Articles have already been created and deleted as A7, and then created and deleted after AFD, and created with a variant title in order to game the history, and deleted after AFD. The title was then salted, but a Deletion Review said that re-creation should be allowed. There may have been a misreading of the DRV as to whether re-creation was allowed in draft or in article space, but it has been re-created yet again in article space, and has been tagged for deletion by User:Pradixicae. The current AFD should simply be allowed to run, but then Dtt1 filed a case request at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which does not handle deletion disputes. I have closed the DRN request as forum shopping. This was vexatious litigation at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to add to the above, more name gaming about a week ago: Draft:Ashish chanchalani (see Teahouse thread 1 and Teahouse thread 2). That was not created by Dtt1 but by a new user who has since been globally locked as a LTA. It looks like there is a marketing push to get an article about Chanchlani created. --bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashish Chanchlani. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Title Blacklist

    I recommend that Chanchlani be title blacklisted to prevent future gaming of naming protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think this would be a good idea. --bonadea contributions talk 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And to add onto this, I don't think the suspicions here are remotely unfounded or coincidental. Nearly every page move Dtt1 has done is moving sock-spam (or coi-spam) into mainspace:
    Rohanpreet Singh - created by a declared paid/coi editor, moved within 24 hours of submission by Dtt1 who was a "brand new" user at the time
    Draft:Rohan Solomon - recreated by dtt1 following CarryMint's several blocks
    Draft:Toranj Kayvon/Toranj Kayvon - recreated/moved by dtt1, following known upe sock farm, Shringhringshring's block
    Pratik Gauri/Draft:Pratik Gauri - moved by dtt1, sock spam by ShaiksKings
    Khushi Shah/Draft:Khushi Shah - moved by dtt1, which also led to their temporary block for socking, from the ImSonyR9 a well known and prolific paid sock farm
    R Nait/Draft:R Nait - moved by dtt1, a creation by a prolific spammer Swarup Kumar Solanki
    Yasir Akhtar - moved by dtt1, created by known spammer Ayesha Mallik just weeks after their block and Dtt1 joining
    Bandish Bandits - moved by dtt1, created by Godiswithyou
    Viral Shah - another ImSonyR9 upe creation, even acknowledged by Dtt1, moved to mainspace
    Just Sul - yet another ImSonyR9 UPE creation
    Yasser Desai - their first page move, a long term spam target by a variety of spam socks, was moved to mainspace by dtt1 within hours of becoming extendedconfirmed
    I could continue but I think my point is demonstrated here. When you hear hoofbeats... It seems so unlikely to the point of improbability that Dtt1 is some special unicorn who has just showed up at all of these paid-for-spam articles out of happenstance. CUPIDICAE💕 17:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic-Ban

    I recommend a topic-ban against Dtt1 having to with Ashish Chanchlani.

    Johnviz, sockpuppetry

    I blocked Johnviz for sockpuppetry. Johnviz plans to take this public, "we are going to use all our resources to bring this to the public and your donors". I have no opinion on Dead Talk Live or Johnviz for that matter; the block was solely for violations of WP:SOCK. I welcome another checkuser to review the technical evidence. Any checkuser is free to lift the block if they believe I'm mistaken. Is there any reason to notify anyone else, such as press@wiki? --Yamla (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to be a relatively ridiculous threat, as after previous similar threats, I have not seen onwiki disruption from anyone else than the editor himself, and his sockpuppet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While being preventative is generally wise, I'm not sure there's a need to contact press@wiki unless there's actual pertinent press activity. Myself, short of the many times I've had to contact the WP:EMERGENCY end of the Foundation, I've never really had any contact with them in so far as activity on en is concerned. No idea about the veracity of CU data. I leave that to those with CU permissions. El_C 01:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What does this person think SAG will do for them? Force us to have a (I presume glowing) article about their web show? 331dot (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Jumping in as a WP:TPS (I have AN in my watchlist for fun). I watched their "show", and, first off, they said they were going to talk about Wikipedia for 10 minutes (as per their talk), and then they drag on and on for forty out of the sixty minutes of the show. Obsessive much? As well, they didn’t say anything new, just blah blah don’t wanna name any names (even though they said on their talk that they aren’t holding back), blah blah Wikipedia is discriminatory and all the content that people end up seeing is a result of the bias and prejudices of the administrators (which isn’t true cuz I’ve seen/written some articles that admins haven’t even touched yet), etc. Anyways, I see no need to contact press@wiki for now. However, I think someone needs to have a message on standby as they have alluded to the fact that they will be making this "public" and that Wikipedia will be one of the main focuses of their show and blog until this is resolved, which could take a while. The reasoning that it might take a while is because I’m pretty sure they just invited their viewers to edit the draft articles and "demand" that it be "listed" as an article. And then they have the audacity to say "but I didn’t tell you all to do that, just a suggestion". D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 03:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite claiming to have 300k ""followers"" they get ~ 50 views on YouTube, about 500 on Instagram about 250 on Facebook and probably a few hundred more on the other services I couldn't be bothered to check so realistically what, 1000 active followers? How many of them are going to volunteer their time to trying to get an advert for this show onto Wikipedia having listened to a 40 minute rant instead of the podcast content they wanted to listen to? Maybe one or two if they're lucky? as I said above I very much doubt this is going to result in anything, maybe we'll have to delete or protect some drafts. A random internet nobody with 1000 viewers isn't going to need a WMF response even if they do go "Public". 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    300k? Ha, try half a million. They "bragged" about it on their UTP. I found it hilarious why they would even bring it up in the first place. As well, I was the only one in their Twitter livestream (not kidding when I say that it said "1 Viewer" at the bottom). Adding onto your point: their fans are probably tired of hearing about Wikipedia for 40 damn minutes when they came for their daily dose of news. I don’t get why this person couldn’t have made a separate stream solely about Wikipedia, that way, their "fanbase" can choose if they want to listen to a grown ass person complain about one of if not the most popular online encyclopedia for 40 minutes or actual news. D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 03:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, this is as unambiguous a CU finding as I've ever seen; two accounts editing the exact same articles with the exact same material from the exact same IP. Conceivably, he could have been honest about this and clean things up, but instead he's lied from the start. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having just read -- at excruciating and repetitive length -- their comments on their talk page, I think it's well past time to revoke User:Johnviz's TPA. They're just blatantly abusing the privilege and harassing multiple admins with unnecessary repeated pings to comments full of ridiculous threats. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what's all this blather about having a "spotless 10 year record" when they made their first edit on 22 January 2021, a little less than a month ago? Sure, their account may have been created 10 years ago, but they haven't made any kind of "record" of editing to be spotless or otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe not as done as I thought: Yamla has blocked two new accounts, Jariosi and Javiem88, as sockpuppets of Johnviz. The give-away was their re-creation of Draft:Dead Talk Live, the article about Johnviv's media platform. Admin/CU question: is there any way to prevent the underlying IP(s) or range of IPs from which these accounts were made from creating new ones? Given the continued sockpuppetry, maybe include the two accounts blocked as meatpuppets, Ethan Lenear and Villanekhaleeci? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Fuaacena appears to be either a prodigious "test editor" on active pages or is a vandal

    Editor @Fuaacena: appears to be either a prodigious "test editor" on active pages or is a vandal. I happened across five edits to the Laura San Giacomo page made by Fuaacena which on the first view appeared to be "test edits". I reverted these changes and made a comment on the Laura San Giacomo talk page and made a comment on Fuaacena's talk page concerning these edits. Being curious about what Fuaacena might be doing, I looked at Fuaacena's edit history and saw a troubling pattern of suspicious "test edits" on numerous Wikipedia articles. Many of these "test edits" had already been noticed and reverted.

    Fuaacena's pattern of suspicious "test edits" on Wikipedia articles seems to merit examination with a view toward "Administrator intervention against vandalism".

    Osomite hablemos 01:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Osomite. Could you please link the specific diffs you are referencing, so that we can take a look? You also need to place a notice on Fuaacena's talk page that an ANI discussion has been opened regarding their editing. You can do so with the template shown at the top of this page in the red box. Pinging them is not considered sufficient notification. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomGnome: I did place a notice (using the template) on @Fuaacena:'s talk page at 17:56, February 12, 2021. Fuaacena deleted it at 22:39, February 12, 2021 - Dif: [103]‎. I did a previous entry on Fuaacena's talk page cautioning about possible vandalism, Fuaacena delete it, Dif: [104]. Fuaacena has not replied to me about my concerns. Fuaacena had also deleted another post that was made by User:NJZombie which cautioned about vandalism: [105]
    Fuaacena's "test edits" on the Laura San Giacomo article initiated my concern. However, there are many other edits that Fuaacena did on other articles which led me to realize that Fuaacena's edits are typically problematic "test edits". So Fuaacena's "test edits" on Laura San Giacomo is just the tip of the edit chaos that has been created. A cursory look at Fuaacena's edit history will show many "test edits" that have been reverted by other editors.
    On the Laura San Giacomo article, Fuaaena made five "test edits" in a row, the Difs: [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], and this is my "undo" edit to fix the mess [111]
    Osomite hablemos 07:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I hadn't considered that Fuaacena had deleted the message, so I've learned that I need to check talk page history in future. Now that you've provided some diffs, hopefully an admin will take a look at your complaints. Thanks. RandomGnome (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    edit warring, personal attacks, threats by 181.44.116.104

    Reported IP users have been blocked and the mess has been cleaned up. If any more of these users show up, report them to AIV so that they can be immediately blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    SPA on Nation Georgaphic related topics.

    And based on [125] seems to have moved on to another related IP. Meters (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    definitely on another IP now. See [126] by 181.73.146.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Meters (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Meters, another series of personal attacks [127] and [128] Ashleyyoursmile! 05:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's not Nate Speed, they're doing a good impression. These IPs are two different countries, so I don't think range blocks are going to help. Just report any new ones to AIV. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Zzuuzz, thank you for blocking. I just reported another 81.132.219.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to AIV. Ashleyyoursmile! 05:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, after the block I was wondering who the LTA was. Realized after my initial post that I misread the IPs and that the IP range was far too wide for range block. Meters (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Busy busy. Blocked – for a period of one week to the original IP, with everything disabled. Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Applied to National Geographic Society, Touchstone Pictures and Hollywood Pictures. Various revisions deleted. Let me know if I missed any pertinent pages to protect or revisions to delete. El_C 05:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C:May need to protect National Geographic Partners too. Didn't see this until after the above. Meters (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another 86.183.102.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Ashleyyoursmile! 06:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, now I'm remembering. It's that LTA, I forget the name of the master (is it Nate Speed? Bah, who cares), who mostly disrupts TV and movie studio pages and then evades blocking by IP hopping, all while delivering endless all-CAP screeds. I've blocked many tens of their IPs and protected many tens of pages (often for many months) over the years. It just has been a while. El_C 06:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, and another one 176.88.93.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Ashleyyoursmile! 06:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, they'll keep going like this until they tire themselves out.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 06:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nate Speed (or as they call themselves "Nate Spidgewood") again? They're a funny LTA - semi-censored expletives etc. And of course the (angry?) emoticons D:< Pahunkat (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Imjha1 - Possible UPE, possible NOTHERE, complete failure to communicate

    The reported user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Imjha1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I'm not sure where else to go with this. This user has accumulated numerous level 4 warnings for various behaviours including pure vandalism, promotional editing and UPE. Their behaviour is perhaps worst on the articles that have now been deleted. I have no doubt that they have made some constructive edits but there have been a lot of tendentious edits on non-notable people like Zayn Saifi and Nikhil Sharma (YouTuber). I do believe that there is COI/UPE involved but the user has not responded to any attempt to communicate with them on their talk page about this. I also dislike their use of edit summaries, especially 'fixed typo' to imply that the edit is minor when it is anything but. User:GSS initially communicated with them regarding their paid editing and I can't see that they have responded despite clearly being told to cease editing until doing so. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at the history of Mumbiker Nikhil and Zayn Saifi, I can see that this spam has been going on for a while. Do we know if Imjha1 is a sock of any of the previous creators of these spam articles? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User should be indefinitely blocked for violation of WP:PAID now they’ve ignored all 4 paid notice levels. SK2242 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) Marking +5,944‎ as WP:MINOR is nowhere near the record, but it's certainly ambitious. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done the block. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New IP range block needed

    Range has been re-blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A six-month range block on 2600:1003:B0A0:0:0:0:0:0/44 expired a few days ago and they're right back at it. It also looks like 2600:1003:B02B:4C90:0:32:68C3:7101 is making the same kind of edits (example) but isn't captured by the original range. I'm not too familiar with how IP addresses work so not sure if the range can be easily expanded. Best, DanCherek (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Reblocked range for 1 year. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Antondimak manipulation of CfD outcomes

    User:Antondimak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been moving articles between categories to prevent deletion or merger during and after CfD, and mass reverting deletions of inappropriate categorization.

    See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#User:Antondimak evasion of CfD outcomes

    We have a strong restriction on categorizing by place of birth, unless that was both defining and notable:

    1. WP:COP-PLACE: The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual.
    2. WP:CATNAME#Heritage: The place of birth is rarely notable and therefore categories that designate place of birth are discouraged.
    3. WP:CATNAME#Residence: The place of birth is rarely notable.

