Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1050

User TemplatePeterBaldwin

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

---

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

I noticed this user today making List of SubGenii (members of the Church of the SubGenius), which suggests that several notable people are members of the organization, without any sourcing. Those claims fail verification. Looking at their userpage, I see a wide array of warnings and other editing issues - copyright violations, inappropriate categories, inappropriately source BLP articles, removing AFD tags, etc. Their talk page edits have, well, been like this. I think that some form of block is necessary at this point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

They seem to have reacted to this thread by making high-speed edits with "Replaced content with 'Fuck you!'". So they'll get blocked. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the account indefinitely. Mz7 (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the f-u edit summaries from the children's articles [1][2] be revdel'd? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Being a children's article should have nothing to do with it, but it appears they've already be revdeleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

That was me. I viewed it as Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project, but Marchjuly is correct that I have no policy-based rationale for allowing the nature of the articles to influence my decision. Any admin should feel free to undo my revdel if they feel I've overstepped. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Good RD3 imo, purely disruptive. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've seen edits by this user pop up on my watchlist from time-to-time, and they were often quite odd new categories, but didn't think much more of it at the time. But seeing their talkpage shows a bigger issue of WP:CIR, but they've gone down the suicide by cop route instead. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks (threats)

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

---

• 86.187.172.249
• 86.187.228.144

On October 10 of this year, after I reverted vandal's edits on The Meaning of Love (album), I received a message from this anonymous users, then I found disruptive messages on my talk page. It became war following then first one. One of the messages that they did, said they will kill/hunt me. I placed some rules on my talk page before it happened. It has been reverted, and the revisions are removed from the public archives by Oshwah.

Also, they made some disruptive messages to the talk pages of Minorax and Nick Moyes, and the user, 86.187.172.249, vandalized the article Isko Moreno, claimed that I masturbated on him daily, but in real life, it did not happen because its illegal.---Rdp060707 (Talk/My fight against the devil/contributions) 12:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This user's IP range (86.187.168.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))) is full of abuse, and is already parblocked from several articles. I've blocked sitewide for six months. As you mentioned, the offensive revisions have already been deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption at WP:BLP Jacqueline Jossa

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

---

Crystal3003 (talk · contribs) appears to have a long term issue with the subject's marriage, and removes sourced content because they don't like it; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]; [15]; [16]; [17]. Account was temporarily blocked for this [18]. Sources for name change include [19]; [20]; [21]; [22]. For the record, I'm not terribly invested in the name change, but it was dutifully covered by the tabloids, and the determination to remove it looks disruptive. I'm also wondering if there's a connection to blocked account 86.4.92.177 (talk · contribs), whose edits are only accessible to administrators. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've indeffed Crystal3003 from editing that page. Was minded to add a 1 week block for edit warring but it seems that doing so will override that block. Need to sort this out at WP:AN. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Mjroots. This is further block evasion. Please add 86.4.62.141 (talk · contribs) to the block list, check the connection to blocked IP 86.4.92.177 (talk · contribs), rev/delete WP:BLP violations and protect the article. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Annoying Generation Z Page Edit War

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

---

Agrso has continuously deleted "date rage" information on the Generation Z page for the last few days with the narrative that they want the generation's starting date to be 1995. They keep deleting information that was originally put on the page months ago, and has accused Me of adding it (history of the page shows this is untrue) and "starting an edit war" when in reality this person is the one who keeps vandalizing their page with biased views. They then keep saying a reputable source is "an American think tank and is unreliable" then continuously acts like the victim in this situation.--Zillennial (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Zillennial: By policy and the notice that appears when editing here, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Have you gone to the edit warring noticeboard beforehand? (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ---- Zillennial (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)).

Zillennial, you need to supply "diffs" (that is, links to edits) to support your claim or it's unlikely to get much attention. Don't force other editors search for evidence to back up your argument because few will. Look at other cases on this page to see how things are done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevant policy link: WP:DIFF. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Sematz

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

---

Sematz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user has made a number of disruptive edits ([23] [24] [25] [26] [27]) with regard to WP:NPOV and removed content without sufficient explanation. User has been warned numerous times by me and another user about this on his talk page [28] without response or change in behavior. AntonSamuel (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Uncivil, unhelpful input from two different New Zealand administrators

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

---

I was first alerted to an issue with the page Tova_O'Brien from an external source showing vandalism on the page. The vandalism was written in a way that wasn't obvious, but definitely against WP:NPOV. As I did not have anything to replace the biased opinion with, I replaced it with something... slightly more neutral. And then proceeded to create a section on the talk page suggesting that someone more experienced in the area should rewrite the section in a WP:NPOV way or just consider deleting that entire sentence.

Following that, two different administrators have jumped into the discussion. Gadfium and Schwede66. Rather than engaging in good faith, these administrators have simply attacked me and ignored the issue I raised. I propose that these administrators have a conflict of interest on the issue and do not want to address the issue because of the COI, and are choosing to deflect from the issue by attacking me instead. These administrators wish for the biased statement to remain on the page because of their COI, and are shutting down discussion against it by attacking me. If these administrators cannot engage in an issue in good faith then they should stay out of it completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teelosdomain (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Teelosdomain, the vandalism has been fixed properly in the article, and was fixed before the article was protected. Your edit was as inappropriate as what it replaced. The two admins pointed that out to you, to which you made a hostile response. I don't think there's anything more to be done on the matter. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The two admins responded to me in an unnecessary hostile way, to which I responded to them in kind. If they can't handle hostility then they shouldn't be commenting to me in a hostile way in the first place. The article still contains a version that violates WP:NPOV and the administrators refuse to recognise, or even discuss that. All they are doing is deflecting from the problem by citing an irrelevant issue.Teelosdomain (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Teelosdomain, I don't see an NPOV issue but I'm not familiar with the topic. On Talk:Tova O'Brien, please describe the problem you see (with reliable sources, if appropriate), so editors can look at the issue. Schazjmd (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue I am raising here on ANI is not about the existence of NPOV content on the page. That is for other editors to debate and decide. The issue is that when I tried to propose that there is potential for WP:NPOV, the two administrators attacked me in a hostile way for it. All I had done was replaced vandalism with other vandalism. I raised the issue on the talk page before the article had been corrected to be slightly more neutral. As I said, don't bring up my hostile response. If the administrators can't handle a hostile attack from me, then they shouldn't have initiated with their own hostile attacks.Teelosdomain (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You vandalized the page with this edit. This is unacceptable and was brought to your attention on the talk page. Gadfium and Schwede didn't do anything particularly hostile here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The vandalism was irrelevant to the issue created on the talk page. If they had an issue with it, there are procedures for complaining to me about it, which don't involve derailing a good-faith discussion about WP:NPOV.Teelosdomain (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Further, the section I edited was already vandalised by someone else. Why does it matter that I vandalised vandalism?Teelosdomain (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have notified the two editors of this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Why? So they can throw their biased administrator weight around? I'm looking for a neutral third party to intervene here. One who doesn't have a conflict of interest towards protecting the individual the article is about.Teelosdomain (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Teelosdomain, it's a requirement, boldly stated at the top of this page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.. Schazjmd (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• As others have said, Teelosdomain's edit was blatant vandalism. Based on their tone here, they don't seem to be interested in being a productive contributor. Vandalizing and then attacking other editors for not making changes you want is not how this place works. And saying I am personally attacking you in your comments is always a bad thing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• I spent 3 minutes looking at their history here and have blocked them indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• And I've closed and hat'ted the TP discussion. Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Billie Eilish discography

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

---

user:Ellis.o22 will not stop reverting useless information on Billie Eilish discography. He says "Ocean Eyes" was not released commercially in 2016, even though MANY sources do, [29] and [30]. He also thinks songs like "Everything I Wanted" and "Bitches Broken Hearts" are singles from reissues. That is not the case. Many editors that edit music articles agree just because a single is from a reissue doesn't make it a single from that reissue album or EP! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you attempted to find consensus through talk page discussions, alerting WikiProjects, and/or WP:RFCs? If not, then this feels like a content dispute that hasn’t really been hashed out yet. Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It is interesting that @The Ultimate Boss: posted this immediately after making two reverts on the article in question. Their edit summary was ridiculous. Will continue to revert. ST47 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@ST47:, how does that matter? This user will not stop reverting to information on the discography that is not true. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't see any problem with reporting another user for edit warring while shamelessly edit warring yourself? ST47 (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@ST47:@The Ultimate Boss: the good news is your opened a talk paged discussion. The bad news is you only did it after posting here [31] [32]. Prior to that, the last edit to the talk page was over 4 months ago. ANI complaints largely about content issues tend to be a problem. ANI complaints largely about content issues where neither party has tried to discuss on the talk page tend to an instant fail in my book. Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

ST47 sorry pinged wrong person. Nil Einne (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I see the comment on the talk page is also a duplicate of what was posted here i.e. with a focus on the editor rather than the content which means even putting aside the timing, it isn't a very good attempt although I guess better than nothing since there was some mention of the content issues. Nil Einne (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)@The Ultimate Boss:Dear God, I've gone cross-eyed. So what we've got here is a failure to communicate. As has been said before, ANI does not handle WP:content disputes. Less effort should be spent on complaining at ANI and more on discussion on talk pages and relevant fora in an effort to seek consensus and mutual understanding. The above mentioned "ridiculous" edit summary is not demonstrative of a collegial attitude. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Community ban for MadMans1019

User:MadMans1019, known more commonly by a name I cannot post here because of edit filters, has been socking on Wikipedia for the past 7 years with no end in sight and constantly vandalizing, making abusive username accounts and generally being one of the largest scale LTAs on the entire website. How this person was not banned years ago is far beyond me, I propose an official Community Site Ban against MadMans1019/User:Essjaey on en.wiki. Dzhenni Shchalich (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Dzhenni Shchalich, those accounts have been inactive for years now. Has this been brought up to WP:SPI? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No need, please. This is, of course, the user concerned, attempting some self-promotion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Account's first edits are tagging accounts as sockpuppets

Dzhenni Shchalich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account last year but only just started editing; they are tagging accounts as sockpuppets (example). This is unusual behaviour for an editor who has just started editing. Linguist111^talk 00:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes because this is a very abusive long term sock master who I want to tag accounts of. Dzhenni Shchalich (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Dzhenni Shchalich, you should not be tagging socks by yourself; if the blocking administrator or checkuser decided not to tag, it's usually for a good reason. Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Offsite coordination of harassment against two audio engineer–producers

A wide variety of IPs and new users have been attacking the BLPs Kenny Beats and Alex Tumay, a record producer and an audio engineer. The harassment is likely from social media coordination. Both bios were protected for a couple of days, but that seems woefully insufficient to me. Can we permanently protect the two BLPs from new users? Below is a list of harassment IPs and new users. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• KNNY808! (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pryor4x (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Camige1210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cruise11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 99.238.114.137 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:4C8:C63:2760:397A:58D9:99E1:C141 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.78.155.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.17.172.73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2804:26EC:ABAB:29DC:61B3:88EA:8DA8:FFC2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2604:2000:1383:9C9:588B:4DD6:4FBC:2868 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2405:201:A404:D0CB:E8D1:4B6F:48BF:32E2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 68.149.122.84 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 45.72.243.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1700:A6E0:6DB0:BCCC:3EDB:7DC6:A31A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:5CB:4000:90F0:2191:132E:B788:1A5A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 108.49.145.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 201.231.60.184 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Binksternet, protection is for 3 months, so no rush. You could ask Drmies to extend it? It feels a bit like wheel-warring for someone else to. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Three months might – just maybe – make the trolls look somewhere else for their fun. I'll be back in January otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, it's remarkably lame. Let's hope they discover porn or something. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha! Eggzackly. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG - Why would that be wheel warring? :-) Wheel warring occurs when an an admin reverses or completely undoes the admin actions instated by another admin because they disagree with the action (or for a similar reason), then another (or the previous admin) re-instates the original admin action that was completely reversed because they disagree with the reversal. Example: I block User:Troll. Another admin removes the block, stating that it was "unnecessary". I'd be wheel warring if I (or another involved admin) were to go in and put that original block back saying "no it wasn't!" Extending a page protection, block, or making modification to an action after legitimate discussion or after evidence is presented later doesn't constitute a wheel war. Sure, when it doubt, always discuss things with the admin first just to be sure. Wheel warring is like edit warring; it's the repeated reversion of one's admin actions back-and-forth (in lieu of discussion) that makes it such. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, it just feels wrong to change a recently imposed protection when the protection itself has months to run - there's plenty of time for Drmies to do the needful. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG - Hey, fair enough. ;-) Like I said, I commend you for being cautious and for knocking on the admin's door before acting. Just don't be afraid to do what's right. :-) BTW, long time no chat. Hope you're doing well! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Oshwah, normal for 2020 :-) Guy (help! - typo?) 21:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Should Draft:Blazercore be nuked? It's the term that these IPs keep trying to insert. The editors of that page are:

• Kazoworld (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ImNotZake (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

and they have not edited anywhere else. And

• Nah'Sun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

also seems to be involved in that activity (Talk:Kenny Beats). DMacks (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I deleted Draft:Blazercore as an attack page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq - Good call. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Funny that the users Kazoworld and ImNotZake were created only within a few hours of one another.... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Drmies had already blocked some of the accounts listed above as NOTHERE, and I just blocked the others. I haven't done anything with the IPs. Anyone noticing activity is welcome to post here or contact me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• I now have the audio engineer on my watch list. (Full disclosure: I am among other things an audio engineer myself, but the kind who designs the audio equipment at the factory, not the kind who uses it). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Jacqueline Jossa, redux

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

---

As in my previous report, I'm asking that the page be protected; latest WP:BLP violations be rev/deleted; block evading IP be blocked again; and a user check be made to ascertain a connection between the IP range and Crystal3003 (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked only from editing this article. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