    William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the discussion. I have been transparent from the very beginning. I have made and maintained most of the categories for more than half a year now, and we are currently restructuring them to better fit with the established model. William Allen Simpson has been removing articles to influence the discussion, as has done before in similar cases (they mass removed articles from similar categories, citing different, often visibly wrong, reasons, and then tagged them for deletion for being empty). If they have a legitimate issue with the way the entirety of biographical categories work in practice in Wikipedia, maybe it would be better to address it as a whole and not target articles in a particular discussion to achieve a result.
    I will note that I have generally abstained from "voting" in such discussions, in order to avoid this user from dragging me into situations like this. --Antondimak (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also just as a note, I too don't categorise based on birth place alone. In every case when a biographical article mentions that someone was born in a place but then soon moved elsewhere, it isn't categorised by birth place. If I had been doing that, the categories would be quite larger. --Antondimak (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They" is used in the singular and refers to you. I have no problem with any of these people you mention and we have come to an understanding to move forward with the restructuring of the category tree, but you keep trying to make a mess of the nominations. --Antondimak (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In looking at the other editor's talk page (who was not notified, but who has responded), it appears that this is a dispute between two editors who do not like each other. I am not sure what if anything the community can do about that state other than to minimize getting dragged in. I know very little about categories, but this looks like a content dispute that is complicated by stubbornness (which can become conduct) on both sides. Is there a neutral administrator who is knowledgeable about categories who can try to help? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hardly. The hostility is one-way. I've only posted to his Talk once asking him to stop posting lies behind my back. But didn't feel it had yet escalated to needing administrator intervention.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have posted to your talk page zero times (if you don't count the notice, which you don't). I should note that this time you told me not to lie, it was over me saying exactly what happened. Namely, an article mentioned "Vrangiana, Karditsa" and you recategorised it to the regional unit of Karditsa in general, saying it "only references Karditsa", which was clearly false. This was during your previous round of targeted edits to empty Greek location categories, using different, usually baseless, claims every time, which I reverted explaining the mistaken reasoning in every single one. You didn't even try to argue the merit of your edits (it wasn't really possible), so you dragged me here the same way you did now. When it come to this case, there was no discussion at all, which I called for. You just immediately headed here, which makes me think you created this situation on purpose. You always seem to be looking for an excuse to bring me to ANI. You always come to me, not the other way around. I always react to my watchlist being flooded with mass targeted edits in Greek location categories. I have no idea where this hostility comes from, but I in no way seek to cause you harm. This whole thing is so stupid, I mean it's a flame war over categories for crying out loud. --Antondimak (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I picked 2 articles and took a closer look:
    Clearly the two editors have disagreements both about which categories should exist and they also have a disagreement about how many articles should be under these categories. I don't see any attempt to override CFD consensus here though, but maybe I looked at the wrong two articles or there are category changes that don't show up in the article histories? - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) Ioannis Patsantaras has no WP:RS as to any location. There is an unverified passing mention to place of birth, but that is not notable or defining. Serving as an unelected "aide-de-camp" to a national president is not notable under WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Serving as a small town mayor is also not notable under WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. He was included in a recent CfD (Boeotia). Removing "People from" was the very least to do; the whole article should be deleted.
    (2) Miltiadis Papaioannou is listed under a current (Achaea) discussion. There is only 1 source. There is an unverified passing mention to place of birth, but that is not notable or defining. Serving as an MP of a national legislature is notable, but that was from Athens. Therefore, my edit was clear: "WP:COP-PLACE place of birth is rarely notable, he was MP from Athens".
    Both were used by Antondimak to bolster a manifestly false argument about the need for some small categories. Others were added to the categories during discussion.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we will need to have this discussion here since you weren't so kind as to use the talk page.
    (1) Ioannis Patsantaras: If you think the article should be deleted, and you're not just doing it to empty a category, then nominate it for deletion. Throughout Wikipedia, when biographies are categorised by location, they are categorised by place of birth/residence, if they coincide. If the person in question was only born in a certain location and say moved with his family immediately, he isn't categorised according to the place of birth, because in and of itself it has no significance. The biography is instead categorised to the place where the person moved and spent their life. This is what I have been following when categorising these articles as well. In this case, the person stayed in Boeotia, and served as mayor there. There is no reason to move him to a different category.
    (2) Miltiadis Papaioannou: If you knew about Greek politics, you would know that seats are allocated based on an algorithm that takes into account mostly national party proportionality. The region of the seats doesn't really matter, and the region one candidate picks to run is often one they have few connections to. For example, Alexis Tsipras is currently MP for Achaea, Yanis Varoufakis is MP for Thessaloniki I and Kyriakos Velopoulos is MP for Larissa. None of them have any significant connections to these areas. It was simply politically expedient for them to run there. Miltiadis Papaioannou being MP for Athens means very little.
    I have been openly working on these categories, both before and during the nominations. I am by far their most significant contributor. If a category happens to pass the threshold during a nomination, I notify the discussants. Currently we have been using the most pessimistic approach, and have been merging categories with under 5 articles, assuming no growth. The argument I have been making is that there are enough possible articles to fill these categories, and in fact are growing quite fast, and therefore we shouldn't merge them now. Thank you for accidentally helping my argument by admitting that they do indeed grow quite fast, thinking that my regular work on these categories was nefarious. --Antondimak (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclosures: I participated in some CFDs but don't routinely edit these articles. I generally agree with WAS's view of which categories to merge but am neutral on WP:COP-PLACE claims. I favor sanctioning Antondimak on the other ANI where the issues are quite different. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • William Allen Simpson, you mentioned this:
    "At least one of them was actually born during the Ottoman Empire in a village that was destroyed and replaced by a Greek-named village in a nearby location, so not even arguably correct."
    It'd be good to explain what exactly you mean, and know where you saw it, so that we know you're not making stories up to embellish your narrative, because I for one have no idea what you are talking about. --Antondimak (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I am heavily involved in CFDs but not regularly editing these articles.) Question: have the two editors been using the article talk pages for discussion about specific articles? If so, could you please provide the links to those discussions? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately not. The other user just mass-removed the articles from targeted categories without discussion again. I reverted and called for a general solution in the discussion, as the motivation described in the edit summaries was essentially a repudiation of "People from" categorisation in general (as well as some other (seemingly at least) false claims like the story I mention above). In response the other user dragged us here again. --Antondimak (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must say that my interaction with William Allen Simpson was unpleasant: In this discussion they were unnecessarily combattive, tried to show up as somebody who contributed a lot in established Wikipedia policies (in contrast to me, as if I have no relation to them), whereas a close inspection invariably shows that they are unfamiliar with the policies — either putting their statements about their role in Wikipedia development in doubt, or showing it is too rusty to be useful. They of course did not accept the idea that they could be at least partially at fault and suggested that "take the rogue administrator to the administrator incidents to be reviewed by the Bureaucrats and Steward".--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a very procedurally challenging relisting, as evidenced by the retroactive template addition and the many duplicate !votes. That doesn't mean it's not fair to mention here, but I just wanted to point out it's not a typical CFD discussion. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a content dispute, and my recommendation at a recent DRV on the topic stands: an RFC should be held to make clear to both participants how Greek biographies should be categorized. If this disruption continues, BOTH should be topic-banned from categorizing Greek biographies. The specific complaint here isn't actionable outside of the continued disruption from both editors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would genuinely appreciate an explanation of how I'm disrupting. If there is something I do that the community finds disruptive I will just stop doing it. The process of restructuring with Marcocapelle's nominations was going smoothly before the other user started this thing. --Antondimak (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism on Saturn (magazine)

    Closing as no action needed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please protect this page because it has received high level of IP vandalism after it was posted as TFA. 36.76.235.92 (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Full disclosure: I am not an admin, or even extended confirmed, but I do watch ANI quite a bit. I (by the time your reading this, already have) am about to request pending changes protection on the page in question using Twinkle. Pending changes should be enough for IP vandalism. I'm going to list it as a temporary protect request, but if after protection ends it still has lots of IP vandalism, then I'll request permanent Pending Changes protection or semiprotection. 4D4850 (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Saturn has been replaced by another article, so a request seems pointless at this point. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and just noticed that there was already a different request, so nevermind. 4D4850 (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again coming to shill Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article, because this has been happening every day for years. It's going to be either PC or semi-protection, so if you want to keep up the "anyone can edit" image, take the former. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tuka (rapper) conflict of interest edits

    Reported user has been indefinitely partially-blocked from editing the article. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Matt Franis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This report was first filed at the AIV by Idell, but was asked to report here by admin Daniel Case. The user Matt Franis has claimed several times to be the artist Tuka (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) whose page they are making edits to : [129], [130], [131], [132]. The user has been removing sourced content from the page several times, which they felt should not be presented on their page, albeit getting reverted by several editors Eternal Shadow, Dam222, Idell, and myself. Further, they have stated to make an "official complaint" if their edits on the page are reverted again: [133]. They have been reported for edit warring on the page: This is the thread of the 3RR report, for which Matt Franis was previously blocked for one day: [134]. They have been issued a conflict of interest notice [135], and have been explained properly on their talk page by editor SK2242 that they are highly discouraged to edit their own page: [136], [137]. However, they have continued to do so after recent release of block: [138], [139], [140]. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, He wants to do the edit war again. He calls himself Artist and is removing other material including infobox. Dam222 🌋 (talk)

    Their recent edits were reverted by firefly. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! Yes, sorry, saw the report here and had a look. I can't see any justification for removing the well-sourced information. We also have no proof (nor could we request any) that this is indeed the article subject. Has anyone informed the user that they can contact OTRS/the Foundation as a last resort if they are unhappy with the community response? Might be worth doing. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If this editor claims to be the subject of the article, the easiest way to deal with it is a partial block from editing the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mjroots, they have claimed so: [141], [142], [143]. Ashleyyoursmile! 04:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Matt Franis from editing Tuka (rapper). Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated unreferenced edits

    The pages involved have been protected. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Despite repeated warnings[144], this editor continues adding unsourced content to Wynnum District SC[145][146] and to Capalaba FC using two different IPs. When one of the IPs got the final warning, they started using another and again added the same non-referenced para.[147].--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:ExoEditor and User:Kepler-1229b

    Both editors are repeatedly removing a merge template from an article, but the merge discussion has not yet been closed. See [148], [149]. I attempted to discuss this on the talk page but ExoEditor continues to remove the template, and Kepler-1229b has put a 3RR notice on my talk page, even though I was careful not to violate 3RR. In addition, ExoEditor (formerly Albertheditor) has baselessly accused me of sockpuppetry in the past, which was discussed in a previous ANI thread. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at Kepler-1229b's talk page, they seem to have a history of reverting constructive edits. They have also been the subject of a sockpuppet investigation. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The sockpuppet investigation was a false accusation, and there were only two or three incidents of reverting constructive edits, and one of them was ended by another editor. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I do lurk around ANI. On one hand, you did technically break the three revert rule, but on the other hand, I would do the exact same, and would consider removing merge templates for a merge being discussed obvious vandalism or disruptive editing, which is an exemption from 3RR. But on the stand next to the tv, I am definitely looking at the exception in a forest of rules, which is WikiLawyer-esque behavior. So I'm going to stop writing now. 4D4850 (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe Wikipedia works with consensus. We are two editos in favor of removing that merger notice from the article (after many months of debate and many editors involved, consensus has been reached about not merging the article (or at least no consensus has been reached about merging it) even though it hasn't been closed. SevenSpheresCelestia has now broken the three-revert rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KOI-4878.01&action=history), something that neither Kepler-1229b nor me have done in this case. I'm not asking for him to be temporarily banned. I personally think there is no reason to create a problem from something like removing a merger notice from a page. I would appreciate if an administrator archives the merger proposal (most of the pages proposed by SevenSpheresCelestia to merge have already been merged; those for which consensus was reached, including me) - I think I shouldn't do it myself. With respect to the sockpuppetry accusation he is talking about, that happened last year and I honestly don't think it's related with the issue at hand here. In any case, anybody can check in his talkpage that I apologized to him. I don't want any trouble. I'm just in Wikipedia to help it grow with my little grain of sand. Thank you and have a good day. ExoEditor 18:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia:Merging#Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you cannot close a debate that you started and for which consensus has not been reached. Wait until Administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached, and whether or not it should be closed. I won't comment anymore on this. Have a good day.ExoEditor 19:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    The relevant discussion has been closed by User:Onetwothreeip, but @ExoEditor: reverted the closure. I added the archive template back and commented on the talk page; an IP editor (possibly ExoEditor?) then removed my comment and the archive template. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Update: ExoEditor has removed my comment again. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Update: and again he continues his disruptive editing. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't notice, but he claims I'm disruptively editing and created another ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent disruptive editing by SevenSpheresCelestia SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The behaviour of SevenSpheresCelestia is just unacceptable. He keeps closing a debate for which consensus hasn't been reached at all. I'm now forced to kindly ask the Administration to temporarily ban him from editing. He proposed 4 mergers, and after many months and editors involved, consensus (including me) was reached for merging 3 of them. It's not enough for him. He insists that consensus has been reached to merger the 4th article, something that not only is untrue, but shows no respect for the group of editors (including me) who spent much time working on it. Cheers.ExoEditor 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 right here. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very suspicious of this recent edit happening when it did. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fourth removal of my comment, please block ExoEditor for disruptive editing. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you cannot close a debate that you started and for which consensus has not been reached. Wait until Administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached, and whether or not it should be closed. Plus, I haven't reverted more than 3 times; don't lie. I won't comment anymore on this. Have a good day.ExoEditor 19:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you cannot close a debate that you started: True, but I didn't close it, User:Onetwothreeip did. Plus, I haven't reverted more than 3 times; don't lie. "Fourth removal" is counting the IP editor. Regardless of the number of edits, your removal of my comment is disruptive and borderline vandalism. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Your friend closed it, so it's irrelevant. Wait until an administrator decides whether or not consensus has been reached . Plus don't attribute random IP's to editors. I really won't waste my time reading more your comments. You may not have but I have a life. Cheers.ExoEditor 19:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My "friend"??? I haven't had any interaction with User:Onetwothreeip before this incident. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (EC) I agree the disruption here stems mostly from ExoEditor, who, as far as I can tell, edits on exoplanets much like a fanboy of whatever niche fandom would. They went as far as opposing merge notices e.g. [150], which is utterly silly WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, given a merge discussion was ongoing. I don't know what the best solution is, but IMO a topic ban is on the table. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Headbomb, I'm forced to reply you. Wikipedia works with cosensus. Several editors were in favor of removing that merger notice (most of the merger proposals had been accepted after several months of debate and many editors involved, and no consensus was reached for just one of the pages). Plus the debate should take place in the talkpage of the page at hand or in a 'Article for deletion' discussion. Not in third-talkpages, as it's happening now.
    I will avoid commenting on your insults. If you think that keeping an un-solved debate open in Wikipedia is 'fanboy' behaviour, it's not my problem sorry.
    Plus, and this is getting serious for SevenSpheresCelestia: we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia.
    The corresponding evidence will soon be sent to the Administrators.
    I won't check more this discussion, sorry. Cheers. ExoEditor 21:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, and this is getting serious for SevenSpheresCelestia: we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia. Here he goes again, he was making the same claims in the ANI thread mentioned above... SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, now you made me interested enough to make some time to find the proof, which I already have. Good luck and bye.ExoEditor 21:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me your "proof" then. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "we have solid evidence that he uses several socketpuppet accounts to unbalance debates in English Wikipedia" Alright, the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality has to stop. Such repeated and baseless accusations are enough for me to support a full ban of ExoEditor (talk · contribs). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Maradona page

    NO ACTION
    (non-admin closure) IP editor has been directed to Talk:Diego Maradona to leave an edit request. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Maradona’s last words are incorrect, but I do not have permission to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.144.179.224 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To request an edit, put an edit request on the talk page of the page in question, rather then on ANI. I hope this information helps you. 4D4850 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am using the mobile version and see no link to the talk page.

    Please see https://www.news.com.au/sport/football/diego-maradonas-final-words-before-death-emerge/news-story/93049b15c23ac2ca588c83f50dce832a for the correct quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.144.179.224 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's at the top of the page in mobile view, right above the thing that says languages and right next to the tab that says article. 4D4850 (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:FORUM violations by User:DukeyDukeyDoo

    Report user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    DukeyDukeyDoo has repeatedly violated WP:FORUM with a string of talk page discussions they started. I was first alerted to their behavior with this discussion, which popped up in my watchlist. Unbeknownst to me at the time, they responded by deleting a legitimate talk page discussion here. Also unbeknownst to me was that the talk page discussions were a long-term behavioral pattern. In order from newest to oldest:

    User also violated WP:NPA at Draft talk:The Bugs Bunny 80th Anniversary Collection#Make this Article Exist, Damn it!, and has made some rather questionable comments:

    I feel like something needs to be done about this user's behavior, but I think the scope would be too broad for WP:AIV. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 20:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has some WP:CIR issues at the very least. I reviewed edits from the past year and see no net positive. Most potentially constructive edits were unsourced. Blocking until user can show they understand Wikipedia's standards and practices. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Complaint from Microthought2021

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Microthought2021 indefinitely blocked by DGG for advertising. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Magnolia677 threatened us when we made a simple post- we ask that he be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Microthought2021 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things: A: Make a new section for a new complaint, and B: It isn't a threat if you're told you might get banned for promotional use of Wikipedia, because banning people who do that repeatedly is policy. Meanwhile, the person you complained about has a squeaky clean record. I also checked your talk page, and I wouldn't consider what they posted to be a threat. 4D4850 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded on user's talk page. 4D4850 pretty well summed it up, though I try to be more polite --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to be less hostile to newcomers in the future. 4D4850 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, there is discussion on OP's talk, but I'm hungry. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OP is requesting "removal of all the newspapers listed in the media section on your platform" because they can't have their site in the External Links section. Running a COIBot report on the links, it will be interesting to see what it comes up with. Looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE though. Pahunkat (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And threats on their talk page. Pahunkat (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, what does OP stand for? I can guess what it refers to from context, but why OP rather then some other acronym? 4D4850 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    4D4850, OP stands for "Original Poster" in this context - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia abbreviations. Pahunkat (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I figured I'd ask here, given now the discussion is at the OP's talk page. 4D4850 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, what did you get on the COIbot report, if it has been finished yet? 4D4850 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    COIBot's being stubborn right now - it processed one link, but it hasn't done the other two. See User:COIBot/Poke. Pahunkat (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty certain that the links are related though, given the similarities of the domains. As for the extent of the spam, I can't tell until COIBot generates the report for the other two. Pahunkat (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Never saw who "we" is. (sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it unlikely it's a meatpuppet failing at disguising themselves. 4D4850 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the COIbot report, all the IPs for the websites are identical, so either they're on a proxy, server, or ran from the same computer. 4D4850 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, no reports of COI for townatlanta.com from COIbot, if I'm understanding everything correctly. 4D4850 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: Whatever else happens, with all the "we"s, "our"s, and "our offices", this is also clearly a violation of WP:SHAREDACCOUNT... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor edits on behalf of a news aggregator based in Florida. Three editors had already warned the IP being about spam, after which the IP created this account (named for the company). That's why I started with a final warning. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so "we" is the staff of the news aggregator. 4D4850 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magnolia677: If you have the name of the company (I could not find), please report at WP:UAA as a promotional user name with promotional edits.23:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deepfriedokra: Done. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't post a report on the other noticeboards if there is already an open report here, it can be seen as WP:FORUMSHOPPING... I actually posted a report on UAA first before I knew this report was here, then self reverted the UAA report when I left the message here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic but per FORUMSHOP, this isn't necessarily forum shopping: Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable, but in that case it is normally best to give links to show where else you have raised the question.. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not bloody forum shopping. I asked them to take it to UAA 'cause I did not want to be the one to add the SPAMU block and this is not the venue for SPAMU blocks. Unless some other admin wants to take care of it here. And no other admin has taken any interest at all in this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did the block. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    POV-pushing at Aung San Suu Kyi

    Partially blocked from the article for one week by Oshwah for edit warring, which frankly, sidestepped the point. WP:EW isn't what's most pressing here and participants should not need to count their reverts when undoing these edits. What is of highest concerns is blatant violations to WP:V in the form of fabrications, which should be treated as vandalism (3RR exemptions apply). These sort of violations are to be reverted on sight, with an immediate warning attached — I'd start with {{uw-error2}} and escalate from there. Anyway, I have warned the user to cease from engaging in fabrications. El_C 02:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Zhong ST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    There's an editor, Zhong ST, repeatedly removing the "former" label from Aung San Suu Kyi's State Counsellor title in the short description. Obviously, Aung San Suu Kyi was removed from office in the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état on 1 February and is no longer in office. POV-pushing in the form of editors declaring the ousted government to still be sitting has become frequent from IPs on pages related to Myanmar's government, and has led to pages such as State Counsellor of Myanmar, President of Myanmar, and Win Myint being semi-protected. This is the first case of an autoconfirmed user doing this that I've seen. I reverted and issued the full series of {{uw-error}} warnings. After the editor reverted again past my level 4 warning, I made an AIV report for vandalism past a final warning, but was told to take it to ANI. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Tartan357, could you notify them of this report on their user talk page per policy at the top of this page? You can use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenryuu, of course, I forgot, sorry. I don't come to ANI often. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the reported users contributions I noticed that they also went to the talk pages of two administrators declaring Tartan357 edits to be illegal. At the very least their judgement should be under question since I can’t see how the reverted edits could be possibly breaking any laws.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if they mean Wikipedia "laws" or real-world ones... ― Tartan357 Talk 00:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The two diffs in question. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also point out that they accused me of being an agent of Burma's military in the comment at the first diff above, and also went to a third editor's talk page with that claim: [151]. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one hand, you (Tartan and Zhong) are both technically edit warring. On the other hand, that shouldn't change the net balance of the conversation and repeatedly changing the Wikipedia article in what may be an attempt at historical revisionism possibly qualifies under one of the exemptions for 3RR, so I'm for a block of Zhong ST due to the ad hominem personal attacks/attempted rumor spreading. 4D4850 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    4D4850, deliberately introducing false information is a form of vandalism (see {{uw-error4}}), so reverting it is not edit warring. ― Tartan357 Talk 01:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, especially since both parties are involved, but I'm not sure that the 3RR exemption for reverting obvious vandalism qualifies, as a casual reader might come along it and either not check the info or would just think it's out of date. So I'm on your side, I'm just not sure a strict interpretation of 3RR is on your side. 4D4850 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Tartan357 and Zhong ST have been edit warring on the Aung San Suu Kyi article. I've left warnings for the both of them about this. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah, is the deliberate introduction of false information not vandalism? I have a hard time understanding {{uw-error4}} if that's the case. I already issued four warnings to this editor, so I don't think a warning is sufficient. I believe I've handled this appropriately, reverting and issuing warnings through a level 4, and then taking it to AIV. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tartan357 - Yes, if the edits are deliberate attempts to add false information to articles. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah, I've been dealing with a lot of POV-pushing since the coup, and I made the assessment that this was deliberate. This editor lives in Myanmar, and there is no way that they would not have known about the coup in their country. POV-pushing since the coup has frequently taken the form of historical revisionism (editors declaring the elected leaders are still in office). ― Tartan357 Talk 02:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tartan357 - Sure, I understand. However, deliberate attempts to include false information into articles would be a form of vandalism or bad faith editing, which the user clearly isn't doing. It sounds like a conflict of interest and other problems, but not a bad-faith attempt at adding false information. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah, okay, it sounds like I made the wrong call on that. This is tendentious editing in the form of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, which I do see can be distinct from bad-faith disinformation. I'm not sure I agree with you that we can presume a COI though (since WP:COI is not simply bias). ― Tartan357 Talk 02:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tartan357 - No worries; I'm glad that you understand the difference now. This is one of the reasons why this noticeboard is here. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah, thanks. Could you please give them a warning for accusing me twice of being an agent of the Burmese military at other admins' talk pages (diffs above)? I'd appreciate if you could leave notes explaining the situation to those admins, as well. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah, they just reverted yet again (this time reverting 4D4850). ― Tartan357 Talk 02:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tartan357 - The user is now partially-blocked from editing the article for one week. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just rv'd their last edit, so I only did 2 rvs, so I'm not breaking 3RR, and I'm helping Wikipedia. 4D4850 (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks from User:PlainAndSimpleTailor

    Blocked indefinitely. Because, obviously. El_C 02:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    There's various I recall but don't have diffs saved, but two most recently stand out as egregious to me and the editor does not seem to wish to desist.

    • diff. stop lying just because you don't like something. Can't you do something constructive with your life FDW88 rather than just bulldozing other people's work? Try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, I sure you're probably not a bad person at heart, far to arrogant and prideful but have you considered counselling? is this behaviour a result of a lockdown? warning
    • Their response: Given the way I've been treated since I started here you have the audacity to warn me? The toxic mansplaining is constant and I think FDW88 is geniunely on the verge of being an incel if he isn't already given his behaviour. Calling another editor an incel is way off the mark.
    • here and here accusing the editor of being a nasty piece of work and of willfull ignorance
    • Condensending comments. Various accusations of misogyny, etc etc.
    • POINTY editing

    See UTP history for other issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) PlainAndSimpleTailor has been indefinitely blocked by El C. Not sure if any further action needs to be taken on the IP? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tenryuu, in regards to the IP, it is otherwise Stale. El_C 03:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:TylerKutschbach

    Blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    I'm surprised this was auto-archived with no comment. Previous discussion here

    I would love some feedback on this issue, if possible. The user has been discussed in previous ANI threads as well. – The Grid (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Remember, you need to notify all parties to the ANI dispute with [{{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~] (without the square brackets). The use of the notification or {{ping|Example}} systems isn't enough. I did it for you this time though. 4D4850 (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing this back, The Grid. I've blocked them for disruptive editing, in the form of persistently adding unsourced content or changing figures without references on hundreds of articles. Attempts to discuss including four ANI threads and several blocks have failed - the user is uncommunicative and does not volunteer sources, and they fail verification when provided. It is indefinite, meaning they will only be unblocked if they successfully appeal. Fences&Windows 23:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Fences and windows. – The Grid (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continuous warring at Korean New Year

    I think this is the second time I've brought this here in the last week, and Oshwah has kindly protected the article twice. The main issue, aside from an abundance of cross-editing of various quality, is a nationalistic edit war (something similar has happened at Lunar New Year). Some sources credit the origin to China, and editors keep stripping that content out. Unfortunately, the sourcing appears to be Chinese, so I can't read it, and I'm not having much luck with English language sources online. More eyes and some consensus would be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New range of IPs for old genre warrior from South Portland, Maine

    Persistent genre-warring case from South Portland, Maine, US. The person adds or removes music genres at their own whim.[152][153] The range Special:Contributions/2603:7081:3843:7400:0:0:0:0/64 has been active for almost two months. They are from the same location and are doing the same things as the range Special:Contributions/2604:6000:80C1:A700:0:0:0:0/64 which was blocked by Widr for three months citing long-term abuse.

    The case goes back at least to 2017 when the IP6 range popped up while I was fighting other IP4s from the same location: genre warring such as this from September 2017 to February 2018 in the ranges Special:Contributions/141.114.155.0/21 and Special:Contributions/141.114.9.0/21. Special:Contributions/141.114.9.205 was blocked twice in late 2017. The recent activity is the same person. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Remember to notify all parties to the discussion with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified one of the IPs here, which was the most recently active IP at the time. In an IP6 /64 range there are 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 possible numbers, so I'm pretty sure Wikipedia does not expect all of the IPs to be notified. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This person is still active, adding unreferenced genres and the like. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism

    Reported user has been blocked for 48 hours. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Despite repeated warnings, including two final warnings[154], the user continues to vandalize Wikipedia by removing maintenance templates and citation needed tags [155][156][157][158]. Now just recently they have blanked out the warnings that were put on their talk page[159] and made more vandalistic edits including removing a source without explanation[160] and a citation needed template[161].--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User determined to add their non-notable friends to articles (including through hoaxing)

    Birdsflyinghigh123 and their IP addresses have done very little for the past weeks apart from adding their friends to various Notable People and Notable Recordings sections.

    Not only are they adding these non-notable people to articles, they're also adding blatant hoaxes that one of them served as the head of a Scottish school.

    The people in question are Edwin Symonowicz and Frank Mortenson, two Polish/Lithuanian singers that have not been mentioned in any reliable independent sources apart from a school newsletter. The two appear to have some relation, as the only coverage that can be found about them are hoax sites such as this hoax news report about them, and this hoax Everipedia article about a movement that supposedly views Symonowicz as a God and whose purpose is to fight the cultural influence of Mortenson.

    So, this user is determined to add these two people to articles and says that he won't stop adding them [162], as Symonowicz is surely no less notable than Donald Trump.

    The user created an article on Frank Mortenson and has spent the last few weeks trying to get Mortenson into the articles Strangers in the Night and Quiéreme Mucho and Symonowicz into the article Dolina Jadwigi (anybody know how to revert OpenStreetMap vandalism? [163]) and adding a hoax that Symonowicz ran a school [164]. See also User talk:84.55.19.40 and User talk:Birdsflyinghigh123.

    I feel this is verging on WP:NOTHERE.

    – Thjarkur (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Even if the IPs are sockpuppeting, you still need to notify them on their talk page. Create their talk page, and then put an ANI notice on the talk page for the two 90.xxx.xx.xxx IPs, unless those are some of the friends. 4D4850 (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of all IPs mentioned above belongs to me - this one I write from at this moment. And, as I repeated for several times, I put to Wikipedia only reliable statements about Symonowicz. It's not even statements, it's one sentence about him to his hometown page referencing to notable, reliable work of widely recognized Polish geographers where you can find this fact (WP:GNG: "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.") --84.55.19.40 (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, their contributions are quite similar to 84.55.19.40. I'm thinking possibly either A: a sock puppet, B: shared account and meat puppets, or C: one person who edits from multiple areas, thus editing from several IPs (basically accidentally sockpuppeting). 4D4850 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I'm in conversation separately with Birdsflyinghigh123 and discussing notability, article creation etc. I don't think there's anything to be done with that account, they're communicating and learning and I'm happy to help them along. Canterbury Tail talk 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban violation and off-wiki canvassing by User:ScrupulousScribe

    Blocked – for a period of 2 months, with email access disabled. Note that the above ping did not work, I just happened to have noticed this report in passing. El_C 17:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Per this:

    Quote 1

    I haven't been in this topic for a while (somebody emailed me about this due to my discussion contributions months and months ago)

    and this

    Quote 2

    It is clear that User:ScrupulousScribe has violated their topic ban, and not just through regular editing, but as a clear example of WP:CANVASS... @El C: Since you were the one that imposed the latest (just expired) block. Cheers RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring at Elon Musk

    Flyedit32 has been edit warring at Elon Musk over several trivial little things. They have already been warned about edit warring multiple times on their talk page. I posted a warning there and asked them to undo the edits, but they have ignored me. Here are some of the specific instances:

    Inclusion of wealth ranking
    Biography used throughout as source in "See also"
    A specific image of his partner had been the status quo for a while

    This kind of thing has been going on for a while (I don't have the time or energy to get any more diffs). They were warned about edit warring on this same page last spring. I have let a lot slide, but it's getting really tiresome. They have yet to participate in a single discussion on the talk page regarding the reverts. It's especially annoying as I have nominated it for GA (I have written about 50% of the article) and worry that this may screw up the nomination. Can you just tell them to closely follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Thanks! ~ HAL333 15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rflhtz

    User has been blocked, and article has been protected. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Rflhtz (a new editor) keeps restoring material to Eastern Orthodoxy by country that I had previously removed because that material cited unreliable self-published sources (namely blog posts) that did not even back up the relevant claims. Their account seems to be a single-purpose account and their editing consists in edit-warring. They also seem to engage in sockpuppetry by using multiple IP accounts. On two occasions they attacked me in their edit summaries. First they wrote "drop it, dude" in Greek and then they wrote "f*** your Christ, you idiot, you've busted my b****" in Greek. I would like to request page protection. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I'm for a block of Rflhtz for personal attacks. I know how I personally would respond to the personal attack in Greek. 4D4850 (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also remember to notify all parties to the dispute with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely for personal attacks of an especially abhorent nature. Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. A couple of offensive revisions were also deleted, as well. Omnipaedista did notify Rflhtz of this complaint, but placed the notice on their user page by accident, which I have since fixed. El_C 16:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User refusing to talk or collaborate

    Reported user has been blocked. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Checking the user's talkpage, this user has multiple warnings for adding unsourced content, adding speculation, edit warring, and repeatedly marking non-minor edits as minor. There are many more examples on Formula One pages where warnings weren't given as well. This user makes absolutely no attempt to engage with other users, and these behaviours have been going on for months, showing a clear WP:NOTLISTENING mentality. I think that a final warning from an admin for these behaviours, or possibly a short block is required. Whilst doing one of these things occasionally would be a minor annoyance, being persistently troublesome for many months is not acceptable. They have had warnings from 8 different editors about problems with their edits, so clear WP:NOTLISTENING. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I will second Joseph2302's request. From what I've seen, Stephen C Taylor frequently adds unsourced, apparently WP:OR information to many articles without any explanation whatsoever. He also marks a large percentage of his edits "minor" when they are demonstrably not. <sigh> Any help will be appreciated. Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 16:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember to put an ANI-notice to notify all parties to the dispute. 4D4850 (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, it's just that warnings have been given since then. And I put it in the section with the warnings, not at the bottom of the page, as it's the most relevant place. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And he's still at it, making a trio of unexplained edits to Rogue One that broke the infobox (see [165]). I reverted them and warned him (again). — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bad-faith political edits by IP