IP is blocked and edits rev-del'd RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a month. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, both. A good idea to watchlist this--a recurrence is likely based on the history. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Question on editing protected page

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

---

Can a administrator of other language edit a page, which is protected to prevent vandalism?ShazidSharif2001 (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shazid, no the admin roles for each language Wikipedia are independent, so an admin on say the Spanish Wikipedia would not have those rights on the English one and vice versa. If there's an edit you want to suggest I would go to the talk page of that article and do so there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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

AslanX89

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

---

• AslanX89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not here to create a encyclopedia Vandalism on living persons and on Wikipedia, promotes disruptive editing evidently tries to create a Social Media account.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• • Disruption now includes a threat to evade a block [33]. So yeah, WP:NOTHERE. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

All taken care of, blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Edit Wars

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

---

User:Greyjoy has been fighting with me reverting the changes I've made without consulting anyone in the Free Rider Community (Free Rider HD Wiki). I have been reverting his changes in hopes he would take a hint. I was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculus-dev (talk • contribs) 06:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty obvious WP:BOOMERANG. I've issued a 72-hour block to User:Calculus-dev for edit warring. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

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

It is fairly obvious that Calculus-dev (talk · contribs) is a sock account that took part in the same edit war over the same issue in parallel with Kanvo2 (talk · contribs). 86.164.169.96 (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

So why has the sock account only got a 72 hour block when the master is indeffed? This allows the master to evade his block tomorrow. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Materialscientist:Should Calculus-dev be indeffed? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Distruptive editing of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and its talk page

I see that there a lot edit requests that unnecessary need in Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory because i see there are more a lot of repetitive arguments being posted, and edit warring over applications of WP:NOTFORUM. And also i see there are more edit warring at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory that is a evidence that 1RR needs to be imposed. Can admins have arguments of this, because there are becoming more edit warring in that main article and its talk page, therefore, the main article doesn't even have 1RR due to controversial issues. 180.243.208.98 (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've copy-pasted part of my rationale for semi-protecting the talk page at WP:RFPP. I think the main article is fine at the moment, and it certainly has enough eyes on it that we can up the protection or page restrictions if need be. ST47 (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been active at that page and talk page over the past few days and I agree with ST47 that additional restrictions on the page itself don't seem necessary. It's already under ECP and that seems to be working a treat. I don't even know if there are any reverts since ECP was applied that would've been prevented by 1RR. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

But I believe it is not enough to suppress the distruptive behavior because this article is not under 1RR. I agree that ECP is needed but for me 1RR seems to be necessary to this article because how controversial that the content is, and I also invoking WP:ARBEE because I see the topic was related to an Eastern Europe country. 180.243.208.98 (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Why is 1RR needed when there hasn't been an issue with reverts? Or are you saying 1RR should be applied to the article talk page? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What disruptive behavior? Can you be more specific and/or present some diffs? Thanks RandomGnome (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under ECP and its talk page is semiprotected. Hunter Biden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under full protection and its talk page is semiprotected. All pages are subject to repeat requests that indicate failure to read the posted FAQs or any prior discussions, and there are filter hits and posts that indicate serious issues (e.g. one filter hit promoting the "fact" that an anonymous "parents' group" somehow validates Pizzagate and that this is now established fact, unlike the "Russia hoax"). It wouldn't hurt at all for more admins to watch those pages and potentially curate the talk pages to focus more tightly on the content questions rather than endless discussions of why mainstream reports are considered more credible than the New York Post. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, In my opinion, these protections needs to become indefinitely for main article, at least it becoming semi-protected for both because how controversial topic are this despite there not even under 1RR. But for me, invoking additional Eastern Europe and Balkans sanctions for Biden-Ukraine article is more necessary for me because a topic about Biden is a conspiracy theory with a Eastern European country like Ukraine. 180.243.208.98 (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

IP problems...

Especially concerning pre-1999 PBS-related articles. They inexplicably change PBS to PBS Kids, Children's Television Workshop to Sesame Workshop, etc. Here are some examples of articles these IPs hit:

1968 in television

1969 in television

1983 in television

1992 in American television

1995 in American television

Joan Ganz Cooney

Sheryl Leach

Christmas Eve on Sesame Street

Sesame Street Presents: Follow That Bird

And the list goes on. All of these articles need to be protected for a long period of time against these IP vandals.

Oh, and here are some of the vandals in question:

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

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

DawgDeputy (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I blocked 98.186.219.166 for three days. The other IP has not been active recently. Let me know if problems resume. Johnuniq (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully that will be enough, but DawgDeputy, if they turn up after their block expires, or they show up at yet another IP address, please file a new report reporting all known IP addresses so we can calculate a rangeblock. The current range is 98.186.216.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), but if it needs to be larger any additional IP addresses you come across will allow us to determine that. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The same abuse has come from at least three additional IPs, 2600:8800:3100:d33:f8f7:8227:f581:51e4, 2600:8800:3100:d33:f079:8bb9:6c0d:be1c, and 98.186.218.243, with only the last one possibly covered by the range block. Page protection would be appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

And, in the hour since I posted that, 2600:8800:3100:d33:41d0:c16a:6cc5:b7cd has popped up to do the same stuff. I find the refusal at RPP to protect these pages unfathomable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Could it be a good candidate for the edit filter? -- Luk ^talk 21:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I just protected the articles in the list above that have recently been edited in the same way in the last few days. Another admin has blocked 2600:8800:3100:d33::/64 until 22 November 2020 and the most recent IP in 98.186.216.0/22 was blocked by me until 25 October 2020. As I wrote here and at WP:PROT, let me know if there are further problems. There should be a brief explanation of the problem at Talk:Sesame Street Presents: Follow That Bird—something that would enable an onlooker with no knowledge of the topic to see that the IP edits are disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Incivility and battleground behavior from Wikieditor19920

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

---

I'm not asking for any serious action here, just for an uninvolved editor to give Wikieditor19920 a reminder about civility and not engaging in battleground behavior.

At this contentious article's talk page Wikieditor19920 has been seriously WP:bludgeoning the process at an RfC:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo#RFC:_%22journalist%22

And their comments throughout the talkpage are uncivil. Accusations of edit warring where none has occurred, repeatedly accusing a number of editors of WP:STONEWALLING, frequently accusing other editors of bias, declaring editors votes at RfC as "irrelevant vote"'s a brief look over the page even just recent discussion will demonstrate their lack of civility, making collaboration very tense and difficult. They've been asked to tone it down repeatedly, to no avail. I'm hoping a word about civility form an uninvolved and experienced editor might help calm the incivility of this discourse down some.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo

As you can see at their talk page, they've been having issues with other editors at this article:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikieditor19920

Thanks Bacondrum (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a needless escalation of an editorial disagreement. I've been completely civil with @Bacondrum:, who has been itching to come to ANI[34][35][36] following a few content disputes. I think that certain content disagreements at this page have become heated on all sides. The page is about a political controversial figure, and BLP and WP:FORUM remarks (frankly, including from Bacondrum) have been a concern. Bacondrum suggests, among other things taken out of context, that I accused them of bias. Their first comment at the talk page was basically a diatribe calling the subject the very definition of a hack writer.

It's unfortunate that Bacondrum has sought to escalate these disagreements with ANI threats (and now an actual ANI thread) and taking select remarks out of context. I actually agreed with some of Bacon's recent proposals to the page, and was disappointed when they went further than what was suggested and introduced factual inaccuracies and language of questionable neutrality. These can be hashed out, but Bacondrum should consider responding to valid critiques at the talk page rather than taking it to ANI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum also loves to accuse other editors (including me and anyone else they disagree with) of bludgeoning [37][38][39][40][41] and suggested another editor was whinging at an unrelated page. No one, including me or anyone else, has made similar accusations against Bacondrum in response. Maybe a reminder to Bacondrum is in order as to why these kinds of accusations are not conducive to civil content discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reading down that RfC, Wikieditor19920 is definitely using bludgeoning tactics, and they are probably the worst offender, but they are not the only one. I suspect there could be at least four editors whose contributions could be removed from that RfC without it losing any useful content. However Wikieditor19920's contributions do contain the most combative language. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't suggested that the whole of anyone's contributions at this page could be removed without "losing any useful content," and it's pretty insulting for you to say that about mine. The opposite is true. The problem at this page is that content discussions repeatedly devolve into WP:FORUM-like arguments about the subject. Bacondrum is not the only one to have contributed to that problem, though his he is the very definition of a hack writer is a great example of what I'm referring to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my point exactly was that large amounts of the arguing on the RfC could be removed with no loss of useful content. Black Kite (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Well yes, it's hard to know when you've reached a stalemate sometimes, but I agree.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Wikieditor19920 has a bit more than 7,000 edits, and a quarter of them are to three topics: two Muslim women and an Islamophobic activist. His edits abnd comments on Ilhan Omar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and talk are often problematic and fail to gain consensus, and his edits and comments on neo-fascist apologist Andy Ngo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are always supportive. This is not a good look. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't know that those measurements are accurate. But my edits at Linda Sarsour, which is presumably one of the pages JzG is referring to, brought the page to GA status. I helped write the lead at Ilhan Omar, which included the first paragraph about her electoral firsts. I was on the side of some changes that gained consensus on that page, and others that didn't.

The casualness with which JzG throws around terms like "neo-fascist apologist" about the subject of a BLP (none of the high-quality sources about the subject, including the WaPo and NYT, use this language) and suggests some sort of "problematic" pattern on my part because I edit controversial pages in AmPol is both outrageous and a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. This is precisely the kind of disruptive pot-stirring that has occurred repeatedly at Andy Ngo, with good help from JzG with comments like these. [42][43][44]. I also almost missed this: it is ridiculous to characterize my comments as "supportive" of the subject, for suggesting that we don't turn the WP page into another arm of Reddit to bash the subject and follow BLP for mainpage content.

I'll agree to being more dispassionate in my talk page contributions, but frankly there are general and persistent problems at that page with how users are treating it and I think everyone could use a "reminder." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, they are accurate. Ngo's apologia for neo-fascists is in the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Where does the article state anything about "neo-fascists?" I don't even want to get into this. It's so silly.

The subject is obviously highly controversial. Maybe for good reason. That doesn't mean we throw WP:V and WP:BLP out the window. Bacondrum's latest edits did just that by stating allegations in Wikivoice and suggesting he leveled fabricated accusations, neither of which are true (see BD's last edits here). I and another editor took issue with these changes, and suddenly we're at ANI. Bacondrum could've consulted me on my talk page rather than threatening ANI on the article talk page repeatedly and making accusations of "bludgeoning." Better yet, he could've simply responded to my contents criticisms in a non-personal way. But regardless, I will happily do my part to make it a more civil discussion if BD is willing to do the same. But the comments like the ones I raised issue with above have to stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, yes I have behaved badly in the past and I endeavor to do better. I’ve not been eager to come here, I’ve been trying to avoid it, giving you lots of opportunities to calm everything down and have a civil discussion. I’m not asking for sanctions or anything of the sort, just for you to be civil during the debate. Bacondrum (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG—wouldn't your characterization of Andy Ngo as "neo-fascist apologist" be inapt, not to mention gratuitous? Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW: I have also been trying to edit that same article and in general I think of Wikieditor as a civil POV pusher. They revert any edits that reflect poorly on the subject of the page and often make spurious accusations of violating Wikipedia's BLP policy for putting any negative content about the subject of the article no matter how well sourced. I also caught them WP:FORUMSHOPPING on a recent RfC I made to push past their dominance of the article: they tried to go to the BLP noticeboard when it became clear the RfC wasn't going their way. Loki (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: Congratulations on your incredible sleuth work on "catching me forum shopping" at BLPN, but maybe you didn't notice that I posted a notice about the BLPN thread on the Andy Ngo talk page. This is a user who suggested that a thread going a way they disagreed with is being "warped by POV pushers," and they make similar accusations here. The lead, which I helped write, dedicates three paragraphs to controversies and potentially negative information, so what you are suggesting about me "removing all negative content" "no matter how well sourced" is provably false. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've given Wikieditor19920 a fairly sharp warning on their page about bludgeoning discussions, specifically the Andy Ngo RFC. Bishonen | tålk 14:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC).