    IP address has been blocked for two weeks and the articles have been semi-protected. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP 86.139.255.58 was recently blocked for 31 hours and is continuing to make weird political edits in bad faith. Told Newslinger that You didn't read the source. Why are you so opposed to SFH being defined as a hard left group when they exclusively target centre-right newspapers and channels and define hatred through a very left wing partisan view. Stop acting like a cabal in your wiki edits leftists. Told me I have a bone to pick with Britain because you want to misinform people and you are not an editorial authority despite how much you wish you were [...] Secondly you didn't read the source (for reference: I read the source months ago when it was first published). Possibly following me specifically: I was the first user to give them a warning (for an edit on Death of Shukri Abdi, which I created) and then they immediately found Philosophy Tube, where a lot of my recent edits at the time were to, and started misgendering with a deliberate lie in the edit summary (‎Used gender netural terms to refer to Philosophy Tube in line with gender pronoun norms and conventions in the UK – no such convention). Flattered but this person is probably not improving the encyclopedia. Now at 3 reverts on Philosophy Tube in 13 mins (trying to insert an WP:RSP red source with negative content about a BLP), with no sign of stopping. — Bilorv (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)I'm for a block of 86.139.255.58 for personal attacks, or at least a level 3, 4, or 4im warning. 4D4850 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for plain harassment. Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Both articles. El_C 16:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism on Silesian Wars

    Please semi-protect this article, because there is increase activity of editing after it was posted as TFA, which majority of these are vandalism and reverts, even ClueBot NG also involved to reverting vandalism on TFA. 36.76.235.92 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for 3 hours. The TFA is going to change in a few hours anyways, so a longer protection isn't necessary. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OUTING of user at the RSN

    Matter has been handled. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Someone with a very similar username to the globally banned Icewhiz is attempting to out Volunteer Marek at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Can this immediately be oversighted? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hemiauchenia - No problem. Next time, you'll want to contact the oversight team privately to report such things - we don't want to report oversightable material publicly. You can do it by following the directions on the top of this page or this page. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, I have redacted the last edit summary from Hemiauchenia. As you complained about another editor telling you to fuck off in an edit summary, it's only fair to expect the same if you do it to a different editor, regardless of standing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I was fairly flustered as I simply wanted the doxx gone as quickly as possible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another new account has repeated the doxx, which I have sent to oversight. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hemiauchenia, Understood, it's just if somebody is committing gross abuse like that, it's best to just deal with the outing and boot them out silently, per WP:DENY. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, In the future I will report to oversight directly and not involve ANI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:AnotherEditor144

    Can I ask, how on earth does a two day old account, knowing you can add sub-pages to his user space, straight through some AfDs then arrive at an Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obsuser. I find it very suspicious and wondered if this is a continuation of a banned user. Something seems very fishy to me. Govvy (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) This user definitely rubbed me the wrong way, as well. Nobody requests suggestions from SuggestBot 22 minutes after creating their account. Nobody subscribes to the Administrators' Newsletter before they're autoconfirmed. Nobody starts archiving their talk page within three hours of account creation. This one definitely quacks like a duck, although I'm not sure what the backstory is. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably simple block evasion. Some sort of CheckUser action may be warranted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Extraordinary Writ, I concur. This is not a new account and I concur Ockham's razor aka duck suggests block evasion is involved. But who's the master, I am unsure. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at checkuser evidence for this account, and I couldn't conclusively associate this account with any other. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be a WP:CLEANSTART, which is allowed. Fences&Windows 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The user hasn't edited since this thread was opened. The point may now be moot, and in any event there's nothing we can do about it unless the master can be identified. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I scared him away, who knows! Or he decided to recreate himself with less red-flags! heh. Govvy (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment of a new editor

    OP is blocked as a webhost. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I want to report that a couple of established editors, DVdm and SpacetimeIsCool are harassing IP editor 99.239.158.18 through spamming passive-aggressive warning messages on the IP user's talk page and falsely accusing the IP of edit-warring for his or her good-faith edits on Minkowski space. They also used a tag-team strategy to violate the 3RR rule in reverting the user's constructive edits (see the page history). It appears these editors are maliciously attempting to provoke the IP editor into misbehavior in order to get him or her banned.

    IP user is clearly a new contributor whom we should be welcoming to the project, not driving away with hostility and trolling.

    Admins, please intervene to defuse the situation and sanction the two named users to discourage further toxic behavior of this nature. Thanks, 103.150.187.3 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP was edit warring and using obscene and abusive edit summaries. They were correctly blocked. This does not require anyone's immediate attention. GirthSummit (blether) 00:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.150.187.3 (talk) [reply]
    IP may have been provoked to the point of incivility but the initial harassment was entirely unjustified. It seems like these two editors (or maybe one user and a sockpuppet) just arbitrarily decided to troll a new user, and they succeeded. This kind of toxic behavior is killing Wikipedia and admins need to intervene. 103.150.187.3 (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you keep casting aspersions like that you will face sanctions. The IP was edit-warring and abusive in the face of normal warnings for removal of sourced material and replacement with unsourced content. The editors are not sockpuppets. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OP blocked by NRP. It's pretty clear that the complainant is the same as the aggrieved party. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Harassment? I think not. The IP editor's first ever edit was bold and was reverted. Their second edit included a condescending edit summary that ended with "Educate yourself and stop faking and presenting this as a religious dogma!" Their third edit had an edit summary that consisted of ALL CAPS ranting and screaming decorated with triple exclamation marks. Their fourth edit had a belligerent edit summary that included an ALL CAPS F-bomb, with their now familiar triple exclamation marks. In other words, the IP editor rapidly blew their stack. The two named editors were consistently polite, and recommended talk page discussion. The OP's complaint seems to lack merit, although I express no opinion on the underlying content dispute, lacking knowledge of the topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive ip 74.215.109.132

    Hi, I've been working with Twinkle reverting vandalism, and came across this user who is not really vandalizing, but they are removing various tags from articles like Eli Cohen, Roman Republic, Thracians, and Dacians. They have numerous disruption warnings on their talk page for the past 3 months from, JMHamo, LuK3, Babegriev, Meters, and Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. They have also done other disruptive editing such as calling other people "moron" in edit summary. I don't have anything else to add or contribute to the discussion as this is not a dispute, but strictly for reporting purposes only, and I have faith admins will handle this accordingly. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with an IP

    I have been dealing with an IP address in regards to an issue at Britt Reid (American football). I have advised this user multiple times to leave the page alone until the Chiefs announce he has left the team, per NFL Project policy. The user continues to change article based on anonymous sources from NFL insiders. I have provided the policies to the user and as well. This user has continually ignored this, advised of intent to be willing to edit war, and most recently, appears to have made a legal threat on my talk page. I will stop communicating with this IP, outside of advising of this ANI post regarding them, until this gets resolved. Thank you.--Rockchalk717 14:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC) Copied from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, where it would have languished; happy days, LindsayHello 16:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "My client will pursue legal action." Sounds like a legal threat to me. IP blocked for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this IP static? Or a public place? Reviewing the contributions over the long term and seems only a handful of edits were useful with the rest being nuisance or editoralizing. Anyway, just wonder if the block should be longer or if some way to monitor the IP long term (besides following their talk page and checking on them every so often) Slywriter (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unhelpful edits by Animaljamfan123

    User is ignoring Talk page notifications indicating a strong pattern of unhelpful editing. Not all of the edits are unhelpful, but the user does not seem to be trying to learn from the advice they have been given. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BarrelProof, you gave this editor a vandalism warning for their edit to Quotation mark. Can you please explain how that edit constitutes vandalism? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to have gotten some very BITE-y warnings. There's no way MOS:LQ warrants a Level 3 disruptive editing template, and this edit to Church & Dwight is just adding the existing Feline Pine information to the lead. I don't think their talk page notifications demonstrate "a strong pattern of unhelpful editing". DanCherek (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're talking about the warning I gave the user, that was not a matter of MOS:LQ. I agree that the edits are not so clearly vandalism. My template message was intended to get their attention, as they have been ignoring warnings, never providing edit summaries, and most of their edits have not seemed helpful. I agree they aren't really clear vandalism, and perhaps my choice of template was ill-advised. I acknowledged above in my original remarks that not all of the edits are unhelpful, and that's part of why I opened a discussion here instead of WP:AIV. However, the user has been rapidly accumulating lots of warnings, and most of their edits don't seem to be improvements. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BarrelProof, just to clarify, I wasn't focusing on your message to them—I was mostly concerned that they had been hit with a block-threatening template a few posts above yours for MOS:LQ (which is one of the least obvious parts of Wikipedia's MoS). Best, DanCherek (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks

    I've been trying to reach consensus on the Talk:Gina Carano page under "Jewish bankers tweet", but one editor user:Sangdeboeuf keeps posting personal attacks against me. I left a polite note on his page when he started being rude/confrontational, then a warning when he made the first personal attack, then a final warning when he made another personal attack. He has now made a third. He deleted the note/warnings; a cursory examination of edit summaries on his talk page indicates he has deleted other warnings on other issues from other editors in the past, and may be a habitual offender trying to skirt warning guidelines. Other editors on the page are being helpful, so I'm going to keep trying to work with them. Gershonmk (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide DIFFs of these personal attacks. No one is going to go wading through those talks to pick them out,. Canterbury Tail talk 20:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand)"
    2. "Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more."
    3. "If you don't understand . . . then you may not be competent to edit this article."
    On the same page, he's accused other users of "weasel words," and posted "Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like."
    Gershonmk (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I already addressed #1 (see below). #2 and #3 are not personal attacks. Nor is saying that someone is "adding weasel words". The final diff was a response to Crossroads saying, "I am not debating you" (their first comment in the discussion!) and accusing me of WP:FILIBUSTERing. If I am to be sanctioned, then I don't think Crossroads' combative bahavior should be left out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were already WP:FILIBUSTERING by demanding other editors WP:SATISFY you and by edit warring your "disputed" tag in [166][167] despite four editors disagreeing with you. [168] Your whataboutism doesn't help your case at all. I cautioned you against engaging in that because you already were being disruptive and you continued to do it anyway. Crossroads -talk- 21:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At the time I reverted your undiscussed removal of the tag, I could count two users (Britishfinance and Rendall) disagreeing, one IP user agreeing, and one (Acousmana) saying "not sure". Your combative stance and insisting on treating disussion as a poll, despite policy stating otherwise, is what's disruptive here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted your tendentious addition of the tag (no tag is the default/status quo), and Acousmana seemed to favor inclusion (and their later comment also suggests that). I am very familiar with your strategy of 'it's not a vote, I'm still right', and I have addressed it below. Crossroads -talk- 22:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a response to my comment on the talk page saying, "If you don't understand that [X, Y, and Z] are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article", which is not a personal attack. Note that I struck an earlier comment that suggested Gershonmk was editing disruptively; looking at the discussion as a whole I don't think that idea was off-base. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Following this report, Gershonmk went to the article talk page to accuse me of gaming the system. More evidence that they don't actually care about so-called "personal attacks" and are simply trying to exhaust their opponents by repeating the same rejected arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to defend this -- I thought better of it -- except to note that it was up for less than a minute. Gershonmk (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sangdeboeuf has a long-term habit of disruptive uncooperative editing, especially via extreme WP:BLUDGEONING, WP:IDHT by claiming no one else presented policy-compliant points, constant demands that other editors WP:SATISFY them, continuing to WP:FILIBUSTER when not satisfied, misusing policy to suit their ends, and even attacks.

    This is very evident at the this Talk:Gina Carano discussion. BLUDGEON, IDHT, and SATISFY are all in strong evidence. Here is an especially blatant out-of-context quote of MOS:QUOTE and obvious misuse of WP:V and WP:NOR to contradict MOS:QUOTE allowing for encyclopedic quotes: [169] You'll also see their typical WP:IDHT strategy when outnumbered: Point to "not a headcount", claim no policy-based argument has been presented, demand to be SATISFIED: [170] Also, this was still a serious personal attack on me.

    At a Talk:Transsexual discussion, the same behaviors manifest. They misrepresent their opponent's arguments ([171], [172], & [173]), have passive-aggressively moved her comments around, [174][175] and have been uncivil. [176]

    Relatively brief discussion at Talk:Latinx where all these behaviors, as well as their obvious tendentiousness to keep out a source they don't like, are on full display. And the same IDHT, misuse of policy, tendentiousness, and FILIBUSTER are equally visible lower on the same page, where CorbieVreccan also told them to stop edit warring and WP:DROPTHESTICK early on.

    Another discussion where they POV push and purge a source and other text against consensus: [177] They, as usual, trot out "not a headcount" as justification for ignoring everyone else. I pressed further, and their response is literally, no joke, to justify themselves with the "anyone can edit" pillar - obvious and blatant misuse of WP:5P3 - and to dare me to take them to ANI (link to exact diff).

    An uninvolved editor notes they lead a different thread on a "pointless tangent": [178]

    See their attempt to change policy in line with their peculiar philosophy and how they were rebutted here. Also see where yet another user, Mathglot, notes their wrong approach: [179]

    I'm aware I've linked to discussions, not just diffs, but the misconduct is such that a single diff often doesn't really explain it. I trust that if admins look at those discussions, they will clearly see the behaviors I've described. This user cannot be allowed to think these are acceptable behaviors and need to be clearly told what the consequences are for such editors. They are driving other editors away from their pet topics, which I suspect is the point (WP:OWN). Crossroads -talk- 22:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC) added a bit Crossroads -talk- 22:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sangdeboeuf has also been informed of the following discretionary sanctions:

    • 9 November 2020, American politics: [180]
    • 29 October 2020, Gender/Gamergate: [181]
    • 2 December 2018, American politics: [182]
    • 5 August 2018, BLP: [183]
    • 1 May 2018, Gender/Gamergate: [184]

    Crossroads -talk- 22:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sangdeboeuf has been validly reported for 3RR violations twice but somehow escaped without sanction each time. [185][186] This one was very nearly a violation: [187]

    At ANI previously, was warned about edit warring and disruptive tagging. Crossroads -talk- 23:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Crossroads' complaints about my "misusing" policy are debatable to say the least. I suspected they have had a WP:GRUDGE against me for some time, but the speed with which they were able to collect all the above "evidence" suggests they have a bona fide obsession. Not healthy IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This comes off as a personal attack as well, Sangdeboeuf. As for your questioning Gershonmk's competence, from WP:CIR "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack" [emph. mine] It definitely comes off like you're not arguing your points in good faith. Many of the policies you cite in that discussion either don't say what you say they do, or don't apply at all. For instance, you cite WP:BLPSPS, insisting that self-published sources are not allowed, but they are not automatically rejected by policy, merely to be avoided. For another instance, you never did explain to me how my proposed edit were weasel words, simply linked to them and asserted that they were. They aren't, but it would be great if you made a case for it. Is it possible to move the discussion forward over there without acrimony? Rendall (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant part of BLPSPS was quoted at Talk:Gina Carano#Jewish bankers tweet. If you are saying the phrase "Never use" means "sometimes use", then you should seek clarification at the policy talk page or noticeboard. To me "never" means "never". The part about "weasel words" is moot since we can attribute the statement to a published source. This is mainly a content dispute anyway. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Consistent sockpuppetry without any ample assistance lately

    Recently, this sockpuppet investigation against a particularly popular contributor of bad faith to Wikipedia has returned. The sockpuppet investigation case has been expanded at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoaeter, however, there also have been lax protection policies pertaining to articles related to the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia in particular). I am requesting the sockpuppets of Hoaeter are immediately stopped in their tracks. The WP:DRIVEBY at Habesha peoples, and WP:AGENDA pushing at P'ent'ay among other articles is tiresome. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    TheLionHasSeen, I had protected Habesha peoples for a month and (as you probably noticed) the suspect edits resumed a couple of days after that expired. I suppose that article will need protection again, but the new edits were less disruptive than before (perhaps by design) and, as of this writing, it's been pretty quiet for a couple of days. I'm not sure what happened with the SPI report. I wondered if it was missing some sort of flag where the clerks or checkusers would see it, but it's in all the right categories (and is listed on the main SPI page). It's frustrating, I know, but FWIW it's not even the oldest open SPI case (and, as always, we're depending upon volunteer effort). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Off-wiki attacks by BLP subject Alexa O'Brien

    On 11 February 2021, BLP subject Alexa O'Brien tweeted from her verified Twitter account that "the obsessive who took over my Wikipedia page" was guilty of stalking her, "bordering on harassment." In a pair of follow-up tweets, she identified me as the editor in question.

    On 13 February 2021, Shushugah—who three days later disclosed his WP:COI, "because I have met the subject of this article before"—removed the following content (which I had contributed, sourced per WP:ABOUTSELF, on 21 February 2020) from O'Brien's BLP relating to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange:

    By mid-February 2020, however, O'Brien had turned against Assange. "He is a mother f*cker," she tweeted from her verified account, "and deserves ridicule for being a self-centered narcissist clown, IMO." Two days later, she tweeted that although she'd been approached by agents over the last decade to write a book on Manning or her work, she was glad she had not done so. "If I ever write it," she joked, "title will be Useful Idiot, an autobiography."

    The expunged content did not contain the word hostile nor did the word then appear elsewhere on the page.

    Yet in a series of tweets commencing February 14, 2021, O'Brien denounced "an attempt to harass me via Wikipedia." In particular, she fixated on the words hostile and hostility, each of which she used in seven separate tweets, in response to a comment by an editor at her BLP's talk page. Earlier that day, user Burrobert had written: She is very hostile both to Wikileaks and Assange. After O'Brien took issue on the same talk page, Burrobert conceded: Perhaps "hostile" was the wrong word to use and "critical" would have been a better choice. In no instance did I personally use the word hostile.

    Nevertheless, O'Brien has publicly charged that I am "making the Wikipedia platform look like a tool to harass ppl he disagrees with that are women." She asks rhetorically, "Would they do this to a man? Less likely."

    I have not stalked or harassed Alexa O'Brien. I am not a misogynist. I request that an admin caution O'Brien—who seems to have posted both as User Adobrien and IP 69.200.229.184—against violating WP:AGF and advise her to stop attacking me off-wiki. NedFausa (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The foundation and anyone reading this board cannot do anything to make external forces stop tweeting about you or anyone else. WP:NPA is an internal policy and applies to editors. CUPIDICAE💕 23:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: I recommend that you acquaint yourself with WP:OWH. By contributing to Wikipedia talk pages both as User Adobrien and IP 69.200.229.184, O'Brien has established herself as an editor. NedFausa (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where on Wikipedia did she attack you? CUPIDICAE💕 23:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: You either did not read WP:OWH or refuse to understand it. I will respond to other editors. NedFausa (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am well acquainted. You're trying to weaponize Wikipedia to fight a Twitter battle with someone who disagrees with you. I see nothing threatening, objectionable or actionable. Just a discussion by someone who thinks your Wikipedia editing is poor. ANI isn't the place to hash out some personal off-wiki beef with a subject and editor who, as far as I can tell, hasn't violated any Wikipedia policies. But you keep doing you, Ned. Maybe someone will listen one day, but it won't be here. CUPIDICAE💕 00:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I originally opened a Request for Comment, but as I was tagged, I am happy to continue it over ANI, which is probably more appropriate. The subject of the article, User Adobrien only made comments on the talk page about herself, which is what Wikipedia recommends when people have a concern about how they're portrayed. The way the article is written now, it's not surprising she is questioning why her tweets are valid, but not her essays. I would argue, that both likely should be removed, as bulk the article is composed of original material, interviews and other material closely tied to the subject.
    Without getting into whether User Nedfausa's behaviour constitutes stalking or not, I would certainly argue it's 'original research' or at best, journalistic work, which is not what Wikipedia is for. User Nedfausa has made number of edits within the article, that constitute WP:Original research whether it's using self published tweets, or blog posts written by the subject. I pointed out this concern, that Wikipedia is comprised of WP:TERTIARY sources.
    I see this is not the first time User Nedfausa had trouble with editing WP:BLP especially around American politics after 1992. Shushugah (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shushugah: Without getting into whether User Nedfausa's behaviour constitutes stalking or not—that's what this ANI section is about! Why are you evading the issue? NedFausa (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The conduct/behaviour of a reporter on WP:ANI is also subject to scrutiny. My first comment, and others' address your concern about Adorbien's behaviour as well. Shushugah (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, let me state that this is not, as someone mischaracterized it above, about a "Twitter battle" with someone who disagrees with me. It's about an editor at this website using Twitter to attack a fellow editor here. I have never tweeted to Alexa O'Brien and have no intention of engaging her on that platform. This is solely about my activity as an editor of her Wikipedia BLP and her personal off-wiki attacks against me, which violate WP:OWH. It's as simple as that. NedFausa (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Which Tweet is an attack not simply a disagreement or statement of the issues? And further, which of those tweets violates any Wikipedia policy? Sorry, Ned, but if someone wants to call you an asshole on Twitter, there's nothing Wikipedia or Wikipedians can do about it. Perhaps you should read up on meta:Trust and safety or contact Twitter because right now it just looks like you're still trying to get Wikipedia/Wikipedians to fight some silly battle for you while grossly mistating things. CUPIDICAE💕 00:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NedFausa, you must not write a biography by cherry-picking from primary sources written by the subject, let alone their social media posts and particularly on controversial topics. There is a reason we use secondary, independent reliable sources. The subject of an article complaining about edits on social media and on the talk page is, I think, something you have to manage by engagement and negotiation, not locking horns with the article subject and trying to get them sanctioned. However, you may be getting in too deep to be able to edit objectively and I advise you let other editors handle this. Fences&Windows 01:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fences and windows, agreed. I will make no further edits at the Alexa O'Brien BLP, although I reserve the right to respond to attacks against me at the associated talk page. Thanks for your advice. NedFausa (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, I did not try to get O'Brien sanctioned. I requested that an admin caution her against violating WP:AGF and advise her to stop attacking me off-wiki. If you feel that's too much to ask, so be it. NedFausa (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NedFausa, Adobrien is in no real sense a real "Wikipedia editor" but rather the subject of a BLP who is unhappy with how you are shaping and curating her biography. All nine of her edits have been to that talk page. She is not harassing you; rather, she is criticizing your edits about her. I agree with Fences and windows. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I must continue to be her punching bag on Twitter. Wikipedia cannot help me. I misinterpreted the rules. I withdraw this ANI request. NedFausa (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)I'm rather concerned here, but let me first address the complaint: we can't expect Wikipedians to abide by our conduct policies off-wiki. And O'Brien's comments don't come anywhere near to harassment.

    I'm much more bothered by this: the content that Shushugah edited is inadequately sourced negative content on a BLP. Content like that should have been removed from a BLP promptly, and it isn't inappropriate from someone with a COI to remove a BLP violation. What really bothers me is O'Brien's claim that the content of the article may have cost her a job. If it was based on that BLP-violating SYNTH, we have a real problem. This is why the BLP policy exists - because poorly-substantiate content can do real-world harm. I feel like the community is obligated to act here. Guettarda (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For clarity, this is my sole edit on the page, and indeed, despite my WP:COI I took swift action, because of the (potential) BLP violation. I also, immediately opened a section on the talk page to discuss it, in case it was the wrong move. In Retrospect, I should have disclosed my relation with the subject sooner that instant and not a few days after, but I would not have changed my actions otherwise. Shushugah (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guettarda: Nowhere at Talk:Alexa O'Brien does she claim that the content of the article may have cost her a job. On Twitter, she wrote, "The obsessive who took over my Wikipedia page probably just cost me a job interview." It seems to me that costing someone a job and costing them a job interview are two quite different things. Moreover, she did not specify which part of her Wikipedia page caused her prospective employer to abruptly withdraw a job related interview. Before the Wikipedia community acts, might it not be a good idea to ascertain what triggered such sudden rejection? Perhaps if you asked her, she would clarify. Or even better, if her prospective employer could explain precisely what turned him off, it would give the Wikipedia community solid ground on which to proceed. Otherwise we're dealing in conjecture. NedFausa (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you seriously suggesting someone here should contact O'Brien to ask with whom she was interviewing, and then contact that prospective employer to ask why they withdrew their invitation? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seriously suggesting someone here should get the facts straight before proceeding to community action. NedFausa (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be an absolutely wild invasion of privacy, and the suggestion is frankly concerning. Please keep in mind that O'Brien is quite possibly reading this discussion. If I was in her position, I imagine I would find the suggestion that a bunch of internet strangers (with whom I'd clearly already had poor interactions) might be reaching out to my prospective employers quite alarming.
    I think there's really no way to know for sure whether an interview invitation was withdrawn, or why, or based on which portion of her Wikipedia page (if at all)—from her tweet it sounds like she's not even sure that was the cause. But we can see the edits to the page, which in my view were quite out of line for a BLP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: Thank you! That's all I was looking for: There's really no way to know for sure whether an interview invitation was withdrawn, or why, or based on which portion of her Wikipedia page (if at all)—from her tweet it sounds like she's not even sure that was the cause. If that forms the basis for community action, then I'll leave you to it. NedFausa (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it wasn't clear from the sentence immediately after where you ended your quote, it would presumably be the on-wiki violations of the BLP policy that could lead to community action, not the possible fallout from said BLP vios. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fences and Windows has already partly dealt with this, but I feel I should point out that O'Brien's concerns aside, since Assange is a living person, a statement which says '"He is a mother f*cker," she tweeted from her verified account, "and deserves ridicule for being a self-centered narcissist clown' is clearly not the sort of material intended to be covered by ABOUTSELF since it does involve claims about third parties. Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I was wrong to cite that. I construed it as a statement about self in the sense that she was expressing how she felt, but I failed to think it through—you are right, she was of course making a claim about a third party. As such, it failed to meet the WP:TWITTER exception and should not have been included. I apologize for my mistake. NedFausa (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I am pleased to report that GorillaWarfare has now done a thorough housecleaning and the BLP Alexa O'Brien should no longer offend its subject. NedFausa (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest though, in my world, if somebody tweets about a public person calling him a motherfucker, and then does not get a job, and needs to blame somebody for this, they should start with themselves, and only if that fails consider other options.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a very helpful perspective, Ymblanter. We should focus on our actions and role: "It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Fences&Windows 11:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. This is why it is entirely irrelevant whether or not the subject of the article was denied a job due to her Wikipedia article (as far as this has not been reported in reliable sources). What is relevant is that we keep our article in compliance with WP:BLP (I also have some notability concerns, but this is a completely different issue). It does not matter whether the subject likes it or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: to clarify where I was coming from when I brought that it - it was meant as a good reminder of the potential harm an article that doesn't comply with BLP can do. Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    O'Brien addressed this exact argument on Twitter after she apparently saw it made at Wikipediocracy: "To the guy talking about my tweets. Wikipedia profile ranks 1 with my name as a search term. My tweets do not rank anywhere on the index like that-- and if someone reads them they are in context. Ned has selectively edited that context out-- by design." However, as I've already said, it is likely more productive for us to focus on the BLP issues on-wiki rather than trying to determine what may have happened as a result of them off-wiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hoping that NedFausa got the point here, but this post suggests strongly that they did not. I'm starting to think that they shouldn't be editing BLPs at all. Guettarda (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    NedFausa said I have never tweeted to Alexa O'Brien and have no intention of engaging her on that platform. While he may not have directly addressed a tweet to her, he did tweet about her:

    • On February 15, after O'Brien complained via twitter about the article, NedFausa tweeted:

      For anyone who believes I have been abusive or harmful to Alexa O'Brien on Twitter please follow instructions here (link redacted because of wp blocklist) For anyone who believes I have been abusive or harmful to Alexa O'Brien at Wikipedia please follow instructions here (link redacted because of wp blocklist)

    • NedFausa then replied to his own tweet with a Valentine's Day Lockdown Meltdown 2021 cartoon and this text:

      It's understandable that a woman of a certain age in lockdown without a man on Valentine's Day would have a meltdown. Some do it IRL. Some on Twitter. I actually prefer the ones on Twitter because it's quieter.

    He deleted his twitter account a few hours later. The tweet occurred while his user page granted permission to share Wikipedia-related information regarding his twitter activity. I'm concerned that the tweet indicates a lack of objectivity or neutrality toward O'Brien. Schazjmd (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am honestly speechless to see that kind of misogyny, particularly towards a BLP subject who was expressing her (valid) concerns with the Wikipedia article about her. There's certainly a bit of a grey area around what can or should be done about active Wikipedians making inappropriate tweets at or about the subjects of BLPs they've written—certainly Wikipedians are allowed to have personal opinions and express them on Twitter (I know I do). But this would seem to at the very least warrant a formalized ban from editing the O'Brien article, and probably its talk page as well. It was clear from O'Brien's tweets that she believed the poor quality fo her BLP was rooted in misogyny, and although I was originally giving NedFausa some benefit of the doubt because he was a (somewhat) new editor at the time he wrote it, it's clear that he does hold misogynistic views towards her now even if he didn't before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a tban from all BLP. NedFausa has not indicated that he understands why his editing was problematic (namely WP:Original research and cherry picking primary sources), instead he chooses to see his mistake as misreading obscure elements of the WP:TWEET rule. In a BLP article, where he contributed more than half of the edits, the potential for harm is much greater, than in non BLP articles, and or in articles with wider set of eyes. I also found specific behaviour of his creepy on a personal level. I was willing to let it go, but I am concerned this is a pattern, for example he searched my Twitter account (which is publicly linked in my talk page), but using a historic alias/identity of O'Brien, which is not standard practice in the least for researching secondary sources. Rather than accepting he made some mistakes (who hasn't), he's trying to make himself the victim in this very ANI thread and get O'Brien repudiated by the community. Shushugah (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shushugah: did you ever link your twitter profile from your Wikipedia account? Or did they dig this link up themselves? Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guettarda: See "which is publicly linked in my talk page". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GorillaWarfare: yes, but the only link I see on that page is by NedFausa. I'm not saying that this was a super-secret identity that was revealed, but there seems to be a general agreement not to dig into people's off-wiki identities, so it would be worth giving NedFausa a heads-up that this kind of thing isn't ok. Maybe not the best time (I'm sure they're feeling very defensive right now) but certainly something that an editor who gets into controversial topics should be aware of. Guettarda (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guettarda: I'm pretty sure they just misspoke and meant user page. They've had their Twitter account linked there since May 2018. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Thanks. My mistake. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's understandable that a woman of a certain age in lockdown without a man on Valentine's Day would have a meltdown. That's disgusting. So much for I am not a misogynist.… Robby.is.on (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    NedFausa sanctioned (AE action)

    Please note that I have indefinitely topic banned NedFausa from the WP:AP2 topic area, broadly construed, as an AE (WP:ACDS) action — a prohibition which also encompasses any living persons therein, American and otherwise. My log entry is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#American_politics_2. My sanction notification to them is here: permanent link. El_C 17:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to also note that I experienced an almost equal internal struggle between issuing this topic ban and imposing an indefinite block. I guess leniency won, again, despite my best efforts to the contrary (diff). I guess I just gotta try harder to be harsher.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • El C I'd say this also warrants a BLP ban as well, not just American politics. On the other hand, as a woman, I am disgusted with his comments above and especially his attempt to play a victim after such vile comments and would go as far as supporting a site ban but I realize I am probably in a minority here. CUPIDICAE💕 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Praxidicae, though praise be to WP:NOTBURO, I did notice that Ned's BLP DS alert was placed on their talk page after the fact. And I cannot really indef them now, either. But I think a lot of their BLP contributions are Assange or Manning -related, anyway, which are already strictly prohibited by the (WP:BROADLY) AP2 ban itself. Am open to any further suggestions, though, of course. El_C 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Praxidicae, whoa! Sorry, reading comprehension failure x2 on my part! You are not in the minority (re: vile comments), I suspect. I'll be drafting a proposal for a community-imposed siteban monetarily momentarily. El_C 19:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    NedFausa siteban proposal

    For their many instances of egregious misconduct that, as a whole (and in part, it may be argued), constitute harassment, NedFausa is subject to an indefinite community-imposed siteban (WP:CBAN). El_C 19:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Political rants, and personal attacks

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

    A new pro-Turkish user has appeared and has decided to make personal attacks, make partisan edits, and go on unrelated rants. I have tried to be as welcoming as I can, giving them friendly advice on their talk page, as well as responding to them as best I can, despite this they have not changed.