Thank you, I hope that takes some of the heat out of discussions. Bacondrum (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: should to comply with the standards they set for others (that apply to all of us). Nearly half of their comments at that talk page are criticisms of other editors, repeatedly making eye-rolling accusations of "incivility" "bludgeoning" or "refusal to collaborate." Any time I or another editor has disagreed with Bacondrum, reading their response is like running through a BINGO card of one of the above. This is unacceptable. I've been verbose at times; I've never personally criticized or "attacked" Bacondrum. This user also recently violated 1RR at the page. It would be helpful if @Bishonen:, who left a very reasonable message on my talk page which I appreciate, or another admin were to address this behavior as well. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I ran a word search on Talk:Andy Ngo and "Bacondrum (talk)" only comes up 21 times. "Wikieditor19920 (talk)" comes up 143. I don't think your representation here is factually accurate. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

But was Wikieditor19920 in dialogue with Bacondrum, IHateAccounts, in most of those 143 occurrences on that Talk page? My admittedly perfunctory perusal of the current Talk page shows that not to be the case. My admittedly perfunctory perusal of the Talk page shows Wikieditor19920 in dialogue with editors other than Bacondrum. Bus stop (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they are in dialogue many editors editors, I'm not the only one coping it. Looking at the number of edits and the lack of civility at talk, in a significant number of them are WP:UNCIVIL, personal attacks, acerbic comments, blatantly bludgeoning the debate, wikilawyering, WP:OWNing the page, slow motion editwarring...they clearly have a WP:battleground attitude to his subject. They are being very disruptive. If they refuse to listen to calm requests to stop, ignore admin warnings - perhaps a temporary topic ban would help? Even just a very short break could help. A topic ban helped me correct my own disruptive behavior in the past when I got too caught up in an article. And it would allow the many editors who want to contribute, but are being harangued by this user to move forward and continue improving the article collaboratively. Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Bishonen, I'm affraid Wikieditor needs further attention. I mean, just look at their comments here: "LokiTheLiar Congratulations on your incredible sleuth work", "Bacondrum also loves to accuse other editors", they are even battling at ANI with uncivil comments and refusing to listen even after an admin warning. If there's a problem with my behavior, I'd be happy to correct it, but Wikieditor is making collaboration at that article all but impossible. They reverted sourced content recently with the edit summary "Block quote are not appropriate for the lead", but there was no blockquote in the content they reverted and there's no guidelines that say anything of the sort anyway, he's just battling, blocking any and all constructive edits he disagrees with. Bacondrum (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The edit in question is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=next&oldid=985109142 and I think Bacondrum is right, that edit summary misleads about what has been done and why. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and When I made those edits I opened a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andy_Ngo#Another_go and wikieditor has not bothered at all to discuss, I don't care if I'm reverted, but Wikieditor reverted based on spurious reasoning (I firmly believe it was vexatious), and then went about adding a his own content and falsely accused me of edit warring when I made further contributions. As you can see here I'm working with another editor (an editor with opposing views, but we are able to be civil), on improving the lede - we are literally being forced to do the work on my talk page, because of constant disruption from Wikieditor. Bacondrum (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment I think I've said what I've had to say here, I've acknowledged my propensity to talk a bit too much on discussions, and I'll try to remedy that in the future as suggested by Bishonen. I'm not going to continue to respond to the accusations by the filer about my edits or comments (they are false, obviously), but I will note that the filer is now approaching 3RR at a page with 1RR DS sanctions. I've submitted a report at 1RR. Bacondrum is not exempt from the 1RR DS at that page, which he is well aware of at this point. I've proposed what I believe to be an appropriate remedy there.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

A vexatious edit warring report, the diffs Wikieditor has provided are not even of reverts, just random edits he doesn't like. This is nothing short of harassment. Bacondrum (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an ideological dispute with the charge of bludgeoning merely a technical reason to silence the opposition. I don't think an article should do a hatchet job on its subject. Andy Ngo is obviously a journalist yet the article had to have an RfC to determine whether Ngo could be called a journalist in the lede. JzG argued that Ngo should not be called a journalist in the lede and JzG refers above to Ngo as a "neo-fascist apologist". Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Hounding by Horse Eye's Back, again

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

---

When I first joined Wikipedia a few months back, I had previously made an ANI report involving their older account "Horse Eye Jack" here by their perceived hounding and battleground behavior on articles which I'm involved in. The admins decided it did not qualify as hounding at the time, and I thought to myself fine, perhaps this will be a one-off incident. Ever since, I'm trying to play ball with this user here by not engaging with conflicts they are involved in and discuss any issues on article talk pages and even on their talk page themselves.

However, this user will not stop following my edits (even on their new account), as we can obviously see in these articles which has minimal connection at best with each other. Furthermore, they did not make any contributions on this article until I came along as you can see from the timestamps on the Editor Interaction Analyzer, which I even mentioned here on the talk page of one these articles where they also made aspersions on my edits.

• 1. Taiwan Miracle – Analyzer
• 2. Crony-capitalism index – Analyzer
• 3. Economy of East Asia – Analyzer
• 4. Japan–Russia relations – Analzyer
• 5. Federalist Party – Analyzer
• 6. Maplewashing – Analyzer
• 7. South Korea – For context, they had reverted another user, but happened after my involvement while other users including me were reverting a vandal constantly making edits on this article – Analyzer
• 8. Singapore – More aspersions – Analyzer
• 9. Hong Kong tea culture – Analyzer
• 10. Taiwanese Wave – Analyzer

I don't consider myself a perfect user, and I've made mistakes myself. But this has seriously got to stop. I'm willing to interact with other users but I have to question the motive behind all these. Wherever I go, it's almost guaranteed they will come along. We *may* have similar interests in where we edit at some areas but the amount of times this has already happened is more than just a coincidence. And as I've said, it's always after my initial involvement on an article. This isn't the first time it has happened, and it probably wouldn't be the last. A two-way IBAN between myself and this user could solve a lot of future problems. Telsho (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In your linked diff from Singapore, there are two consecutive reverts from two different people exhorting the other to use the talk page instead of reverting, yet on Talk:Singapore, neither of their names appear even once. Meanwhile, on Talk:Crony-capitalism index, there appears to be a vociferous content dispute between Telsho and Horse Eye's Back. On Talk:Economy of East Asia, there appears to be a vociferous content dispute between Telsho and Horse Eye's Back. On Talk:South Korea, there appears to be a vociferous content dispute between Telsho, Horse Eye's Back, and several others........... while it's obvious that you two don't seem to get along (and I don't know enough about the details of the issue to say which of you is reverting to The Wrong Version / who Started It), since Wikipedia is filled with lots of knowledgeable editors on virtually every subject, might some attempt at a WP:RfC (or even a WP:3O) be more condign than an AN/I thread or an IBAN? jp×g 04:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside problems with the interactions themselves, I had a quick look with the Editor Interaction Analyser [45]. From what I saw, yeah sometimes Horse Eye's Back appeared on an obscure page that seems unrelated to their general interest like the maplewashing one that I assume they must have gotten there from checking Telsho's contributions. But other times it seems there's a reasonable chance that it was just an area of interest they had watch listed or it was a page edited by Horse Eye first under one of their accounts. I didn't see sufficient evidence of persistent hounding, indeed sometimes e.g. [46] I assume Telsho must have been checking out Horse Eye's contribs. Nil Einne (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I did checked thoroughly to see if HEB or their old account had previously made edits on these 8 articles that I have listed, and it doesn't seem to be the case (I've added the Editor Interaction Analyzer for the articles above). I don't know how many uninvolved articles it has to be to count as hounding, but 8 is definitely not a small number, and it's growing. There were actually many more articles where we were both involved in which I've left out due to that. To address your second part of your sentence, my minor edit on Turning Point USA was merely to add a better source tag as the source used were questionable at best. However, one major factor is that I did not remove their content, while HEB/HEJ tends to blank/clear all my edits at once on contributions that I make while constantly accusing me of "vandalism" with no regard for assuming good faith, and then avoiding the question when I asked them on the talk page as to why they are suddenly involved a day after my initial edits. Either this is an extreme coincidence or they are tracking my contributions based on prior interactions. HEB also likes using the term "clean diff" or "no consensus" when there wasn't any justified reasons for the revert. What happened to being bold, if you're just going to revert and then cast aspersions during discussions? There were so many unnecessary edit wars which they have initiated with me for no particular reason. For the sake of my account, I have attempted to avoid on articles that they edit, but after they reverted me yet again yesterday on another uninvolved article, I had to bring this up because I don't see this harassing behavior stopping anytime soon. Telsho (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You've misunderstood my point. You can't complain about Horse Eye occasionally checking out your contribs as if it's some major evil when clearly you're doing the same. The point of our hounding restrictions is it doesn't matter a great deal whether the other editor was always right in their actions, continually following someone around is a problem. But if it's only been 8 times, well I don't think that crosses the line. If Horse Eye edited the article first, then the reason they're editing it is likely because it is on their watchlist rather than because they're following you. The fact you often edit the same articles just reflects the fact you have similar interests. And frankly I'm not certain all 8 even come from your contribs. E.g. the South Korea one the edit seems to come well after your involvement and is also right in Horse Eye's normal area of interest i.e. East Asia. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That said, it probably would be best if you both lay off from checking each other's contributions. And you both should also try to depersonalise your disputes. So on article talk pages, no mentions of hounding, no comments on how the other editor is always doing X (e.g. reverting, etc. Since unfortunately most of the time it seems clear you don't convince each other via discussion, if you've tried and it isn't going anywhere and it's only you two, be quick to involved someone else e.g. WP:3O rather than endless back and forths let alone revert wars. Nil Einne (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the timestamps, the better source tag that was added on Turning Point USA was done at the same time and day after where HEB initially got involved and reverted my contributions on Crony-capitalism index while accusing me of vandalism. It was not premeditated by me, in fact I did not even revert them, it was just a tag. In regards to your suggestion, it's just that I don't know if HEB would honor that. Based on the analyzer, it's obvious as to who's doing the reverts more often in a deliberate manner and initiating edit conflicts. I also highly doubt they had these articles on a watch list, as they had never made any contributions on these articles that I've brought up on the list prior to my involvement, even on their old account. Perhaps an enforced IBAN sounds like "as a last resort" thing, but if HEB would agree on an unofficial IBAN and not get involved in each other's contributions on different articles I would definitely be cool with that. Telsho (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed boomerang

• I propose a strong WP:BOOMERANG, this is after all the user which used a wikibreak of mine as an excuse to tag Moira K. Lyons, Dogmid Sosorbaram and Angelo Tomasso Jr. for speedy deletion, these are articles I had created but not edited in a long time and are not even remotely within Telsho’s normal editing fields nor could the speedy delete tag actually be justified. He also tried to get Apu Jan[47] speedily deleted but thats well within their normal pattern of disrupting Taiwan related pages. More on this can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1048#User:Telsho & LTA socking. They also deleted by unilateral redirect Taiwan Miracle, Taiwanese Wave[48], Hong Kong tea culture, The Three Ts[49], and Taiwanese whisky (there may be more but those are the ones I can remember now). They also vandalized or tag bombed Milk Tea Alliance, Taiwan Miracle[50], Taiwanese tea culture, Maritime industries of Taiwan[51], Little Pink[52], Taiwanese art[53], Taipei Aerospace & Defense Technology Exhibition[54] and at least a dozen more in some misguided attempt at hurting me. If you check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive417#User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:Telsho (Result: No violation) you will find that Telsho has been specifically warned about edit warring on the Singapore page, it was a revert of them there yesterday which caused them to post this here. To be accused of wikihounding by someone who has wikihounded me is absolutely ridiculous, Telsho has been skating on the edge of a ban for three months now and its time to pay the piper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Didn't I mention about similar topic areas? Where you reverted wasn't that. Go ahead, get all defensive. That's one way to solve this issue, doesn't it? Also, a WP:BOOMERANG to ban me for what, exactly? Telsho (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, using the analyzer on articles such as Hong Kong tea culture and Taiwanese Wave, we could see these are more examples which I actually forgot where they also hounded me as well, shortly after they made a second account. Thanks for reminding me and bringing those up. Telsho (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hounding, disruptive editing, vandalism, not here, take your pick... You went down the list of articles I had created and systematically redirected, tagged, or vandalized them... You’ve never justified that group of edits any of the times you were challenged by myself, other editors, or admins about it. Please do so now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Speak for yourself? Telsho (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you will find I also hadn’t edited Taiwan Miracle before you tried to redirect it to Economy of East Asia. Please review what hounding is not, I had legitimate and ironclad policy based reasons to revert your unilateral redirects of major (in the case of Taiwan Wave and Taiwan Miracle) pages. What policy based reasons did you have for requesting the speedy deletion of a Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"I had legitimate and ironclad policy based reasons" Yeah okay, thanks a lot for righting great wrongs on this website with that wikilawyering tone of yours HEB. Yes, I've reviewed what hounding is. Could you please enlighten me as to what hounding actually is by re-reading the first paragraph of WP:HOUND, and what you're doing isn't actually that? Because I have up to 10 different examples (and counting) showing otherwise. Telsho (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

One step at a time. What policy based reasons did you have for requesting the speedy deletion of a Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives (Moira K. Lyons)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You're telling me to take "One step at a time" while avoiding the question as to what exactly is going on here? Again, could you explain how your behavior differs from what is mentioned on WP:HOUND? Also HEB previously HEJ, you make a new account. At the time, there was no guarantee you were ever going to return. The moment you did however as HEB, you pretty much raided my contributions with great vengeance and reverted them, while continuing to do so on many different articles to this day. So, what is it? Telsho (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you were aware I wasn’t active and that "there was no guarantee you were ever going to return” makes your actions more egregious not less. What exactly is going on here Telsho? What policy based reasons did you have for requesting the speedy deletion of a Speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives (Moira K. Lyons)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I became aware of your existence again because you were suddenly making reverts on articles which I had previously contributed, and therefore was on my watchlist, not because I was aware that you "weren't active" at the time. And I'm going to assume you won't answer the question as to whether you being involved with me on 10 separate articles qualifies as hounding. I think I was also being particularly clear when I used WP:A7 for the speaker. I'm honestly wasting my time going around in circles with you. Telsho (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not consider those interactions to qualify as hounding. Thank you for answering my question but simply stating which criteria you used doesn't really cut the mustard, “Speaker” is in and of itself all the indication of importance that is required so A7 was never valid. You also haven't explained how you found yourself on that page, why were you tagging multiple obscure Connecticut political pages for speedy deletion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Theres also the question of why you chose to edit war with Phil Bridger over the speedy delete tag you put on Dogmid Sosorbaram. Why nominate a page you’ve never visited before in a topic you’ve never edited in before for speedy deletion and then edit war with an admin when they remove the tag? What possible justification can you have for that (and simply stating which criteria you used isnt going to cut it)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you going off-topic on purpose to try and detract attention on the main subject as to why I started this ANI? I'm not about to let you do that. Nice subtle WP:CANVASS with that ping though. Also heads up, Phil Bridger isn't even an admin, and 1 revert is not an "edit war". If that was the case, approximately up to 80% of your contributions since you "returned" has been edit wars. Please come up with another excuse. Telsho (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I said "I do not consider those interactions to qualify as hounding.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

No. I am not an admin, but you that doesn't change the fact that you edit-warred over the speedy deletion tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Phil, I would suggest concentrating on your own AN report if I were you. Last I checked, Dogmid Sosorbaram was not placed under a standing 1RR restriction by ArbCom. Telsho (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Luckily (from both sides) I am not you. I am perfectly capable of multi-tasking. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Good for you. Telsho (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Getting back on topic. To conclude, HEB thinks their behavior isn't hounding, despite joining discussions and reverting on multiple pages or topics where I'm initially involved in on many separate occasions which I've mentioned above. I wonder what the definition counts for them then... Telsho (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

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

PA in edit summery

103.154.54.190 (talk · contribs) has posted this [[55]] rather charming little rant. Also very much an SPA as they have only made two edits, the same one [[56]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for the PA. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Note I informed the wrong IP there are a few in the 103.154.54 range that have made (more or less, and only) the same edit.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I've partial blocked 103.154.54.0/24 from that article only for an extended time. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

User 49.180.129.245

This user is being disruptive in a number of areas and has already been left warnings in their talk page:

• Leaving abusive messages on talk pages
• Poor quality editing in terms of grammar, spelling and SPEAKING IN CAPS IN TALK.
• Edit warring on the Bolivia page
• Use of primary sources to make statements about controversial issues from a source that is listed as biased in the Reliable sources page.
• Quoting organisations in an inaccurate way via the same biased source, namely misquoting conclusions made by Ethical Hacking
• Making statements about sources that are not backed up by the source material
• In general a lack of detailed knowledge in the subject area which is undoing material that was written in a more neutral way

Any help much appreciated. I have not raised any issues here before, so don't know how it goes. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I can see why you are concerned with their editing but they have received several messages from admins so they are aware of this account. Also, Crmoorhead, any time you discuss another editor on a noticeboard, you must notify them. I will do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice on protocol. I will know in future. :) Crmoorhead (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil editor Mark Lincoln

Mark Lincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been grossly abusing another editor despite warnings, etc. This is to request an indef block.