    They seem to an inexperienced Turkish user, who is use to the partisan environment of places like Twitter or YouTube where constructive debate is futile and meaningful debate is a time sink. This user can't operate in the collaborative environment required of Wikipedia. They are unwillingly to learn, collaborate, listen or even be slightly civil. I have tried to get him to be more civil but it seems a waste of time.

    Warned over 9 times on their talk page by four separate editors, and told to cool off. Despite this, he is not desisting from making disruptive edits.

    Some kind words he has stated at Talk:Operation Claw-Eagle 2:

    A list of charming repartee

    "Des Vallee is a PKK troll don't listen to him"

    "Des Vallee is a troll"

    "Please exclude him from the article"

    "That guy Des Vallee is imo definetly a pkk troll"

    "Des Vallee is a troll, undo every vandalism he is doing here!"

    "That guy is a joke."

    "You said Turkey was defeated, when Turkey is so powerful and strong. Ha, PKK troll, Turkey bombs everything!"

    "Shadow4dark and Des Vallee are pkk trolls." (He has now expanded the PKK Trolls to me, ShadowDark and Jim Micheal)

    "They deliberately push pkk agenda by refering to pkk-media!"

    "These guys can't even differ between an opinion and news"

    "How often do I have to say it? He is a pkk member trying to push an agenda." I visted Turkey once I don't know any Turkish or Kurdish, and I live in the US, so sure.

    "The hypocrisy of Des Vallee!"

    "Say one time again that multiple sources claim turkey to be responsible although none of the sources you provide are reliable, you will see what happens."

    "Please look how hypocrite he is"

    "Vandalism of Des Vallee"

    "He's extremely POV pushing!"

    "If Wikipedia has a single credibility left, they may ban this pkk member."

    "Des Vallee is a pkk-troll, be careful"

    Partisan edits here and here, more unrelated ranting here. This user clearly isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Des Vallee (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Duck is quacking here [[188]] and [[189]] similair rage [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Claw-Eagle_2#Des_Valle_using_this_source_for_drone_killing]] [User:Shadow4dark|Shadow4dark]] (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Poisioning of well on AfD

    Vincentvikram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Shankargb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Vincentvikram has been tagging active editors by falsely accusing them of being canvassed[190][191] and after I warned him on his talk page against this WP:DE he went ahead to double down not only on his talk page,[192] but restoring the same false accusations on AfD,[193][194] and even modifying other's comments to solidify his position towards the subject in violation of WP:REFACTOR.[195]

    Even after knowing all this, he is now derailing the AfD by encouraging me to report his misconduct. Given the editor is editing since 2007 and does not understand what he is doing wrong, this is a case of CIR and thus I am reporting it here. Shankargb (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply by Vikram

    Context: The AFD in question is a highly polarised one as it is currently in the news as events unfold, with very strong opinions on both sides.

    • Starting with the easier accusations. An IP posted a delete comment at the top of the AFD which another editor moved down the list inorder. I highlighted the delete vote to help the admin count it. I thought I was being helpful.
    • I tagged four accounts for either SPA or canvassing since I had reasonable doubts after visiting their talk pages. I tagged Shankargb with canvassing tag after seeing at least five sections (a sixth section he had deleted) with warnings of disruptive editing and two sections with DS alerts(within one year), the last being yesterday. If I am wrong about the SPA/canvassing concern I will apologise.
    • Shankargb made a comment about "no personal attacks" and yet talked about my comprehension stating The problem is with your poor comprehension skills. Instead, he could have just talked about what aspects of the stub were actually puffery.
    • I tagged krao212 since that account was ten months old and had at least ten sections with warnings of DE and two DS alerts, and all these were in related areas and hence my genuine concern.
    • Two other accounts I tagged were clear cut SPA cases.
    • What I do not understand is why would Shankarsg delete the tag for krao212 instead of just his?
    • The tag I re-added was not shankargb's but krao212 and shankar objected to it and removed it twice. Why does one editor fight so vehemently for another account that has so many DE and DS warnings?
    • Finally, I don't like being threatened. I don't think that is a reasonable way to discuss anything. Have a discussion with me but don't add a threat at the end of that sentence and Shankargb added threats thrice. It in fact is a bullying technique and I called it. If he wanted to make a report just go ahead and make a report. I was acting in good faith and will accept a mistake if I have made one either knowingly or unknowingly. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 06:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an admin please close this section per procedure as I don't want to add anything more here, unless OP wants to add something? Thanks Vikram Vincent 07:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait! Did I read this correctly?! Shankargb wrote above ..and even modifying other's comments to solidify his position towards the subject in violation of WP:REFACTOR and gave this as an example? I voted "Keep" on that AFD and highlighted the "Delete" vote of that IP. I think a WP:BOOMERANG is in order here. Vikram Vincent 08:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Vikram Vincent, getting a Discretionary Sanctions alert is not an indication than an editor is doing anything wrong; they simply inform editors of the particular rules for a topic. Having been in previous editing disputes is not evidence of having been canvassed. Tagging other editors on the opposing side of an AfD can be disruptive and should not be done without evidence - I think you were being excessive. Note that Sadads is the article creator, so not a neutral party.
    There is no need to refactor comments to bold recommendations - AfD closers will read the full debate.
    If we regarded editors saying that they may report an issue to ANI as "making a threat" then that would have a chilling effect on discussions of editor behaviour. Fences&Windows 10:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Fences and windows, noted on the DS and DE. However, I did not refactor to change a vote from x->y as claimed by OP. Best! Vikram Vincent 10:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Was going to come here and say that Shankargb's comments are out of touch with the reasonable work that Vincentvikram is doing to keep the conversation organized and structured with comments for the closing admin. There are a lot of signals that this topic is beginning to solicit participation from folks who are loosely connected to the Wikimedia space and don't understand the conversation. (I was even harassed on Twitter by a hindu nationalist extremist/conspiracy theorist because I created the article in November (since deleted)). I was purposefully not tagging/commenting on individual accounts because I didn't want to get targeted in a situation like this. Sadads (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fences and windows: would appreciate you or another uninvolved admin keeping an eye on the AFD/discussion, to help navigate this, Sadads (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I collapsed the back-and-forth between User:Shankargb and User:Vincentvikram at AfD as resolved. You have made 10 and 29 edits to the page, as the 3rd and 1st most frequent editors, respectively. Both of you should now let others comment to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the debate.
    Other than adding a comment to clarify that the article had been moved back, I didn't see any other need for admin action, Sadads. The general notice about canvassing is up and any closer will know to take short comments from new and IP editors with a pinch of salt. It'd be helpful though if you would self-identity as the article creator in your comment at AfD. Fences&Windows 12:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fences and windows: Its more I think there are likely to be increasing problems, that I suspect will scale at some point-- for example, yesterday on twitter there was a solicitation participants. Sadads (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is IMO a halfway decent argument for calling this AfD early in recognition of a steadily increasing heat-light ratio (evidence in part by this thread), lack of any new relevant arguments, and the reality that this is a two-outcome AfD at this point (keep or no consensus). Not sure anyone wants to step in that, though :) (and also, I !voted to keep, so I'm not exactly uninvolved). Just a thought. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet abusing multiple accounts

    A sockpuppet that edits sports related articles has been abusing the usage of multiple accounts. The original account is Cool_a123. That account was blocked in December, but multiple accounts have been created by this editor. (Elijah12354, Cooper_123465, Poolson1029) With the latest one being Roots29102, which hasn't been blocked. Is there anything that can be done about this situation? In case if my message on Roots29102's talk page gets reverted, here is the diff of that edit [196]. Yowashi (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nationalist POV pushing from Pavlosmeta

    Pavlosmeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to believe the term Northern Cyprus is somehow biased and prefers the wildly POV term "occupied Cyprus", and despite the discussion at User talk:Pavlosmeta#February 2021 has made this edit repeatedly changing "Northern Cyprus" to "occupied Cyprus" (they've made numerous similar changes in the past, see this, this, this, this, this, this and this. FDW777 (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I was never a Nationalist dear friend. My edit was according to United Nations terms. If you think that United Nations are nationalists then ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlosmeta (talk • contribs) 09:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not matter how the UN calls Northern Cyprus. It is definitely relevant and should be reflected in the article, but it does not dictate us what the name of the page is, or how we refer to Northern Cyprus in other articles. If we blindly followed the UN everywhere, our article on Taiwan had no title.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Ymblanter, they are two very different situations. Cyprus and Turkey are talking to solve the problem. Turkey recognized that the problem exists. They invaded in Cyprus in 1974 and they still have troops, so is clearly occupation of Cyprus Republic. Finally, I don't want to change the article "Northern Cyprus". My edits was ONLY in "Cyprus Economy" article. As a user of Wikipedia for many years i wish that Wikipedia will be a place to give correct information to the users. Turkey now is occupying and controlling Northern Syria, we should create an article "Northern Syria-the country"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlosmeta (talk • contribs) 11:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I just saw an article with the title "Turkish occupation of northern Syria", then why not "Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlosmeta (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Northern Syria AFAIK does not claim to be a sovereign country; Northern Cyprus does claim to be a sovereign country, and has authorized and supports the presence of Turkish troops. As such we describe things as how most independent reliable sources do. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a subtle grammar distinction between Northern Cyprus (An official name according to some) and northern Cyprus, which is describing a region within Cyprus (while implicitly stating it's part of the country Cyprus). Shushugah (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the user has chosen to continue [197] even after having participated in this discussion, I blocked the account for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    HDB Financial Services

    I have just blocked Arjun.Pansare (talk · contribs) from editing this article after they have repeatedly edit-warred away my closure for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDB Financial Services, along with leaving a note on their talk page explaining why, and advising them to file a deletion review if they wish to challenge it. I have no opinion on the article or its AfD and have only acted in an administrative role here, but I appreciate that from a superficial level, reverting a user twice and blocking them looks like a textbook case of admin abuse, so I am bringing these actions here to review. Comments welcome. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • If it's textbook anything it's textbook restraint in the scope & duration of the block. Should anyone object to your prior involvement I'll happily reblock to overcome that issue. Cabayi (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Cabayi said. You weren't edit warring over content, they were attempting to overturn your administrative action. Random thought: should redirects that have been put in place as the outcome of a properly closed deletion discussion be protected, to prevent this kind of thing? GirthSummit (blether) 11:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No issue with your actions (and Arjun.Pansare is almost certainly a WP:UPE editor). The AfD, which was closed correctly, highlights the shortcomings of WP:NCORP. We have articles in Wikipedia on bar staff who happened to have an interview in a mid-level RS (which I have no problem with, btw), However, we have corporations (like HDBFS), with thousands of employees, and thousands of branches, but because nobody wanted to do a piece on them (let's face it, nobody wants to read an article on HDBFS, the bartender is probably more entertaining), they fail NCORP. I have even had to defend listed corporations at AfD. There is no question that HDBFS is notable in its country (far more than any comparative nearby bar staff). I think that Arjun's frustration is with NCORP, which we need to amend to be more like NPROF (i.e. specific criteria that over-ride GNG such as market capitalization, # of employees, $ of revenue, etc.). Sorry for the rant? Britishfinance (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article deletion isn't a poster child for a wrongful decision, Britishfinance. The article could have easily been speedily deleted as promotional, with a primary source title inviting people to apply to a loan (possible SEO) and referring to the business as "strong and reliable" and an "esteemed donor". Nobody tried that hard to find sources (e.g. there was coverage of sackings last year), so the creator could work on a draft and then go to DRV. Fences&Windows 13:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I clarified that it was validly deleted under our current NCORP rules (I didn't see the article, just the AfD, so I didn't see its possible CSD status). My issue is that NCORP is deleting large notable businesses that probably should have Wikipedia articles. We made the right changes in NPROF (many notable academics also don't have GNG status), but not in NCORP (i.e journalists don't like writing in-dept pieces on boring regional banks or finance companies, but they are known by millions of people). Britishfinance (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I don't see any problem with your actions blocking them from editing the page. If I was an admin, if they did that, I would have instead blocked them from editing for a short period of time (48 hours or less), but I don't see anything wrong with your block, since they were edit warring and ignoring the policy, in a situation where Ignore all rules doesn't apply. 4D4850 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Addition of unsourced content by Galatic1

    Indef blocked. Large overlap in edited articles, same pattern of unsourced content, created Richmondjosephlegisma was blocked. Fences&Windows 13:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    In 2021 in Philippine television, this user Persistently add unsourced content and disruptive editing. Possibly also a sockpuppet of Richmondjosephlegisma. Please block that user because it also reported at AIV. 36.65.38.154 (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP 50.203.100.36

    The IP user 50.203.100.36 is currently engaged in disruptive editing with a slow edit war on the article Not evaluated, where their edits have been reverted by several other editors. Although recently warned once, their behaviour is identical to previous IP editors to this page, including 50.203.99.102 who received multiple warnings culminating in a one year block in November 2019. Loopy30 (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've put a partial block on that article for the extremely tiny range 50.203.100.32/29, which is where all their edits in the last year have come from. They're free to edit the talk page if they want to have a discussion about this, but I agree that this is an unhelpful slow edit war. ~ mazca talk 13:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) You need to notify all parties with an ANI-notice. 4D4850 (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bludgeoning (Bus stop)

    Can we have a few more eyes here, please, with a view to establishing whether User:Bus stop has budgeoned the discussion? By my light, it's been a pretty clear strategy from the moment they opened the thread, but I might be jaundiced. To crunch the numbers, there have been:

    • Approx. 83 edits to the thread, of which
    • 40 edits are by Bus stop—48%—resulting in
    • Approx. 5,100 words, of which
    • Approx. 3,000 words—58%—are from Bus stop.
      It's true that discussion appears to have died down over the last couple of days, but that's not, perhaps, surprising, considering the ever-expanding word count and the (slightly bizarre) propensity for diversions into Paul McCartney's Jewishness (or otherwise).
      The question(s) are, is this behavior considered disruptive; does Bus stop have any previous history with such behavior; and, if so, should they be restricted from such behavior. Many thanks. ——Serial 15:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    H'mm; to answer a couple of my own questions. I note that WP:BLUDGEON itself states that Doing so may be considered a form of disruptive editing; I also see that bludgeoning was central to this ANI thread from December. ——Serial 15:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Serial Number 54129—you write "By my light, it's been a pretty clear strategy from the moment they opened the thread, but I might be jaundiced." Why don't you just ask me what my strategy is. I'll tell you. My strategy is to cause the Einstein article to say something along the lines of "Einstein was Jewish" or "Einstein was a secular Jew"—something like that. If I bludgeoned, I'm sorry. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Deja vu... Bus stop received a topic ban from the American politics topic area in November of last year for bludgeoning behavior (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler), and his "fixation on tagging people he identifies as Jews" was mentioned there. Bus stop has a long history of this behavior around Jewish people and Judaism in general: a search of ANI archives shows it goes back for over a decade. In 2007 it was proposed he be topic banned from Judaism (resulted in an indefinite block); in 2012 it was proposed that he be topic-banned from categorizing people as Jewish (unsuccessful); in 2014 this was again proposed (Bus stop "agreed to voluntarily stay away from the topics that have caused contention"). It's concerning to see he is continuing both the bludgeoning and "Jew-tagging".GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, yes. The "Ham Steak Hawaiian Jew"? And I didn't make that one up. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare, Serial Number 54129, If you would like to understand, I would be glad to explain. If the subject of an article is clearly Jewish, and sources provide commentary on for instance how their Jewishness has bearing on their life, in such an instance we should not be using the wording "born into a Jewish family". We should instead be saying "was Jewish" or "was a secular Jew". I'm not "Jew tagging" in that I am not adding new information the article; the article already said the subject was "born into a Jewish family". I am changing the locution. It is not the family that is the primary focus of the article. The primary focus is the subject of the article. If sources unambiguously support that the subject is/was Jewish, then why are we writing "was born into a Jewish family"? Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    How many more discussions of bludgeoning by Bus stop have to occur here before more serious sanctions are imposed? And how much longer must Wikipedia and its editors be damaged by Bus stop? This behavior seriously disrupts discussion and drives good editors away. But, of course, that seems to be Bus stop's primary motive. Sundayclose (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can someone remind me how to check if Bus stop has been given a BLP DS alert in the past year? If they have, I'm ready to use DS to topic ban them from anything related to Judaism and BLPs. If they haven't, that would be a good first step. i know there's a way to check that, but can't find the documentation after a few minutes of looking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Try to post a DS alert at their talk page, and then when you try to save the edit you get this search option.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Floquenbeam, this appears to be the only alert they have received in the past year. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 16:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    hmmmm.... I see this BLP warning in the edit filter log for roughly the same time but it didn't show up in the history search; let me save the diff so I don't have to search for it again and I'll investigate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can search for "discretionary sanctions alert" in the tag box: [198], or look at filter 602. Note that entries will be made in filter 602 on the first attempt to save a DS alert, even if the person alerting the user does not continue with the edit. That may be what you're seeing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have waited for your comment; I just spent the last 10 minutes eventually figuring out the same thing. It looks like Doug started out with a BLP alert, but for whatever reason never saved the edit. Although I'm about to give Bus stop a ds-alert for BLPs, as a write this I haven't yet, but it already shows in the log I tried to because I hit preview originally tried to save it on their talk page, but was stopped by the big red warning notice. That seems suboptimal, but I guess off topic. Anyway, a couple of minutes after the signature timestamp, Bus stop will have been given a DS alert for BLPs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare—my point concerning "Jew-tagging" is that I'm not doing that. My point is that I am not taking the initiative to add to articles that someone was Jewish if the article didn't already imply that they were Jewish. I say "imply" because the language "was born into a Jewish family" implies that they must be Jewish. So, all I'm doing is stating outright, what already is implied. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare—another way of saying this is that the article is not primarily about the family. The article is primarily about the subject of the biography. If sources expound on the Jewishness of the subject of the biography, why should we be using the language "born into a Jewish family"? I prefer to directly say that they were Jewish, or that they were a secular Jew. Bus stop (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already made these points at the talk page, there is no need to repeat them here where it is your conduct being discussed, not whether the term should be included in the page. El C's comment below seems apt. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare—I did not point out at the Talk page that the article is not primarily about the family and that the article is primarily about the subject of the biography. I am saying this right now for the first time. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, GorillaWarfare, I am responding to your language of "Jew tagging". I don't know that it has a definition. But as I am trying to explain, I am not adding the new information that anyone is a Jew. If an article is already saying that someone was "born into a Jewish family", and if sources go into detail about them as Jews, shouldn't the article be just straightforwardly saying that they are Jews? Why the indirect locution? Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, GorillaWarfare, you should not even be using the term "Jew-tagging". It is improper. We don't make such insinuations. We should be attempting to respect one another's editing propensities. It is a vast world and Wikipedia attempts to write about as much of it as possible. Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You just made three separate comments to me, each pinging me, without me having responded to any of them, within an hour-long period, in a discussion about your own bludgeoning behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I pinged too often GorillaWarfare but if you are saying something inaccurate about me at this noticeboard I think it is in my interest to clear it up. If not, sanctions would follow, isn't that right? I know how this works. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Okay, Bus stop's original comment seems to have disappeared into the ether (except there's no such thing on Wikipedia), so I'm going to attach my response to it, edit conflicts and their refactoring notwithstanding. Bus stop's comment in question read: Trumped up charges, GorillaWarfare. And WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for both GorillaWarfare and Serial Number 54129 (diff).

    My response read: Negative, Bus stop, I submit to you that you are projecting. My sense is that you either bludgeon discussions to the point of exhausting the endurance of other participants, or you tersely engage in fire-and-forget commentary without even a cursory glance at whatever is the case in question, like you did with me recently (direct link). That you've been allowed to continue swaying between these two extremes, that is a bit astonishing to me, truth be told. And distractions concerning the content dispute itself when this behaviour is called into question, well, unfortunately that's just par for the course. El_C 16:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    El_C—Wikipedia is not exempt from antisemitism. Antisemitism is ubiquitous. And of course it finds its way onto Wikipedia. If the subject of an article receives considerable commentary in reliable sources on their Jewishness, how it impacts their lives, how can we be saying merely that they were "born into a Jewish family"? Shouldn't we be saying they "were Jewish"? Or that they were a "secular Jew"? Wikipedia doesn't get to decide who is a Jew—reliable sources do that. In short—a person is a Jew if reliable sources support that they are a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus stop, I am not interested in engaging this content dispute with you at this time, certainly not on this forum. El_C 17:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a simple fact, El C. It would be Pollyannish to think that antisemitism is not found at Wikipedia. A factor that bears its ugly head in every other part of society probably has a presence on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I really, really hope you're not trying to insinuate anti-semitism on the part of those you were arguing with on the Einstein article, because that would be a very poor idea. Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, absolutely not, Black Kite, and I mean that with utter seriousness. I am referring to ideas. If a person represents that a non-practicing Jew is not entirely a Jew, I don't consider that person to be an antisemite. But the idea is not only at odds with the way Jews identify as Jews, but it is also contrary to the way Wikipedia supports its own material. In essence it is original research for an editor to say that for instance Einstein was not entirely a Jew because he wasn't a practicing Jew. Bus stop (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, thank you for that. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right? Well, at least there's that. Bus stop, that you continue to try to engage the topic dispute with me here after I had already said to you that I am not interested in engaging this content dispute with you at this time — well, I think that speaks for itself. El_C 17:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A rate limit for Bus Stop was suggested in the December ANI. I think it's a reasonable thing to try. Levivich had suggested three posts per thread. —valereee (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh, I learned a long time ago that Bus Stop can be generally ignored. They have a limited understanding of policy and I have yet to see them participate in a discussion at BLPN where I didnt end up wishing I had a device to throw a shoe at them long-distance. Archive 280 Stefan Moleyneux is one example of their range of tactics. It generally goes: Make crap argument not based on policy. When pointed out argument isnt in line with policy, pretend they meant something else. Argue a different point. Ignore direct questions. Waffle when asked for evidence. Change argument entirely when looks like not being listened to (this happens often). Generally the best way to deal with them is to 1. Ignore them and address only other editors who can make a coherant contribution. 2. Revert anything that looks to be a BLP issue. 3. Force them to attempt to gain consensus. 4. Watch any subsequent discussion collapse under the weight of their tiresome verbiage. Really they need a topic ban from all biographies AND anything remotely to do with Jews. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Fences and windows. Thank you for weighing in. People can be so unfair. If anybody takes the time to look at what transpired at the Einstein article—Talk page and article space, it will be seen that I have been careful to maintain rational dialogue with others, supplementing my arguments with sources. This is a content dispute. The unfairness is that it has now switched to a behavioral issue. No, it is not a behavioral issue, at least not on my part. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to very quickly summarize what took place. I have been arguing with several editors. That is permitted. One editor is permitted to disagree with three editors. Here's what they do: one maintains the position that Einstein is not fully a Jew. The other maintains that Einstein is not a secular Jew, because he was semi-observant as a little kid. (Totally ridiculous—all Einstein did as a toddler is tell his parents to get kosher food, which no doubt they ignored.) Based on the reasoning of these two editors, I cannot write that Einstein was Jewish, because in the opinion of one of them, he was not fully a Jew, and I cannot say that he was a secular Jew, because in the opinion of the other editor, Einstein was observant as a child. Ridiculous? Sources of course don't matter in any of this. Original research reigns supreme. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bus stop, I realize this discussion concerns you, specifically, so that it is of course expected for you to wish to make your case. But, I'm letting you know that it's starting feel like you are bludgeoning this very discussion which alleges that you bludgeon discussions. So, there are shades of irony to be drawn from that, which may well be lost on you, but I suspect are being picked up by most participants here. Self-awareness can be a harsh mistress, truly, but I think being blunt about this is long overdue. El_C 18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what El_C posted, Bus stop, and that's one of the signs of bludgeoning. You persistently interpret, or misinterpret, statements rather than actually read and attempt to take in the poster's expressed thought(s). Tiderolls 19:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tide rolls—I merely responded to what El_C posted. And I read what they posted before responding. This is getting ridiculous. Bus stop (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, bludgeon-y projection, thy name is Bus stop... El_C 19:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El C—don't administrators have anything better to do than constantly degrade this project and waste everybody's time? Bus stop (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you have anything better to do than to respond to every single comment posted here? Give it a rest, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And you're coming extremely close to making a personal attack by accusing El_C and other admins participating here of "constantly degrading" Wikipedia. I'd watch my step if I were you, you're already close to a sanction for your bludgeoning behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken—can I ask you a question? Do you have a sock-puppet named Jayjg? Bus stop (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, yes, thank you for bludgeoning me. I find it extremely useful to have a sockpuppet who is an admin, as it relieves me of the burden of doing many everyday Wikipedia things, like convincing other editors in consensus discussions, making arguments regarding sanctions, and protecting articles from damaging vandalism and PoV editing. Instead of doing those things, I just pull on my sockpuppet, get out the admin's broom, and sweep away all my problems just like magic. It's really convenient, and it really is true that two Wikipedia accounts can live as cheaply as one.
    Anyway, I've been waiting for years for someone to uncover my deep, dark secret, and now that everything's out in the open, I feel so relieved. It's as if a great burden has been lifted from my shoulders. Again, thank you for bludgeoning me.
    With apologies to Jayjg. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a serious accusation. Do you have anything to back it up? —El Millo (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. The little bell went off, indicating that someone had posted on this thread, and Bus stop just reached for the first attack they could think of. Interestingly, I guess I must have been accused of sockpuppetry with maybe 15 or more people over the years (User:EEng is one of the ones I remember), but I don't recall User:Jayjg having been one of them. I guess I just have one of those faces that looks like a lot of other people. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a hunch, Facu-el Millo. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Such hunches can get you blocked, ya know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Insert bludgeoning response here →
    I too have been accused of sock-puppetry. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken—my apologies—I must have been mistaken. And my apologies to Jayjg too. You just seemed like the same editor. My mistake. Bus stop (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, because we "just seemed like the same editor", you just assumed that two high-profile, long-term editors, one of them an admin, were sockpuppets. Yeah, sure, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate Valereee's suggestion for a rate-limit, but as noted in the previous discussion, there is little doubt that Bus stop will quickly circumvent a rate limit by starting a new thread. That, in effect, would make the problem worse. There needs to be clearly specified, graduated sanctions with no exceptions, ultimately (if necessary) escalated to an indef block. I don't like to see an indef for someone who does make some useful edits, but this has gone on long enough and with too much damage. Bus stop's history clearly tells us that previous discussions and sanctions have no long term effect. I suspect that's the case because Bus stop enjoys the bludgeoning process, or cannot comprehend where normal discussion stops and bludgeoning begins. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is interesting, Sundayclose. I rarely start new threads. How can you say "Bus stop will quickly circumvent a rate limit by starting a new thread"? Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Misunderstanding the argument, either by mistake or purposefully, which states that you could just start a new thread to circumvent the limit per thread, not that you currently start new threads. —El Millo (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood that, Facu-el Millo. But I habitually do not start new threads. No wonder this is called the torture boards. Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not an admin. Never will be. But I will offer this: this sort of thread is a total degradation to the project. Whatever the outcome, this is why Wikipedia is toxic. Salem witch trials pale by comparison. Bus stop (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are somewhat correct, but what you don't seem to recognize is that you are the toxic element here. You've attacked numerous editors who have reported your disruptive behavior to the community without taking anything they've said as a cause for concern to alter your behavior. Everyone else is wrong -- except for you, of course. If you stop to think about it for just a moment, you'd realize that this is extremely unlikely to be true, and it's not, unless, of course, all the other editors here are irresponsible and don't have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
      Your behavior is disruptive, both here in this discussion, and in general in your editing. You came close to being topic banned in the past, but avoided it by voluntarily stepping away from those actions, but here you are, back again, doing the same damn thing you did before. By all rights, that topic-banning discussion should be dug up from the archives and re-opened, since the conditions under which you avoided being sanctioned are no longer in force. You're extremely lucking that you haven't been blocked just for your behavior in this thread - and yet you keep pushing the envelope, playing the victim, using the "toxic Wikipedia" card to deflect attention off of you.
      You should be damn glad that I'm not an admin, because I would have indeffed you a long time ago. The real admins are more judicious than I am, but even they have a point past which they cannot be pushed, but you continue to push away anyway. Good luck with that strategy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sundayclose, what about in addition to three posts per thread, BS can't start new threads on any talk in which they've posted in a currently open thread? —valereee (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I really think it's a non-issue. Per WP:BURO, an admin can see that starting a new thread is not a new discussion, it's a continuation of an ongoing one in the previous thread. That's why I used "discussion" in my proposals below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Endless projections continue, even here