Here is a (possibly incomplete) history:

• First round, 10 Oct: Abuse 19:02, Warning 19:58
• Second round, 11 Oct: Abuse 18:36(It was not even the abused editor who had reverted him, it was me), Abuse 18:46, Abuse 19:10, Warning 19:34, Warning 19:37, Warning 20:10
• Warnings ignored: Further abuse 21:40, Oct 11

What really gets me is that by now the abused editor had made it plain that he had serious off-wiki troubles, but Mark Lincoln didn't give a damn, he just kept piling in there. Mark then went off in a huff, and the abused user asked me to bring it here if he returned. He just has:[57][58].[last diff corrected 11:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)]

Please can you indef block the guy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, @Steelpillow:, I'm not seeing anything actionable in your diffs. That's not to say the condescension and passive aggressive nature of the posts wouldn't be frustrating. I just don't see blockable attacks here. Tiderolls 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: When I let the abused editor know I had posted here, two other highly experienced editors sent me public thanks. Over and over the guy does not listen, does not pull back; what action would you suggest to enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, or are you suggesting we sit back and let those policies burn? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant no criticism of your posting here and, to be honest, I see your point. It's just my opinion that the diffs you posted don't rise to the level of abuse. I checked my response to be sure, and no, there was no suggestion to let policies burn. Tiderolls 20:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Um. Whether or not I might have chosen the wrong word is beside the point. Have you no suggestion as to what should be done to make our policies stick? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The vituperation of some is astounding. I have made it very clear I am not going to be editing Wikipedia any longer. It is perfectly ok with me if Wikipedia prefers to honor the unsupported opinions of some of the persons who have pull while ignoring carefully researched fact. I was taught long ago that History was a serious subject and there were Historiographic standards. If Wikipedia is happy making the opinions of those who desire to make their wishes more important than proven reality that is Wikipedia's business. I have no intention of disputing the desires of Wikipedia to propagate said opinion as fact. That some of the persons who have the ear of Wikipedia are still pursuing their actions in this matter is most droll. It is also incredibly vindictive and perhaps infantile. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I was deluded enough to believe them while it has become abundantly clear they are not honored by Wikipedia if they are inconvenient to the opinion of those persons that matter. Their retribution is still being pursued despite my having made it clear that I have no intention of continuing to edit Wikipedia. In fact I recently refused Soumya-8974’s invitation to edit Wikiproject Rocketry despite a life long interest in the subject and my possession of a large library on the subject. For those wishing to beat a dead horse for their personal gratification, I say go ahead. I could care less. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• This seems petty. An editor had apparently spent a significant amount of time researching a topic and was presenting a concrete correction backed by reliable sources. They appear to have been met with vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources, and were repeatedly spammed with NPA warnings when they expressed their reasonable frustration. This was a poor showing and I feel for the editor, who was actually driven to the point of giving up on contributing to the project as they had lost faith in it. This was an unfortunate episode, and while it wasn't handled ideally by the editor in question, it wasn't handled ideally by those opposing them either. The editor was repeatedly accused of beating a dead horse, even though they had done research and provided sources, and yet here we are, reporting them and asking for an indefinite block over comments that aren't even actionable to begin with, after they had already expressed their intent to leave Wikipedia? That's not even beating a dead horse, that's just grave dancing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Sorry, but you are totally misled by him. The objections raised against him have been many, detailed, well-cited and their relevance explained at great length - several times over by four extremely experienced editors, one of whom is an admin. Do his accusations of "them" conspiring against him not sound an all-too-familiar alarm bell for you? Evidently not, for you choose instead to believe him at face value. So now, please go read this initial discussion and this much longer one, then come back here and explain how they show your "vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources". You should also revert this edit of mine to restore some of Mark's apparently civil (by your lights) words of wisdom on a talk page, and perhaps to censure those editors who sent me public thanks for redacting them. Also, please explain to us how continued participation in discussions, including this very one, constitutes not returning to Wikipedia. Just a voice from beyond the grave, huh? He says he has stopped editing articles, he does not say he has stopped or will stop passing insults. He is an extreme pedant, the distinction is significant; he is still here, arguing on. What would this discussion matter to him if he were really never coming back? His apparent intent to leave well alone has proved as empty as his grave and his accusations of conspiracy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been following this issue from the beginning at WikiProject Aircraft, so it is not a surprise that it has ended up here. User:Mark Lincoln has been persistently uncivil towards several editors, including one very tolerant admin in particular, as noted above. His consistent insistence that there is a widespread Wikipedia conspiracy to keep "the truth" about the 1930s British airship designation system's use of dots, certainly raised my concerns about his ability to contribute to Wikipedia in any meaningful way. His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings. His posts seem to quickly devolve into personal attacks, conspiracy theories and especially that he is a victim of some global plot against WP:THETRUTH. As noted above he has many times stated that he will quit editing and not participate any longer, but he has not carried that out. After attempting to participate in some of these discussions myself, in an attempt to contribute to a consensus, I was forced to give up as this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION. If he would carry through on his oft-repeated threat to stop editing, then I don't think any further action would be warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged as an involved editor, my attempt to suggest a resolution was not acknowledged, in fact it was met with another TLDR rant with no paragraph breaks. At that point I moved on to more constructive editing.

The personal attacks are there, just hidden in the mass of words. More importantly (IMO) is the editor's lack of understanding of how Wikipedia community editing works. If they have stopped editing and left the project then the problem is solved. I find it troubling that this report of uncivil behaviour does not seem to be taken seriously in this venue. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary to date

My it's gone quiet. TL;DR perhaps. In summary, then: Three highly experienced core members of a significant WikiProject (WikiProject Aircraft) have come here to complain about a new editor. "His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings.", "this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION.", "The personal attacks are there, just hidden in the mass of words." -- none of them my words.

Two admins have responded. Tide rolls has criticised my wording here but not followed up their shallow-skimming opinion on the issue itself. Swarm also failed to do their homework and chose to believe the disruptive editor, for reasons which they remain silent on despite clear in-your-face evidence to the contrary. "I find it troubling that this report of uncivil behaviour does not seem to be taken seriously in this venue" - not my words again, but I share the sentiment wholeheartedly. When I say to you both that Your personal obsessions are devoid of factual nature, you should stop your obstreperous obfuscation, the guy should be let off to avoid offending the profound dignity of the almighty Wiki Gods Tide Rolls and Swarm, whatever their actual names, it seems that fiction is acceptable and fact is not to said Wiki Gods, and [assuming you now censure me for all that] Tide Rolls and Swarm you appear by your intrusion and threats here to be pursuing a vendetta against myself, you will of course be quite happy about that and not regard it as any way insulting, injurious, or contrary to WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA -- because you are not sloppy hypocrites, are you, you genuinely followed the diffs I originally posted, saw every word of it in there, and stand by the utter crap words of profound wisdom you wrote straight afterwards. Right?

Hey, can a real admin do something about this, please? Ban me for whatever takes your fancy if it helps you sleep at night, but do something about the guy who came up with all those insults in the first place, that's all I an asking. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• You're doing a good impression of the editor about which you complained. Tiderolls 16:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Following a comment I made at the aircraft project I was attacked by Mark Lincoln for not agreeing with him, these have been linked above and I was accused of lying, making things up and being obstreperous whatever that is. I was then called a wiki god for bringing up the word consensus which went against his years of being an expert on the subject. He seems to have a dislike for people not using real names and has made a few digs like "Enjoy writing fiction if you wish to appease MilborneOne what ever his actual name." I was also attacked on the R101 page although I had not edited it since August. I returned from a break from a bereavement as an escape only to harshly attacked for not agreeing with Mark Lincoln. He is clearly not a team player, doesnt understood the consensual way wikipedia works and attacks everybody that disagrees with him. I would suggest he is blocked until he shows signs of being able to contribute in a team environment and show respect to others. MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I should point out that User:MilborneOne is the very tolerant admin whom I mentioned above. - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• What was that thing that was repeatedly said about the reported user? Something about beating a dead horse? You've successfully driven the editor off the project, which is unfortunate, and yet you continue to provoke and antagonize them endlessly, then you use their responses to further justify why they should be blocked. It's really not a good look. I'm not saying there was nothing wrong with Lincoln's comments, just that if he's quitting the project, move on with your lives and let him leave. There's no preventative angle at that point, thus the complaint is inactionable. Continuing to beat this dead horse, which Lincoln was ironically accused of doing multiple times, and then reporting his provoked responses as more evidence of wrongdoing is patently ridiculous. Go find an article to improve and leave the dude alone. He's clearly not some troll who's only here to antagonize you, he's just an editor who got frustrated with a content dispute and is now so fed up that all he wants to do is quit the project. Continuing to antagonize him is bordering on harassment. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Who is the "you" in your rant? The aggrieved admin MilborneOne, me Steelpillow whom he asked to report the incident here, the others who have contributed here Ahunt, Nimbus227, one or two others who contributed at the time but have stayed away from this discussion, or some combination of all those highly experienced editors? And where is your evidence that I/we/"you"-unspecified "drove him off" ... "the project?" Unlike me, you have neither referred to nor posted a single diff or link. No, you are factually wrong yet again; when half a dozen editors politely explained that his edits were unacceptable, and why, he became abusive before responding to warnings by flouncing off in a huff. Here's] one of the diffs again, posted on an uninvolved editor's talk page claiming he has left Wikipedia entirely - just one example of his coming back over and over to repeat the claim that he is not coming back. He very explicitly states that this is because Wikipedia does not respect WP:THETRUTH as he sees it - in other words he is verifiably WP:NOTHERE, a fact pointed out by one of the many involved editors whom you choose to ignore.

  Now for the sting. Was he really insulting? That is key to our argument, so I set up a little experiment. I am confident the other involved editors will confirm that insults are not my style; go back and you can see clearly that I deliberately prodded you and Tide rolls with Mark Lincoln's insults and wild accusations that you claim are not insults, to see how you would react. You did so beautifully. You both felt sufficiently insulted to be suckered into trading like for like. Tide rolls, bless them, even pointed out how well I had spun the impression. Thus your claims, that they are not insulting, are exposed by your own actions for the hypocrisy they are. Your comments here are now very visibly not evidence-based arguments intended to uphold WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but mere trading of opinion-based insults and wild accusations, and a desire to shoot the messenger (that's me, remember?). I just wanted to draw that point out for everybody to see. And now, if you don't mind, I will return to my usual polite self.

  — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This is getting a bit bizarre. I'm not making any abstract arguments, I simply read the discussions that were linked to here and gave an honest assessment, which you seem to be unable or unwilling to listen to. I explicitly stated that I was not defending Lincoln's comments, only that he struck me as an editor who was frustrated by a legitimate content dispute and was quitting the project, thus there is no preventative justification for blocking him, and indeed even reporting him here and continuing to be excessively argumentative is counterproductive. Like, this isn't high philosophy, I'm just saying to leave the guy alone and let him leave like he said he is going to. It's not rocket science here. Now you're engaging in pedantry, weirdly talking about how you're "trolling", and accusing me of "ranting". You filed a frivolous, inactionable report, asking for a draconian admin action which is not justifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Two admins reviewed your report in good faith and found it to be inactionable, and your response was to become hostile, from the very beginning. It's been several days, Lincoln is apparently already long gone, and yet you insist on continuing to litigate and draw out this Kafkaesque complaint. The editor has left, yet you're still here arguing over pedantry. See WP:WINNING, WP:DEADHORSE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT, WP:PREVENTATIVE, WP:GRAVEDANCE, WP:REHASH, WP:BLUDGEON, etc. Clearly nothing's going to come of this, and it was a waste of time. That's okay, but please find something constructive to do rather than "trolling AN/I". This is definitely one of the stranger episodes I've seen here in a while. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I would accept you verdict were it not for the facts that:

• Four editors, all highly experienced, have argued the case against Mark Lincoln.
• One admin is in favour of sanctions, two are against.

There is patently no clear consensus yet. Hence I have appealed for more admin voices here.