    Above, Bus stop has written a response to me, by adopting yet another amazing projection. It reads: don't administrators have anything better to do than constantly degrade this project and waste everybody's time. Bus stop, I think my record speaks for itself. How about yours? El_C 21:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    El_C—try to understand something—your "record speaks for itself" in some areas. But editors are not expected to "stay in their lane." I reserve the right not to agree with anyone about anything. This thread is pure toxicity. An administrator is expected to be fair. Have you actually scrutinized the edits to the Einstein article and Talk page of the past few days? Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus stop, your record speaks for itself as well. In fact, it screams. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's astounding how the toxicity thing works, Beyond My Ken. Bus stop (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:BLUDGEON: Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, Beyond My Ken, I am here trying not to get sanctioned. You are here for what reason? You obviously have nothing better to do. Though you would no doubt say that you are here to build an encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you just admit it, Beyond My Ken, you are totally uninspired by this project. Otherwise you would not be wasting this much time on getting me sanctioned. Wikipedia happens to have a Jewish problem—unsurprisingly. Antisemitism is fairly ubiquitous in the world at large. Why would there be not a trace of antisemitism at Wikipedia? An encyclopedia is incapable of uttering the words "Einstein was Jewish" or "Einstein was a secular Jew"? Give me a break. Every source that addresses the subject supports an assertion that Einstein was Jewish. No source supports that Einstein might not be Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) So, now you're playing the antisemitism card, how unexpected.
    If you knew anything at all about me, you'd know that I am very concerned about antisemitism on Wikipedia and everywhere else in the world, and about the whitewashing of articles about antisemitic Nazis, Fascists, neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, and various other far-right figures. I take great pains to remove antisemitism when I find it, and to make sure those people are properly and accurately described and not glorified or excused. However, the current issue has nothing whatsoever with antisemitism, or even the debate about whether Einstein should or should not be labelled as Jewish (I believe he should be), and everything to do with your behavior. I understand that you can't see that, but it is very much the case.
    As to being "uninspired" by Wikipedia, I very much doubt that I would spend hours daily editing here, making usually hundreds of edits a day, if I wasn't convinced that this project is a significant benefit to the English-speaking world. I truly believe in Wikipedia. I don't however, think that Wikipedia needs editors such as you, who disrupt the community in their earnest self-righteousness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are making a very good argument in favor of sanctions with the two above comments. I strongly suggest you step away from Wikipedia for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    HandThatFeeds—believe it or not this project actually compiles material in accordance with its presence in reliable sources. If all good quality sources addressing the question say that Einstein was Jewish and if there are no good quality sources saying that Einstein was not Jewish, then it should be possible for an entity purporting to be an encyclopedia to make a simple, direct statement—either "Einstein was Jewish" or "Einstein was a secular Jew". This should not be so difficult. Bus stop (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is baffling that you're still repeating your long-refuted arguments from the Einstein discussion, and that you don't understand that whether you're right or wrong in the inclusion of the information isn't relevant here. What's relevant is the methods you use in order to get what you want. —El Millo (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus Stop, you have to try to argue your point as best you can, but when you're then confronted with disagreement by numerous editors, it's time to accept consensus. Do you think I agree with every consensus made here that is relevant to articles? Like Only in death ... I've suggested, here, ignoring your posts when your style becomes fatiguing, but they're obviously not being ignored. At least choose your battles more wisely (in terms of where you stand a chance). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Believe it or not, the Law of holes is actually good advice, but pretty soon you're going to be hitting the Earth's core if you don't stop digging. Quit arguing content and pay attention to the people telling you to stop bludgeoning this discussion about your behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond My Ken—you refer to "the antisemitism card". The antisemitism is the main problem. Obviously I'm not talking about overt antisemitism. I am talking about the inability to make a simple, direct statement: Einstein was Jewish. I am talking about the inability to make a simple, direct statement: Einstein was a secular Jew. I would concede that is not exactly antisemitism. But it is certainly bothersome. Bus stop (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: Bus stop prohibited from BLUDGEONING discussions

    Given that WP:BLUDGEONing a discussion is something that User:Bus stop is apparently unable to stop themselves from doing, Bus stop is topic-banned from posting more than three responses in any 24-hour period of time to any specific discussion anywhere on Wikipedia, except on their own talk page. This sanction shall result in escalating blocks up to and including an indefinite one, at the discretion of the blocking admin.

    • I think that admins can be trusted to see that if Bus stop starts a "new" thread to avoid a sanction, it's simply a WP:GAMING tactic and not really a new discussion, just a continuation of the previous one. That's why the proposal says "discussion" and not "thread". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that this reasonably implicit. And I guess now that it's actually been specifically discussed here as an intentional part of the proposal by the proposer, it can be regarded as an explicit part of this proposal. —valereee (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added "specific" in an attempt to make it clear that the 3-response limit was to one discussion considered at a time. I was concerned that the proposal could be misinterpreted as meaning that Bus stop could only make 3 responses in a 24-hour period across all of Wikipedia. But, as I've said elsewhere, a discussion is a discussion is a discussion, whether it takes place in a single thread, in sub-threads of a single thread, or in multiple threads. As long as the subject is essentially the same, it's all one discussion, and Bus stop doesn't get to avoid a sanction by starting a new thread or sub-thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as an uninvolved ANI observer. After reviewing the discussion in question and other behaviour, I believe that topic-bans on bludgeoning and making edits related to whether people are Jewish are warranted. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 23:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can someone clarify whether the limit is 3 responses to a person or responses within a topic? Some discussions can be rather dynamic with different tangents/lines branching out. I also have some due process concerns about whether the limit applies if Bus Stop is the subject of the discussion like here for instances. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with underlined wording inserted ...three responses regarding a particular topic in any 24-hour period.... I ignore Bus stop yet still waste time from skipping their interminable "discussions". Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per above; seen this too many times in discussions that Bus Stop is involved in. They tend to drive a topic towards obfuscation via their approach to debate, which disrupts the process. --Masem (t) 23:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 2: Bus stop prohibited from discussing whether anyone is Jewish or not

    Given that User:Bus stop has in the past agreed to voluntarily stop labeling article subjects as Jewish, but has returned to doing so, they are topic-banned from labeling any person, dead or alive, as Jewish, either by editing the article in question, or by adding a category, regardless of whether the person involved is or isn't Jewish. Bus stop is allowed to post suggestions on article talk pages to the effect that the subject is Jewish and should be labeled as such. They may not WP:BLUDGEON any discussion which arises from their suggestion, and may be blocked if they do so. The period of time of escalating blocks may continue up to and including indefinite, at the discretion of the blocking admin.

    Beyond My Ken—there is no reason anyone should go along with your witch hunt. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus Stop, are you actually going to bludgeon the !vote? —valereee (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently so (see below). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 3: Site ban

    I've never interacted with Bus Stop before, but after reading the discussions on Talk:Albert Einstein and elsewhere, I've got a sore head. I'm prepared to scrap this proposal if somebody (who isn't Bus Stop) can briefly summarise all the great work he does to Wikipedia and why he's a net positive .... otherwise I think we might as well put this option on the table and discuss it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, they have created several articles on works of art, although none in the past two years. But, in troubling developments, they've edited to add Jewishness into two articles just in the past ten minutes. WTactualF? —valereee (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Skip what discussion, Shushugah? This is not a discussion. Have you seen anybody respond to my numerous posts? Except in wise guy style banter? Bus stop (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm slow to respond I'm cooking din-din. (Salmon.) Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do want to add that if any of the other proposals have sufficient support, they should also be imposed. That way, if Bus stop is able to convince the community that they should be un-site banned, the topic ban(s) here, plus the existing one from AP2, will still be in effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive editing by SevenSpheresCelestia

    Hello. I'm forced to report SevenSpheresCelestia for persistent disruptive editing. He keeps closing a debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone&oldid=1007344958) where consensus has not been reached. Another editor (non-admin) had recently closed the debate without checking that consensus had not been reached (about a page that was actually protected from further disruptive editing from SevenSpheresCelestia). This user (SevenSpheresCelestia) is likely to continue closing the debate, so I would appreciate if an admin could please revert his last edit and protect the talkpage. Considering that the debate has lasted several months, many editors involved, and consensus has only been reached in 3 out of the 4 mergers requested, I would appreciate if an administrator closes the debate as consensus reached in those 3 out of 4 merger requests. Thank you. Cheers. ExoEditor 18:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion is HERE, thanks. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. That's a different issue that you started. Cheers. ExoEditor 19:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot of WP:BOOMERANG applying here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We are just telling SevenSpheresCelestia that no consensus has been reached in 100% of his 4 merger requests, and that more debate should be done before closing it and merging the 4th merger (KOI-4878.01) for which consensus hasn't been reached. Debate is healthy for Wikipedia. I don't see any reason why the debate should be closed as he insists on (there are several editors in favor of merging that 4th page and several editors against merging it). This could take months but the way I see it is that if there is a page where many editors have participated and spent their time improving it (which is by itself a sign that the page doesn't necessarily have to be removed), it's nice that the other editors respect the work done (especially when multiple secondary sources cover the object at hand, and when no consensus has been reached on merging it). The best 2 options I see are: 1) continuing the debate with more editors involved and, if no consensus is reached, then make a votation, or 2) which I think it's the less time-consuming: close the debate as consensus reached for most of his requests. SevenSpheresCelestia seems to be havig a bit of a childish behaviour because he wants all his requests accepted. I am saying that we would appreciate if he could respect the work we have done. If it was obvious that the article has to be merged, then yes, but not only it's not obvious, but also all the contributions to the page made by many editors make clear to me that there is no reason to merge it. I see merging it (which is like deleting it imo) as a total lack of respect. In any case, as said in his ANI, I won't further read his comments. I honestly think it's a total waste of time and that he should be (possibly permanently) banned for current and previous disruptive behaviour. Cheers. ExoEditor 20:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) As said in the other thread, your refusal to accept the consensus (as determined by uninvolved editor User:Onetwothreeip and agreed upon by User:Headbomb) is an example of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We have different definitions for consensus I'm afraid. Check this out and you will see no consensus has been achieved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01
    Don't waste your time replying me honestly. Time is priceless. I won't read you anymore. Bye bye. ExoEditor 21:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Preservedmoose

    An attempt to have a calm, constructive discussion with Preservedmoose resulted randomly in a barrage of attacks by the latter towards me. Mind you, he is yet to show proof for ANY of these accusations, heavily violating WP:ASPERSIONS and whatnot;

    Your name is History of Iran...perhaps I should accuse you of violating these protocols, considering you go through numerous pages on Wikipedia and selectively add/control what information fits your prerogative. Yes--a journalist from Daily Sabah is supporting a nationalist Armenian perspective. None of the sources that I provided are from Armenians. One is Turkish,one is from the UK government. One is from the EU. You are not the king of Wikipedia.

    You're accusing me of pushing an agenda. Your name is HistoryOfIran, your main interest is ancient Iranian history, and you edit articles to minimize certain other cultures at the expense of a Pro-Iranian narrative (such as this one).

    Well, no, they are. You're accusing me of pushing an agenda. I'm using that as an example of you being selective and loose with your criticisms--precisely what you are accusing me of.

    You initially accused me, with no explanation, of pushing an agenda for providing reliable, non-Armenian sources that suggest an Armenian presence/influence in Commagene. You're repeatedly pushing a pro-Iranian narrative here and on other articles (for example, the Orontid dynasty) at the expense of sources mentioning Armenians and other groups and then you repeatedly accuse and threaten people who add these sources.

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    HistoryofIran has a history of removing reliable sources. User could not provide rational for why sources were removed, despite repeated requests on Talk:Kingdom_of_Commagene, and instead accused me of removing sources, pushing an agenda, providing bad sources, and threatened to get admins involved. User has a history of such behavior. I also suggested moving beyond said argument if HistoryofIran could provide reasons for removing my sources. HistoryofIran neglected to do so. HistoryofIran instead accused me of "still going off on" user, said any edits would be a continuation of an edit war, said "I don't want to help a person who is being rather hostile towards me learn the basics of Wikipedia" and continued to refuse to provide rational for behavior or removal of sources--"This discussion is over." User has done this on other pages as well, such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orontid_dynasty#Uncertain_origins_of_Orontids_needs_to_be_addressed (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case ^^. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is what I'm doing any different from what you are doing, besides the removal of verifiable sources, which I did not do but you did (although you oddly accused me of doing this--actually, this is what started the argument)? You baselessly accused me of pushing an agenda, but when I accused you, you got upset and reported me. It seems like rules and etiquette apply to others but not you.Preservedmoose (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't remove a reliable source? What's this then? [207] So let me get you right, because I said you were removing a reliable source, apparently that means I accused you of pushing an agenda? How does that make any sense? And if it did, does that give you a free pass to attack me? I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more diffs in relation to userPreservedmoose:
    1. Removed seven sources that show that a king of Armenia was Zoroastrian. No edit summary/explanation.[208]
    2. Removed "Greco-Iranian" and changed it into "Hellenized Armenian". No edit summary/explanation.[209] The source he added is written Carole Radatto, an amateur photographer, who has no academic degrees in history or whatsoever.[210]
    Looking at the evidence, it appears that user:Preservedmoose is persistently trying to "fix" what he doesn't like to see. Given that he tries to put news outlets and other non-WP:RS material on par with academic scholars in order to push a pro-Armenian irredentist narrative, and even bluntly removes material written by academics specialized in the history of the region, I truly wonder if he's actually here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephenfryfan making personal insults after being warned not to.

    There's been a bit of hot-editing over at both Death of Harry Dunn and Talk:Death of Harry Dunn by a number of editors - myself included. Common themes are insertion of detail by Stephenfryfan, and removal of it by other editors, and discussion regarding it on the talk page.

    Stephenfryfan has taken a dislike to both DeFacto and Martinevans123, resulting in him leaving this message on Martin's talk page, and calling DeFacto "defecate". He was warned here for the attack on Martin, and Level 4 here for the "defecate" comment. After I warned him, he made this comment, again referring to DeFacto as "defacate" - his typo, not mine.

    Editors informed. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional, I also requested at an informal level that StephenFryFan remove his insults here, but no change. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a charming person. I think there's a 95% likelihood that talk page access will be removed with their very first post-block edit. Earlier in their career here, they were adding gems like "Arabs are infidels and illiterate" at least 3 months ago. Let's give people like this a much shorter rope. Or better yet, no rope at all. Someone who types that as an edit summary is never going to end up a productive editor. RBI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was previously unaware of this editor, who has been here only since 26 September 2020 and hasn't made that many edits. I must admit that, after reading their first addition to my Talk page, I assumed they had recently consumed some kind of illegal substance(s). But the second post was almost helpful and I had hoped they were beginning to moderate their somewhat outlandish style. Having now seen Floquenbeam's post above, however, it seems the correct action has been taken. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC) p.s. I feel sorry for Mr Fry.[reply]

    Article ownership issue

    Every change at Talk:Black Lives Matter-themed signs, including project banners and ratings, as well as discussion of the article content has been reverted by User:Steve.fami.ly, once with an edit summary "Mentioning removal of 2/3 of content on removal is not proper usage of a talk page". Same editor has extensively edited the article, reverting most/all changes too - probably without justification although I have not examined those closely. MB 21:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely some unjustified removals by Steve.fami.ly. Certainly some WP:OWN tendencies as you say as well as mislabeling some comments as vandalism. I've added the page to my watchlist. — Czello 22:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:MB, you are required to inform User:Steve.fami.ly at their talk page - a ping is not sufficient (see the orange edit notice). I've done so and warned them about ownership. Fences&Windows 22:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fences and windows, I know that and did so - you missed it. MB 22:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the obvious ownership issues, they also attempted to re-direct Stop the Steal and briefly attempted to create a puff piece section in Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on politics for the same topic with a concerning revert Special:Diff/985773100 Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page ownership is so unbridled that they removed standard elements like quality assessment and wikiproject banners. Their editing of the article is non-neutral, describing the statements on the sign as "far left" and using links to Amazon and other sales sites as references. This is problematic behavior. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Outside interference with MfD

    There appears to be an organized campaign to get spas to !vote on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. Could someone please take a look at it? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Guy Macon, thanks – the disruption and canvassing concerns are why I had semi-protected the page, the draft and EC-protected some articles in this area on 13 February 2021; see the log entries of that day at WP:GS/COVID19. Theoretically, the canvassing should not have an impact on the closing of the deletion discussion, as policy-based arguments are supposed to outweigh a canvassed non-policy-compliant majority. I'm not sure if there is anything else left to be done administratively; it seems the best approach is to wait for the discussion to be closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1007402876"