Your argument is flawed in other ways. Of course Lincoln is gone - for now. He lurked on long enough to contribute to this discussion, before realising that acting the absent editor while it concludes is his best strategy. (Is he still lurking now? If he reappears once this is over, would you change your verdict? I have a feeling we will find out in due course.) You also fail to address several points which other involved editors, including a fellow admin, have all raised.

My actions were designed to draw out the hypocrisy, and hence falsehood, of "I don't find such words insulting" arguments, which your latest reply reinforces nicely, thank you. But yes, I do owe you both an apology for winding you up, I hope that you can appreciate it was in what the majority of contributors here regard as a good cause. I can assure you that no personal hostility is involved and I will not be doing so again.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The above confirmation that you were playing some sort of rhetorical game like that just makes me feel Swarm was right, and the problem lies with you, not the other editor. This is not helpful behavior. Your "gambit" was to mislead, which means any trust in your version of events is completely eroded. I strongly suggest you let this thread be and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Thank you for coming here, at least somebody has responded to my request. But you are wrong about my behaviour, I was very careful not to mislead, I stated explicitly to Swarm & co. that "you genuinely followed the diffs I originally posted, saw every word of it in there"; they knew perfectly well I was throwing Lincoln's insults back at them to provoke their reactions. I will be very happy to back out once the corroborative comments of other involved editors are being taken seriously and not just being ignored or scoffed at. Perhaps you could do them the honour, now that you are here?

@MilborneOne: Sorry to call on you again, but do you feel that I have failed to represent your case in a useful way? Am I now untrustworthy here? Happy to bow out if my presence here is now doing more harm than good.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say your presence here is now doing more harm than good, honestly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

As the OP I just contacted the involved WikiProject members. Our consensus on what to do about the incident has changed; enough of us now feel this is going nowhere and is no longer worth pursuing. I am happy to oblige. My thanks to those who participated, even if we did not all see eye to eye. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Your report was declined from the very beginning, it wasn't actionable and it hasn't ever been going anywhere from the start. We've been doing nothing but repeatedly trying to explain this to you the whole time. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

User:HersiliaAramazd

Involved parties

• WMrapids (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• HersiliaAramazd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [59]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• I told user that things were "settled between us" in an attempt to disengage
• Politely asked user to not add back removed notice from my own talk page
• Again, I politely told user to "Please stop" edit warring on my own talk page and warned user that I may bring this to a noticeboard

Statement by WMrapids

This is a new user who has shown unwavering support for Azerbaijani military actions in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and does not appear to be here for encyclopedic reasons. They have made inflammatory comments in their edit summaries in support of Azerbaijan, such as here.

In the first edit I noticed with the user possible canvassing, they pinged other Azerbaijani users on a talk page, saying that my edit in an infobox "seems to be aimed at disrupting the article, and assisting the Armenian POV by hiding the front-line changes" of the Azerbaijan military. I told the user to use good faith with my edits and per the Templates section in WP:CANVASS, I notified the user on their talk page. They quickly removed my notice. Other notices about the possible canvassing were placed in related talk pages, such as here. They then bombarded my talk page with more accusations of WP:BATTLE (to be fair, I did not know it was a level 3 warning as I used the recommended notification from the Template section, but how does a newer user know this much?). After making attempts to disengage with the user, they began edit warring on my own talk page. I strongly believe that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia and recommend that appropriate actions be taken to prevent this type of behavior from jeopardizing the integrity of Wikipedia.--WMrapids (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement by HersiliaAramazd

I intentionally did not back down on reverting the user at his talk page because I wanted him to file this report so that it comes to the administrators attention. It all began when the user made an edit moving the map of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict from the top to the bottom of the infobox. (Without even discussing with anybody what-so-ever), he opened a talk page discussion saying he has made the change, and anyone opposing it could comment. (Which is against the rules, as discussions are made first not vice versa). I told in my comment at that discussion that I opposed it and that I've had found it POV. I pinged 2 user which had recently participated in the dispute to participate in the discussion and see that the user has had opened that discussion. Following this the user has accused me of not assuming good faith. Accused me of canvassing, and left me a level 3 warning at my talk page. And reverted my recent edit without an edit summary of the said map in commons[60] in which I've had added the recent Azerbaijani advances (which can be considered a borderline vandalism). Later, I've removed his level 3 warning which does not substantiate the level 3 added by him, and warned him about the just said violations. From which in less than a minute he deleted from his talk page. I've reverted him to give him a chance to at least read it, following which he threatened to open this dispute if I did, which I immediately did to bring it to administrator attention.

Even now the user is baselessly accusing me in his notice "showing unwavering support for Azerbaijani military actions" HersiliaAramazd (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Point of order, "Which is against the rules, as discussions are made first not vice versa" is incorrect. Bold, revert, discuss and our major policy of be bold apply to changes like this. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah the user acted boldy, was immediately reverted by another user. Which he reverted again. Do you think that is how BRD is supposed to work or is it borderline edit warring? HersiliaAramazd (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a different discussion entirely (templating users), but to the point, the template used by WMrapids was Template:uw-canvass. This is the single warning template for canvassing. So, other than the unfortunate templating aspect of this section, that argument is moot IMO. I have no further comment on the situation at this time. --intelati^talk 19:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: "I intentionally did not back down on reverting the user at his talk page because I wanted him to file this report". HersiliaAramazd, Standing firm is not a problem, but acting with the intention of escalating the conflict instead of working to resolve the problem constructively is a problem.   // Timothy :: talk  19:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue Care to check this.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Abbas Kwarbai

I encountered Abbas Kwarbai through my work at AfC. They created some 30+ drafts - almost all biographies - often in fairly short succession. These had common problems such as copyvios, promotional issues, irrelevant sources and repeated formatting mistakes. Like other reviewers I thought this pattern indicated WP:UPE.

They left me a series of warnings ([61], [62], [63],[64]) asking me to stay out of 'their' articles. I have tried to explain how they don't own those articles and that anyone may edit them, but they persist, including this statement on their user page which LakesideMiners removed but Kwarbai has replaced, accompanied by this warning.

Our interaction had been positive up until they were named in this sockpuppetry investigation (where I took the view that they weren't a sock), and then later I asked them to explain how they choose who to write about.

Over at Commons, their pattern of copyvio uploads is a cause for concern. They don't take kindly to having their copyright violations being tagged.

They continue to exhibit ownership.

Overall, I don't think this editor is here to build an encyclopedia, my concerns over UPE remain, and competence is required. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have looked over Abbas Kwarbai's ("Kwarbai's") contributions. I believe Kwarbai is not, subjectively at least, "not here to build an encyclopedia"; it appears that there is some effort being made to write encyclopedia articles that might be of use, versus truly WP:NOTHERE efforts (i.e. mere trolling, x-warring, and/or political edgeplay). I don't have a comment on the WP:UPE issues but that is, of course, not acceptable under the Terms of Use.

But Kwarbai does not appear at all to understand the notions of WP:OWN and WP:NPA, and should acknowledge an understanding of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations of editors if Kwarbai is to continue without a block (which would reasonably be indefinite given the exceedingly non-cooperative tone of Kwarbai's commentary). Kwarbai's comments to Curb Safe Charmer, and as a matter of record via edit summaries apparently directed to the community at large, are not remotely appropriate, in my view. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have, since my first encounter with the subject of this thread, kept an eye on them. Their edit pattern is very much problematic & have all the tale signs of UPE & sockpuppetry. Their antagonistic approach to constructive criticism is counterproductive & indicative of the fact that they may not be compatible with this collaborative project, add to this; their incompetence(at the moment), unwillingness to learn, repeated blatant image copyright violations & subtle threats at editors that dare to correct them, makes a block to prevent further disruption imperative at this juncture. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• The user has made a counter-claim of bias on my part at User_talk:Lenticel#Bello Lafia. He claims I have 'attacked' 'his' articles by tagging statements as {{citation needed}} or {{failed verification}}. The example he gives is Bello Lafiaji where I'd proposed it should be merged to the organisation Lafiaji worked for. Julietdeltalima has reviewed my edits to that article and concludes in the edit summary of her revert of Kwarbai's revert that my merge proposal was 'perfectly legitimate'. Kwarbai complains there had been no discussion of the proposed move, but if they'd clicked on the 'discuss' link they would have found it on the talk page of the target article.

I think this speaks again to ongoing WP:OWN and WP:CIR. Rather than properly read, understand and act on issues in their articles that have been tagged, their reaction is to undo them and claim bias. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

problematic user

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Problematic user

 – Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Greetings.

A user with so called name Qiushufang keeps deleting two sections about Arabia and Byzantium to the article that is named http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gunpowder that have referenced sources that are very difficult to be found in other languages and then writes to the view history and talk pages lots of "excuses", he seems to have weird ambitions too for this article, as if he "edits" to make a "point" or something.

Trying to find justice to this situation.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.114.116.209 (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP user, I have moved this topic from WP:AN, as it is not the correct location. I don't think writing unreadable prose and WP:CITEKILL are particularly good additions to any article. From what I saw on the talk page and history, the additions seem to have been suitably reverted. Please fix WP:content disputes on the talk page of the article, rather than posting to AN. Please do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I reverted their edits due to lack of inline citations, an overabundance of bad citations, overwhelmingly non-Enslish sources, dubious content, and are likely made by a banned account avoiding said ban. Both IPs 45.114.116.209, 185.213.24.162 have no editing history on History of gunpowder before re-adding content by the now banned IPs 185.25.22.24 and 119.235.251.172 whom I reverted for the above reasons. See [65], [66], [67], [[68], [69]. Qiushufang (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Lee

"I don't think writing unreadable prose and WP:CITEKILL are particularly good additions to any article." we don't think too but that doesn't appear to be so much "unreadable" prose as you say, so don't blame us for that

as for the sources that specific user had asked for lots of sources for proof so there they are

"...the additions seem to have been suitably reverted." have been "suitably" reverted according to the intentions of that specific user

"...do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point." don't tell to us that, we didn't "disrupt" any wikipedia to prove a "point" as you say contrary to that specific user that "edits" to make a point or something

"Best wishes" best wishes too— Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.114.116.209 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Howdy IP, who is the us/we that you speak of? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Wrs1428

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

---

I reverted some of the edits this user made to the 2020 United States presidential election series. They asked me on my talk page why ([70]) and I explained it to them. In response, they said I don't care! You do not get to infringe on my freedom of speech. ([71]). I warned them against making personal attacks with a template message on their talk page ([72]). In response, they left me the following message on my talk page: Oh. So you're gonna go on a power trip, huh? Fuck you! ([73]). ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 03:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

In view of the fact that they are a new editor, I left them a polite warning. Please let me know if there are any further problems either with such blatant attacks or problematic edits. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Davey2010

Abusive language and personal attack. [74] AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

In which way did your comment help anyone ?, You pinged me and proceeded to poke me, Go do something useful that doesn't involve pissing me off. –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• I know trains are a passionate subject, but maybe...chillax? Davey, dunno why you had to remove Algae's comment, it didn't meet any criteria or reason for removal in the WP:TPG. And you were unnecessarily acrid about it. I think Algae was responding in good faith, although Algae: you could have clarified your statement instead of making just a passive aggressive "you're wrong", you could have clarified "heres my interpretation". @Davey2010: Please stop removing AG's comment tho, if you keep it up I'll have to block you and that would not be fun for either of us. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I explained fully why I did, What a circus this project has become!, I'm here to improve articles for our readers - Not to be poked by some sad child with absolutely fuck all else better to do!, Oh well, I'm done here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Little late for this now as the claimee has participated, but AlgaeGraphix, in the future you must notify the user whom you are bringing to ANI on their talk page as dictated by policy and the editnotices that popped up when making a new thread here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, when the person reported replies to the report a minute after the report was posted, the notification is moot. There is literally no reason to burden the servers with a notification edit if the person to be notified is already participating. Policy doesn't "dictate" notifications in such circumstances, nor does policy dictate anything, because of the fifth pillar ("no firm rules"). Lev!vich 20:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I only let them know as I was under the impression that with the degree of action that can be enforced here, impropriety could potentially be seen as a technicality to dismiss. I'll take that under advisement. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked for 48 hours. Any admin can unblock once they're assured of Davey2010's willingness to work collaboratively. – bradv🍁 19:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu and Levivich: I fully intended to notify Davey2010 and do a proper ANI complaint (especially as it appeared as if he was about to launch into a full-blown edit war), but real life interrupted. And FWIW, I've been editing train articles (albeit with more emphasis on diagrams) probably just as long as Davey2010. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Self-trout. AlgaeGraphix, no worries. It was just me jumping the gun. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Self-trout here, too, re-reading my earlier message. Sorry, Tenryuu, in a twist of Muphry's Law, I was way too pedantic while complaining about pedantry. Lev!vich 04:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, all good. I think everyone here was just trying to make sure the reporting process went well so that the case could be investigated without any technical hiccups. :) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

Seriously, I am watching nasty trash talk on my watchlist go on and on. Can an admin intervene there and sort it out. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

See the above. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Bradv has beat me to the block. I agree, time for a cool down, this is absurd. Continuing to spew personal attacks, at multiple editors, after being dragged to ANI. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, hopefully he will cool down. Go for a walk through the tree's in a nice peaceful environment. Govvy (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear, the purpose of this block is to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia, not to convince someone to go for a walk. Cool-down blocks are discouraged by policy. – bradv🍁 20:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

And peace by with you Mr Bradv. Govvy (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• I am NOT defending Davey's reaction or personal attacks, and am NOT criticizing the block, and am NOT criticizing AG for coming here. But, just as food for thought, when Davey removed the comment the first time (and subsequent times), he'd obviously read it. Whatever benefit AG intended it to have, it obviously wasn't having the desired effect. Was it necessary for everyone to re-add it? To be honest, if I were in AG's shoes, I'd have probably re-added it too, as my reptilian brain would instinctively react to being insulted and reverted. But just a thought that, as an outside observer who was not the target of the unacceptable attacks, there is a tremendous benefit to the encyclopedia in people treating others more graciously than the others are treating them, even when not really deserved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Also, as I think about it, is was kind of an unhelpful message. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: As a member of the group "everyone" if you have been nice to ping me of your concerns of my actions? Per WP:TPO should people's go around removing comments from talk page discussions, especially when having an opposing view. The standard practice when I do something incomprehensible is to leave a little comment questioning my thought pattern, not to remove the entire thing. To state the relatively obvious I was drawn by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains being on my talk page and noting the inappropriate action determined to intervene. You may consider my warning [75] was likely to result for a block for Davey2010 but my reading of Template:Uw-3RR indicated it was technically correct.02:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

  Intervening is not always the right choice though...you warned the guy after he'd already been dragged over here and acknowledged it, it shouldn't be hard to see how that might inflame the situation with someone who was clearly feeling prickly for whatever reason already. This is one of the times where following the letter of the law isn't necessarily the best way to de-escalate the situation. Just sort of something to keep in mind in the future I guess, obviously this one has ended poorly. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  @The Wicked Twisted Road: Not intervening to challenge the behaviour on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains would not have been a correct thing to do? Yes I did that at 19:30, 3 mins after it was raised at ANI [76] (which I did not spot); but there is some concern Davey2010's purpose may have been to get AG blocked so I would not have wanted AG to have done a 3rd reversion. And removal of opposing comments from a talk discussion is a pretty serious matter ... let also the "Fuck off prick." comment in the summary on the original reversion by Davey. Davey reverting me at 19:35[77] with the comment "We can all have a friendly discussion without the childish poking, If AG has nothing of value to add then they can simply move on elsewhere." which was after Davey was aware of the ANI (which I was not) basically meant further action. At 19:42 Captain Eek reverted Trains&oldid=984901056 984899983 and in the same minute I issued a Template:Uw-3rr warning (I think I recall seeing Captain Eek's contribution just before mine but on balance determined Template:Uw-3rr reasonable at the time. (Re-reading Wikipedia:Edit warring#Handling of edit-warring behaviors having read part one of "If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a Template:Uw-3rr template message on their user talk page." without reading the follow on sentence ". Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down." ). In retrospect therefore I apologise for my post at [78] which should not have been a template (a learn point for me there); this perhaps leading to Davey's reversion [79] with the comment "Fuck off troll" which likely contributed to the block. As it happens I was unaware at the time I had !voted at the RFC in question at WikiProject trains, subsequently re-reading the discussion somewhat later yesterday. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Early unblock?

Regardless of the incident I am most pleased to see Davey2010's considered response on their talk page and per Bradv's reasoning I think I would be supportive consideration of an early unblock as further disruption seems unlikely (touch wood). It looks like a little "flying off the handle" and perhaps reading a little more into something than was meant ... and I think I'm seeing a lot of goodwill wanting to wish Davey2010 back.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"flying off the handle" - c'mon, you could have at least said "going off the rails..." <groan> But on a serious note, Davey seems quite upbeat and sincere on his talkpage. This time tomorrow, the block will have gone no matter what. We all have our off days. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I flipped the frick right off my rocker just yesterday. Now I'm self-relegated to topics starting with vowels and numerals for two weeks. No lights, no music. Just ANGER! But since it's not forever, I'm already feeling better. Good luck, Davey! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Who can believe you? Lev!vich 23:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A hitman, a nun...lovers. Peaceful loving youth against the brutality of plastic existence. Chic 'N' Stu, Mr. Jack, one that smiled as he flew over the bay. Sweet Danny and Lisa, old school Hollywood baseball and yes, even the stupid mushroom people (though of war we don't speak anymore)! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the admins are aware of this, but this is not the first, nor second time Davey2010 has been brought to ANI because of his swearing. AshMusique (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010 is a longtime editor and I think most admins who would frequent this page are aware that he has been brought here before on complaints. This was a short block and I believe it was judged to have served its purpose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. Davey2010 is unblocked, and has committed to working collaboratively. As a final note to both him and AlgaeGraphix – you are both interested in working in the same area, and that collaboration will work infinitely better if you're able to communicate. You certainly don't need to agree – some of our best content is written by people who disagree – but you do need to be able to talk to each other. I hope you can both put this little spat behind you and get back on track. And with that final low-effort pun, this thread can probably be closed. – bradv🍁 23:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I would find Davey2010's "sincere and unreserved apologies" more believable if he had bothered to ping or poke me as well, as the person who the profanity and accusations were directed against. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

While that would be better, the important thing IMO is that Davey has apologised for his conduct, and that's all that matters given that blocks should not be punitive. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

IBAN proposal

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

---

I would like to propose a two-way IBAN between myself and AlgaeGraphix - We had a disagreement back in June which spilled over to ANI and given his comment recently and even today it's very clear we don't get on and never will, Again I see the comment today as him trying to poke me and so having this IBAN would stop his silly comments and would stop my silly edit summaries. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support - If these two editors won't voluntarily keep away from each other, then they need to be forced to keep away from each other. To be clear, this would be a complete interaction ban, including pings, thanks etc, with the sole exception of posting mandated notices on each other's talk pages, on pain of being blocked for breaches. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Very weak support Neutral - I'd like to see another option - I could have cried when I saw AlgaeGraphix's comment at [80] as it was likely to be re-escalatory, though I AGF that was not AlgaeGraphix's intent. Obviously we'd be preferring a two way voluntary no-fault I-BAN if it has to come to that. @AlgaeGraphix, what is your viewpoint on this? Alternatively are you able appreciate Davey2010's concerns and voluntarily willing to try to modify your interactions to try to avoid Davey2010's sensitivities? I'd really like another option here. Please AGF I'm doing my best help here, though I'm really nervous I'll make things worse.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  Hi Djm-leighpark, What other option do you think we have ?, I've done my damned best to stay out of his way and yet still he continued to poke and prod me (as demonstrated in your link), If I'm being honest as I can be I would've preferred to have no IBAN and we both stay out of each others way however for AG that hasn't worked. Many thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 10:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Davey2010: My thoughts are as follows: Let us take the assumption that is not possible to prevent AG from "touching your buffers" or annoying you from time to time, even if that is at a lower frequency. Because that is the case the only thing you may be able to control is your response when you feel you have been offended. I appreciate while what am about to say may seem easy but as it may be near impossible to change your response. In particular it is important not to respond directly at the person you have offended you. Option One would be to simply ignore whatever it is. Option 2 would be to use a mini-wiki-breaker self-enforcer for a few hours. Option 3 would be to see if anyone would pre-volunteer to try to mediate if you feel a problem has arise to avoid direct confrontation with the person who has caused you a problem. There is also the problem AlgaeGraphix has not responded to your IBAN suggestion here; which is perfectly permitted; and without AlgaeGraphix's support this IBAN will suggestion will likely fail. And if that is the case you probably need to train and pre-prepare yourself in a coping strategy to let the safety value let off excess boiler pressure.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support Oppose - I remember previous ANI reports from earlier this year about Davey2010 engaging in personal attacks and using phrases like "Fuck off", and if memory serves, it ended with Davey apologising and promising not to do it again. Although both users were at fault in that report, I really hope this doesn't become a pattern. Edit: Found one of the major ones I was referring to. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1036#Call me by my genitals. Darkknight2149 06:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The community doesn't need to impose any sanctions beyond the one that was already imposed. I don't believe that Davey, who writes things like "Fuck off prick", is genuinely harmed because someone (gasp!) pinged him. Lev!vich 21:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This whole ordeal seems rather familiar... ~ HAL333([81]) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I never once stated I was "harmed" by a ping, I stated I'm fed up with his silly replies .... there's a difference (and in all fairness to AG he's probably fed up with my edit summaries!). If 2 users cannot get along and are at each others throats then clearly something needs to be done about it. –Davey2010^Talk 23:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I thought there was an understanding that you were aware that incivility/personal attacks in response to conflicts is disruptive and that you had learned from your mistakes? Darkknight2149 00:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any two way IBAN. Per Levivich. While Davey has used personal attacks against AG, I don't see what intractable conduct AG engaged in to warrant an IBAN against them. I wouldn't oppose a one way IBAN of Davey against interacting with AG. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The problem seems to be that Davey can't exhibit enough self-control to stop hurling F-bombs at other editors ("Fuck off troll", "Fuck off prick", "Fuck off child", "…you're a fucking idiot", "Fuck off", "[what] the fuck is wrong with you?", "…what in the holy fuck are you playing at ?", "fuckwit…"). 99.99% of editors manage just fine without resorting to invective like this; why does Davey feel that he deserves special dispensation? (FO's/flying off the handle have been a thing since I've been here^[82]). I put June's dust-up behind me (and TBH had forgotten about it), but it seems (to me) that Davey still harbours a grudge. Perhaps he should just mute notifications concerning me? I certainly don't feel that I'm engaged in some sort of cut-throat competition with him, and TheDragonFire300's suggestion sounds reasonable. In any event, there was no malicious intent on my part, and the pinging that he takes so much offense to is the default reversion edit summary (which he also frequently employs). If it makes everyone feel better, I will attempt to be less facetious with my comments in the future. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  P.S. Sorry that it's taken so long to respond, but it's been a busy day IRL.

• Context matters - there were more to those last 3 edit summaries and those weren't off the cuff random attacks either although sure probably shouldn't of been that blunt.

Why would I hold a grudge against you ? Without sounding childish here you reopened old wounds by pinging me and telling me "you read it wrong" - Do you honestly think that comment to anyone is helpful ?... no it isn't!. There's no grudges here and it's bloody laughable that you think there is!.

Or perhaps you should simply NOT PING ME or reply to me? .... that works too.

"and the pinging that he takes so much offense to is the default reversion edit summary" - Nope you pinged me here before the reverts happened - Why would I be offended over being reverted ?. –Davey2010^Talk 11:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

There are two preceding comments—"If I'm reading the RFC correctly"^[83] and "I read it as"^[84]—that mention reading the RFC; shouldn't it be necessary to identify the correct one? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

AlgaeGraphix, your pinging Davey2010 in that comment [85] was unnecessary and disruptive, and it added to the fact that your comment was already unconstructive in that it did not offer any explanation or counter-argument as to what you thought the RfC said. If in the future you want to indicate whom you are speaking to, simply type their username rather than pinging them, or use the Template:No ping, which would look like this: {{noping|Davey2010}} -- it highlights their username and is clickable but does not ping them. Softlavender (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@AlgaeGraphix: Appreciate your aim to try and structure comments so they might be less likely to annoy Davey2010; I think that would be helpful. (I'm saying this not to blame any of your previous comments but as supporting your positive good faith attempt to try to reduce the risk of conflict in the future). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't know what the solution is here, but I don't see enough evidence that this is called for at this point, based just on the various links above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose AlgaeGraphix said it best. I don't think that this is the best solution. ~ HAL333([86]) 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. When the perpetrator and blockee is proposing a two-way IBAN with the person they attacked, it's time to question whether the blockee should have been early unblocked. Perhaps Davey2010 needs a TBAN from trains if he cannot control his vulgarity. Or a one-way IBAN prohibiting him from interacting with AG. Softlavender (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Jaylen Waddle - Persistent Racism

Page for Alabama Football Player Jaylen Waddle being consistently and repeatedly attacked by anonymous users to add racist remarks and false information. Requesting a revert to last non-racist version of the page and blocking of the anonymous user guilty of racism ( 2600:1005:B10C:274D:AEFC:12B0:C1F5:376B). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B09A:3B2E:400E:31CF:2BE4:8530 (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article and reverted to a pre-vandalism version. It seems that Waddle broke his ankle in today's football game. I have no idea why that would lead to a spate of racist vandalism but I do not understand the mentality of vile trolls. Now, I will go block some IPs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked User: 2600:1005:B10C:274D:AEFC:12B0:C1F5:376B for a month, which is much longer than I usually block IPs. The reason is the barrage of overtly racist BLP violations in this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It's generally pointless to block an individual IP allocated to Verizon Wireless for more than a few days. You'll just cause collateral damage to random people without impacting the vandal's ability to edit Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Would you suggest 72 hours instead, NinjaRobotPirate? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That's probably better, yeah. If he comes back, it'll probably be on another IP address on Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B100::/40. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Continued pattern of premature draftification by John B123

User:John B123 is a regular new page patroller, a largely-unthanked but important task in which most of his edits are constructive. However, in this he has two bad habits that combine badly: he likes to patrol from the new end of the queue, and he likes to draftify articles. Wikipedia:Drafts clearly requires that new articles only be draftified when there is "no evidence of active improvement". I asked for clarification about this a couple weeks ago on Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draftification: How active is active? and the consensus of responses there was that "substantive edits in the last couple of days" would be enough to disqualify draftification. John B123 regularly draftifies articles for which the most recent edit was much more recent, less than an hour before draftification.

This behavior first came to my attention when John moved a new article Danzer's configuration to Draft:Danzer's configuration; if I remember correctly, I was automatically alerted to this because it happened to link to another article I had created. As draftified, the new article was not obviously promotional, had one published reliable source, and had two edits (including its creation) within the hour previous to its draftification, with an edit summary promising more activity (references plural, and figures, promised to come). Many more edits followed soon after draftification. Investigating I found an even more egregious example, Ramón Mellado Parsons, which John had draftified after a pattern of 14 edits over 1.5 hours previous to draftification, the most recent one of which was three minutes prior to draftification. Since then, the pattern has continued, and I was alerted to it again today when I was pinged to User talk:Gumshoe2 over the draftification of Draft:C. Robin Graham (obviously notable per WP:PROF#C3 with one reliable source for that claim included in the article as of its draftification). As I write this, there are 73 draftifications just in October listed in User:John B123/Draftify log, among which I looked more carefully at the history of the first 20. ALL were draftified less than 24 hours after article creation, and 70% of them were draftified within an hour of their most recent edit. (One was later deleted as a copyvio, not noticed by John.)

When I asked John politely on his user talk to justify the speedy draftification of Danzer's configuration, he was unapologetic and defiant, and the discussion soon became testy, and laden with bad-faith assumptions on John's part and (I admit) some intemperate language on my own. Eventually it reached the point where John asked me to stay away from his talk page and find other admins if I ever thought administrative action would be warranted. So, I am taking this here to ANI, where other admins may be found and may take action. My own opinion on what action to take is that it would probably suffice to topic-ban John from draftifying articles within 24 hours of their creation. I don't think removal of his (recently granted) page-move privileges or other stronger sanctions are warranted at this time, but I do think something needs to be done to put this WP:BITEy behavior in check. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

My interpretation of the previous conversation User talk:John B123/Archive 15#Draftification requires no evidence of active improvement is somewhat different how it is described above, so I would ask others to read and form their own opinions. I feel the draftification of C. Robin Graham was justified as per the edit summary: Undersourced, incubate in draftspace. Notability isn't the criteria for draftification, an article can be notable but not yet ready for mainspace. I would note (after being moved back to mainspace) that from the edit summary [87] another patroller considered the article should be in draft. --John B123 (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any input on the general topic at hand but your comment "When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the 'Submit your draft for review!' button at the top of the page" about C. Robin Graham on my talk page suggested to me that notability was the reason for your drafting, and is why I moved the page back. (as per my and David Eppstein's comments on y talk page) Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A careful reading of this comment indicates a more serious problem: the general notability guideline is the wrong notability guideline for this article. Anyway, we can quibble over judgements of notability but John's response here completely fails to address the actual reason for bringing this here, the timing of his draftifications. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I must admit that I would also have a hard time not doing something about it (presumably, draftification) if I happened upon gems like Draft:JDS_Azuma or Draft:Parliament_Election_Maharshtra_2019 in the queue. At the same time, there is an obligation of extending some benefit of doubt to the creator and giving them an opportunity to turn this into something we would not be embarassed to have in mainspace. I would suggest just not patrolling from the red-hot end of the queue, thus avoiding both the itch to somehow clean that stuff up right now, and allowing a minimum of AGF to the author. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I think these points are reasonable - there are new articles where, so long as we were 2 hours in (in case they were just dropping stuff in), I'd be very concerned about not acting right then. However, in the large majority of cases, a relatively actively improving (if still poor) page can be left unpatrolled but undraftified, certainly on the timescale proposed. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

To correct the opening post, I patrol at both the front and back of the NPP. Patrolling at the front is necessary as a first line against copyvio, COI, attack pages etc. It also helps cut down on messages on NPP's talk page along the lines of "the article I created yesterday hasn't been reviewed yet, can you review it". Patrolling at the back of the queue is obviously important too. As per the previous conversation, there are no guidelines or recommendations that NP patrolling should be from the back of the queue.

To put the figures that have been put forward into perspective, during the period of 70 articles sent to draft, I made about 3,500 new page reviews. The percentage sent to draft is a small. I don't know how this compares to other patrollers, but suspect it is more than those who patrol mainly at the back of the queue (where articles that should/could be sent to draft have already been weeded out) but less than those only patrolling the newest articles.

Contrary to what is being suggested, I try not send articles to draft. In the same period, I tagged 131 articles with {{unreferenced}} instead of sending to draft. I haven't bothered to count the number of longer articles with only 1 ref that I've tagged {{refimprove}} rather than draftify in that period.

When I was granted page mover rights is irrelevant. It was suggested to me that I should apply for these rights to save others from having to delete redirects left behind. To try and make out that I've been given a new toy and am overusing it is unjust, and also factually incorrect.

As for not addressing the underlying issue, I have deliberately avoided that to try and avoid this conversation degenerating as it did on my talk page. My patience is growing thin though, as this is the third place the same conversation has been brought up. --John B123 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This sort of long-winded "I do lots of other stuff and deliberately refuse to talk about the timing of my draftifications" is exactly what I meant when I wrote "unapologetic and defiant" above. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to bow out of this now, as it's heading towards points scoring rather than discussion as the last discussion did. If somebody could inform me of the outcome I'd appreciate that. --John B123 (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I do understand the difficulty with encountering an article that is a) in a crap state and b) suitable for draftification (e.g. notable subject but zero usable refs) - and then having to pass up sorting it out because it is also c) freshly created. It feels like just ignoring a problem in the making, and let's face it, in many cases all that AGF is actually wasted... if the guy who created Draft:JDS Azuma was thinking about turning this into something viable before next Michaelmas, I'll eat a battlecruiser. My solution to keeping a hand in while avoiding to step on the toes of those who are intending to improve their article, has been a little bookmarks folder where I push all those cases. I check it every few days, and if the thing has not improved or otherwise been dealt with over that period, to draft it goes. It's a little clumsy but works. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I just wish that editors would follow the instruction at WP:Drafts#Requirements for page movers: "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD". This is something that should be done automatically, not something that anyone should argue about. I have seen this being ignored by several new-page patrollers, so maybe it should be made more explicit, but I can't for the life of me see how it could be any more explicit than it already is. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• I think there would need to be a clearer policy to sanction JohnB123 here. I see at least 4 other editors who have draftified articles within an hour of creation in the past day, two of whom have done so for quite a few articles this month. If there's a consensus, MoveToDraft should be modified to warn editors about page creation / last edit time before applying a move. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
  • if other patrollers are also doing the same thing, and similarly refuse to stop or even to discuss this part of the requirements, then maybe they should become subject to the same limitations. Or, if we're not going to enforce this requirement when patrollers are found to be repeatedly and blatantly violating it, then there is no requirement, and we should remove it from what we tell editors about how draftification works, and accept that anyone who starts trying to create new articles is likely to be bitten in this way. I create many new articles but have already long since given up on trying to craft new articles using the Wikipedia editor, because I don't want to go on for what may sometimes be more than an hour without saving and I don't want to deal with patrollers interfering before I'm done. Instead I create the article source offline with a text editor without preview, don't upload until it is more or less complete, and only then start polishing the issues that show up in preview. Is that what we want to tell all our new editors to do? (And don't tell me that's what drafts are for. Drafts are for being a honeypot for spammers to keep their content out of mainspace. Good-faith new editors should be warned never to use drafts because their drafts will be kept out of mainspace with picky excuses that would never fly in an AfD and then they will be deleted after six months. Which is a fine thing to do to spam but a shabby way to treat good-faith new editors.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack of editor Miki Filigranski

Editor User:Miki Filigranski attack me personally on talk page Anti-Albanian sentiment with claim that I am been "highly disrespectful toward many Croatian and Serbian editors with my propagation of Anti-Serbian information".[88] I edit article of Anti-Albanian sentiment and enter information based on various sources which concerning that article. My edit is explained on talk page and in edit summary of that article. Please protect me from such personal attacks and I expect an appropriate punishment because talk page is for talk about edit issue not for personal attack. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

{{{1}}}--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Serbian edits of Novak Djokovic article do not exits (see that page), of Tribes of Montenegro article do not exist(see talk page: WP:OR, [89]), of Anti-Albanian sentiment article do not exist(this is claim of historians[90] not me, and confirmed in earlier edit as RS, in edit summary of editor @Peacemaker67:[91], of Name of the Serbs and Serbia article do not exist (this is claim of historian not me, supported with editor Miki Filigranski[92], and see talk page [93]. Mikola22 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You're really delusional.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

He's wrong in some disputes and he's right in some other ones - just like you - he's not "delusional". Don't bring mental health issues into content disputes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The editor misunderstood my "support". I "supported" this, not this nor this. There's a difference.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - it's much better when just the facts are highlighted in a dispute. Maybe he didn't understand your objection at that point, just like Talk:Tribes_of_Montenegro#Stable_version on the other side could have been avoided if the quote from the source had been checked before the reverts. Now, I think that this has gotten way out of proportion - the nature of the disputes in relation to the personal labels don't justify the discussion which we're having right now.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement, I withdraw the report for false accusations and there is no bad filings, because I and editor Miki Filigranski in the past did not have any wars in our edit works and I think this was an exaggerated quarrel. As for this first report about personal attack it remains as report but if any sanctions be proposed, I expect milder warning, because his punishment means nothing to me when we are in a conflict for the first time. Mikola22 (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

False accusations of editor Miki Filigranski

{{{1}}}Mikola22 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

{{{1}}}--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that happened to you Miki Filigranski. I must point out that the same editor is active on Eupedia Forum (under a different name), where some of his writings can be seen as chauvinistic and racist, not to mention the dominant anti-Serbian sentiment, which is sickening. I know that we can't link or give direct information on en.wiki, but I am not sure what's the community consensus in cases like this one?! Surely we can't turn a blind eye to such cases because of potential privacy issues? If this comment is not appropriate, I shall kindly ask admins to remove it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that this has escalated a bit too much in the context of wikipedia. Editors can communicate with each other outside the confines of wikipedia, but they shouldn't WP:OUT personal details on wikipedia. If Miki Filigranski has said something that isn't accurate about his possible communication with Mikola22 that is mostly outside wikipedia's scope. There is an WP:ASPERSION in MF's comment that Mikola22 is motivated with Anti-Serbian sentiments and has an Anti-Serbian agenda. Edits should be judged, not supposed motives.

I disagree with some of Mikola22's edits but in many disputes he is fundamentally right. On Tribes of Montenegro he removed a a sentence which as he explained on the talkpage Talk:Tribes_of_Montenegro#Stable_version doesn't appear in the source in relation to Montenegro. He has been reverted a total of three times by Sadko and Miki Filigranski who haven't replied on the talkpage. So, an editor who is right in a fundamental way (the source doesn't mention the article's subject) has been reverted by two other editors a total of three times and they haven't even replied on the talkpage. And then he's being accused of having an "Anti-whatever agenda" by one of them, while the other (Sadko) has a logged warning on AE for filing a report against Mikola22[94] which became a sort of WP:BOOMERANG and Sadko was "warned not weaponize AE to eliminate opponents of content disputes". And now Sadko is accusing Mikola22 of having an account on a forum where "some of his writings can be seen as chauvinistic and racist". Now, that's a heavy WP:ASPERSION, but it's a typical aspersion in the context of the discussions in the Balkan topic area.

The root of the problem is that Balkan disputes have no admin oversight. Oversight means supervision of the editing process, not punitive measures which usually come at the end of heavy disruption and solve nothing because they just stop one account, which reappears under a new username a couple of months later (I've filed two SPIs in the past two weeks). To recap, WP:ASPERSIONS should stop, the talkpage should be used for content disputes and a message for the admins: be more present. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If you had the opportunity to read what I have, you would be careful with your comments Maleschreiber. I have all the disgusting links, but I shall not post them as I have basic respect for Wiki guidelines. No attempt of relativization and being the devil's advocate can help here. Be careful with whom you align yourself, as a general rule of thumb. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to know about your off-wiki communication with any other editor - that's for ARBCOM. You've made a heavy accusation against Mikola22 and as for "alignment", I was in disagreement with both Miki Filigranski and Mikola22 on Talk:White_Croats#Consensus_in_bibliography less than a month ago. Also, I've filed two reports against sock puppet accounts in the past weeks and both were blocked. You were edit-warring alongside one of them against Mikola22[95] and at the same time you were claiming on your talkpage in Serbian that you will be getting "new victories" [96]. I don't care about the countless petty Balkan disputes that erupt every day, but they're not one-sided and many times the people who are putting forward the heaviest accusations are involved in even worse behavior.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That phrase has a completely different meaning in Serbian, you did not understand it well. And it shows that you are not assuming good faith. Anyways, empty comments which only appear to be neutral but are here to show that everybody is "bad as well" aside, if you are going to hound me, please do it while consulting a dictionary. I am happy to add more information and material to already existing claims made by fellow editor Miki. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification @Miki Filigranski: "You really went too far with privately blackmailing me and pushing the Anti-Serbian agenda that I became sick of it."

• I’ve never said that in my life or blackmailing someone in my life and there’s no evidence for that nowhere. For lying I expect the strictest sanctions. If you claim something, then you have to prove it, there is no evidence for it, and there will never be any evidence for that. Therefore you are deliberately and obviously lying to save yourself from sanction. But that won't help you. Mikola22 (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller and Ymblanter: Please, is there is a place on Wikipedia where false statements with bad intention can be additionally reported for more severe sanction because this is more than a personal attack. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Every instance of off-wiki real or alleged harassment must be dealt with by the ArbCom--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Please would you help me put together that report or request. I don't know that rules well. If you don't want to I understand but maybe you could recommend someone to me, if you know some editor. Mikola22 (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest you contacting the ArbCom and explain the situation in a concise way.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Where, to whom, what, I don't know that part of Wikipedia, that's why I'm asking you for help. There are more possibilities exist and I don’t know exactly where my case belongs. Mikola22 (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This page has a contact e-mail address, I believe it is read by the whole committee.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Sadko

I would like to point out that this a false report made in order to press the senior editor who is reported, as he promissed to report Mikola22 if that kind of rude behaviour and WP:PLAYPOLICY continues. The comment by fellow editor Miki Filigranski has valid points. Editor making the report is constantly WP:CHERRYPICKING sources (even if it means randomly searching for 2nd class books which would prove a point), looking for ways to game the system and last but not least - major WP:BLUD. If you just take a qucik look at [97] you will witness that the editor in question is waiting for 24h to revert other editors, knowing that he or she has 1RR. WP:BOOMERANG is needed, in my book. Thank you, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

His 1RR has been lifted User_talk:El_C#Appeal_2.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko, I am not under 1RR restriction. As for 24h is considered, I think that's enough time for submit some evidence on talk page when you receive ping from me and you are that day on Wikipedia. By ignoring talk page, you are not doing good to yourself, me or the article. Mikola22 (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack of editor Sadko

Editor User:Sadko personally attack me on AnI page with claim that "some of my writings can be seen as chauvinistic and racist, not to mention the dominant anti-Serbian sentiment, which is sickening."[98] Given that this is the second time that personal attack occurs and this time false (although he was warned not to accuse me falsely anymore(warning from AE [99])). Beside that he first time personally attack me that I am Nazi falover, with no sanctions although he was reported for statment on editor @Ktrimi991: talk page, ˙("This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles." [100]). I ask the authorities to react this time for WP:PERSONAL ATTACK and WP:ASPERSIONS and that this time editor Sadko be sanctioned. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

My general comment (the second one) given to an editor who was not familiar with those circles is true and it was not directed against anybody. Do you have anything against Anti-fascism? Pinging people for whom you think that might help your cause is not that useful, only more relativization will be done.

I stand by my comment, have the links/diffs ready and I and some other editors are observing those forums. It's not an asperation, it's a fact, and I can only imagine what fellow editor Miki went through.

Just because you filed the report does not means that you are free of every responsibility, when the report made was more like "I'll report him before he reports me" kind of thinking. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no regret in his answer but a new imaginary and false threat. Therefore this must stop. I cannot suffer personal insults every few months and there are no sanctions for him. This time I expect the most severe sanction for this behavior. Mikola22 (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Statement.@Doug Weller: Where I violated 1RR restriction rule, show me? I have not violated that rule in any of last edits. If I remember correctly I used 2RR somewhere, but not for the same edit. Can I use RR at all? I'm waiting for evidence to see where I violated that rule, and then I will answer. Thanks.Mikola22 (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

As for emailing editor Miki Filigranski and this information: "if he participate anyhow on "the enemy side" (i.e. Serbian) against me then I would intentionally and immediately (i.e. out of spite) participate in any article or discussion against him." It is enough to say that I never sent to him email in my life. The proof is my email address which does not exist in his email with any message from me. All my edits has edit summary and I also follow the articles that he follows and I can edit them freely. Mikola22 (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB:, you cant on every my report come and talk about how I have something against Serbs and Serbia. I am editor, and I edit articles which concerns and Serbia. You report me with this claim and don't wait for your fellow editors to be reported and there prove this claim. You have several Wikipedia options. Editor Sadko tried this and he received sanction for making a false accusations, now you try.Mikola22 (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@WEBDuB:, after this editors get sanctions, you report me with this claim. When I editing articles I don't see you at all, maybe a couple of times. I only see your accusations in situations like this. If problems exist you know what you need to do, please do it. Mikola22 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: I use 2x2RR in 8 days, but first 2RR was because in one source I added 4 more sources as conformation, and this is not in bad faith(editing with adding new sources), and second time I followed the revert of editor Sadko but I thought that this revert for separate information would not count as 2R. My intention in this revert also was not in bad faith because I didn't know this RR rules exactly(the last time I saw this rules was 7, 8 months ago). Mikola22 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: where did I say you broke 1RR? Doug Weller talk 09:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: If you think that my 1R is problem(I don't get it right) but I didn't made revert as a vandal, I explained everything in edit summary and previously explained on the talk page. If I respect someone's edit summary(fringe etc problem), I don't know why someone else would not respect mine edit summary and explanation on talk page? Mikola22 (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Or in this case, an uninvolved Admin. User:Mikola22 had a 1RR restriction imposed upon him this year by User:El C who granted an appeal only 8 days ago. It appears from the above that the lesson has not been learned. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

And if there is evidence of off-wiki harassment, it should be mailed to ArbCom, not posted here.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

{{{1}}}--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything like a personal attack. Miki Filigranski commented on the suspicion of tendentious editing during a period with tensions and polarization on Balkan topics. It is already visible that Mikola22 practically exclusively contributes Serb-related articles on sensitive topics, such as one of the deadliest genocides, Kosovo Myth, the origin of the names of the nation (including the fringe theory that the term “Serbs” come from “slaves”), Serbian medieval history, removal of Serbian names of towns in Kosovo, as well as the most famous Serbian personalities such as Nikola Tesla and Novak Djokovic. Situations like this can always lead to the WP:BOOMERANG.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: Of course you have the right to edit the articles you want, no one disputed that. However, don't be surprised when someone suspects WP:TENDENTIOUS, and do not interpret every comment as a personal attack. Especially after already conducted cases and sanctions.--WEBDuB (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller: I see a minor edit-warring domino which mostly involves Mikola22 and Sadko - both usually staying at 2RR. We should examine the content of the edit-warring. On Talk:Tribes_of_Montenegro#Stable_version, Mikola22 was removing something that was not in the source and he was being reverted by Sadko. Now, would that excuse a continuing edit-war if Sadko hadn't stopped? No, but if there is no admin oversight to make sure that editors don't make verifiably false edits, frustration can take hold.
• I can't comment on possible off-wiki communication. There's ArbCom for that sort of situation. I think that wikipedia eventually will move to a model of non-anonymous editing and then all kinds of problems will stop. Whatever Mikola22-Miki Filigranski have said to each other off-wiki, it doesn't excuse the personal attacks/WP:ASPERSIONs against Mikola22 in the comment section of this report from the "Anti-Serbian agenda" accusations to "chauvinism" - all in the context of disputes Mikola22 has had with editors from sr wiki (except for MF) who in the past have even accused Mikola22 of being paid by the Kosovo government: User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_48#Paid_advocacy_accusations. The conditions which allow for such a situation to fester and explode from time to time on either side have to do with the fact that there is no admin oversight in the Balkan topic area.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  I had last year really serious problems in real life because my Wikipedia editing is not fully anonymous. I would not recommend anyvody to disclose their real name.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  I've sort of done that once and had to ask for an admin to delete my edit afterwards. I think that a lot of editors on wikipedia would not behave in the way they do, if they didn't act under the cover of anonymity. The editing environment would be a lot more civil and people would take responsibility for their edits. On the other hand, active editors might be subjected to off-wiki pressure by organized groups, companies, co-workers, employers etc.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ghost of Tsushima

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

---

At Ghost of Tsushima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) and I had a disagreement on whether to include a notation of the pronunciation of the word Tushima (relevant diffs: [101][102][103][104][105][106][107]).

A discussion ensued here (perma). I'm not going to even attempt to summarize it because I don't think I can in an objective way, so please read the whole thread (perma) before chiming in. It's not long.

The incident itself is arguably not a big deal (and I'm not without fault), and I would have simply moved on if it was virtually any other user. But seeing Hijiri88's overall unwillingness to engage in a collegial discussion, repeated failure to acknowledge points brought forward (re: /iː/ vs /i/, YouGlish) while accusing the other party of the same, and accusation of bad faith even in the face of the other party yielding, just over a month after an indefinite block was lifted, I thought it important to bring it to admins' attention. Nardog (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is bad faith to point out obvious canvassing. After reading the whole thread Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) seemed reasonably patient with a user trying to push original research into the article and then canvassing when they were losing the argument.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The pointing out of the canvassing was valid, I own up to that. What I find problematic is his insinuation that I intentionally omitted information, when in fact that piece of information that I allegedly left out was something I'd been mentioning as a factor for my position from the beginning. Could be an honest mistake, but IMHO that speaks to the way he engages in mere content disputes, coupled with wordings like inaccurate (impossible!) in the section title, So, you are not going to address any of my points and just talk past me?, and patently ridiculous, which leave little room for honest, productive discussion and make interaction with him exhausting (which was not the case with OceanHok in the thread, for example). Nardog (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC) Could be an honest mistake, so I'm going to assume that it is. Nardog (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There should be some rule defining the limits within which editors may brandish their extreme sensitivities as cause for perceived offenses. Encyclopedias are written by grown-ups, preferably, with some minimalist ability to handle the give-and-take of strong disagreement. It's poor form for editors who can't get their way to engage in personal archaeology, seize on some datum that the opposing editor was once banned, and exploit that to cut the Gordian knot by using the tiff to reinstate the ban. Threads like the one cited are small change compared to most I have seen. I don't think anyone, certainly not the general reader, but an accomplished phonologist understands these transcriptions and pertinacious disagreement over such nugatory minima, to invent a pleonasm, is a waste of time. Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

A couple of "lookup word"s later, I believe I agree with the above take. At a skim of the discussion, I can't see gross incivility much less personal attacks, although I do mean skim. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I skimmed the discussion at Talk:Ghost of Tsushima and there is nothing there that is a CIVIL problem. Please engage with issues raised or leave the matter. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• There's no violation here, and this is a run-of-the-mill content issue, and the discussion thus far on the talk page has been quite civil. This thread should be closed, and if the editors involved can't reach an agreed-upon consensus, please create an WP:RFC where people can !vote. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations and personal attacks

See my report at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2020 October 25.

Phule lulu is violating WP:COPYVIO even after multiple warnings,[108][109] and now accusing me of vandalism.[110][111]

At least 3 editors have reverted him but he is not getting the point. This is definitely a competence issue. Wareon (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wareon is using the pretext of Copyright violation (referring to an extract from archive.org which originally got added to this article back in August 2016 by a different editor, not me[112]), to remove most of the cited references on the page, so as to paint a majoritarian perspective on the topic while misportraying the plight of the oppressed. While I defer to the admins to decide whether the content originally quoted from archive.org by a different editor is Copyright violation or not, I'd request the admins to go through the recent edits on Shambuka page by Wareon in their full form, along with quality of references, so as to take an informed decision. --Phule lulu (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Phule lulu: The whole point of listing it on the copyright violation page is to enable other editors (not necessarily admins) to check and see if there are problems. Until someone has confirmed there are no problems, you shouldn't be reverting to content that may violate someone's copyright. You've presented zero evidence that it's a "pretext" so that could be consider a personal attack.

Your comment on the copyvio page just adds to the concerns since as mentioned there, it doesn't matter how old a work is if the content copied is not the original work but some creative variant of that work like a human translation of that work. In that case, the copyright status of the variant matters. Also "it is possible" is not how we deal with copyright. You need strong enough evidence it's not. For a 1957 work, the lack of a copyright notice could be relevant at least with regards to copyright protection in the US which is probably all that matters on en.wikipedia. But this is something some more knowledgeable will need to check and your comments suggest this doesn't apply to you.

And removing copyright violations or (sufficiently) suspected copyright violations is fully justified by policy and without exception. It generally does not matter when the copyright violation was added. It does not generally matter where the copyrighted content came from. The only only times those points matter is if it suggests there's no copyright violation e.g. the text is in the public domain or released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 compatible licence, or it came from Wikipedia in the first place. (Also finding out when the copyright violation was added may enable the article to be reverted to the version before it was added rather than blanked.)

From a quick check, what I saw was a 1957 book on archive.org so frankly archive.org and "centuries old" seems irrelevant. If you are the one who added the copyright violation, boasting that it was added in 2016 isn't helping your case. You need to stop adding copyright violations right now and help us clear up all your copyright violations which given the length of time since you added them is unfortunately likely to be messy. Where you don't understand copyright, you need to listen to what people are telling you. If you don't stop, you will be blocked.

If you want the article to reflect the "plight of the oppressed", what you need to do is write decent content yourself rather than simply copying what someone else has written. The more time of other editors you waste fixing up problems you create, the less likely anyone will have time to write such content.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies I misread who commented on the copyvio page. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos

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

---

Hi.

May I request action to prevent user:jtbobwaysf from continuing to bully editors and impose his will before even seeking consensus at the Imelda Marcos page? Said editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:

1. Deleted citations without consensus or warning, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.

• a) In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos... where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
• b) He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
• c) In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"

2. Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)

3. Acted unilaterally to exclude well-covered topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see edit history, which he justified Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE.

4. Treated other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Wikipedia:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.

5. (Apparently) deleted citations for having “failed verification” without having actually read them, without even using the “verification requested” cleanup tag

6. Deleted unresolved warnings on his talk page, not just for Imelda Marcos, but also for numerous other issues, as seen in the edit here: [[113]]

Granted, the page continues to need work. (There's a BLPN discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos, FYI). But the uncivil behavior has made it impossible to pursue a calm process of consensus.

Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a circus going on over at the article in question with various users adding unverifiable (using "rare books" as citations) and poorly cited content (blogs such as Rappler) to anchor promotional content (such as the article subject is worth billions) to a BLP (noting a recent RS stated the article subject is worth $20M! The article is about a controversial subject that seems to attract WP:RGW and has big problems with WP:TOOMUCH. Maybe this post here by Chieharumachi at ANI (although I doubt was his objective) will result in more uninvolved eyeballs at that article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf The books are not "unverifiable". They are available, albeit you do not want to go through the effort of accessing copies to verify. As per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". One of them, "Some are Smarter than Others" by Ricardo Manapat just received a new printing and a relaunch a month or so ago with an e-book available for purchase if the physical book is not convenient, another, "Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption" by Barney Warf, which was also printed relatively recently in 2018 is available online in both print and e-book version. What is alarming here is that you did not even read these books when you falsely and dishonestly tagged them for "failed verification", and deleted a section of content as well as the 3 citations you did not read, also breaking a number of citations on the page. That was not the only time jtbobwaysf did that on the page. He also deleted a whole swatch of blbliographic citations that broke multiple citation links on the page. It outlines a repeated bullying pattern of his of deleting citations and content without seeking consensus on the talk page, then edit warring by reverting edits that restore the content he deleted, then putting the onus of seeking consensus at the talk page to the person who restored content he may have unjustly removed, putting the person who restored content at an unfair disadvantage. Moreover, he mass-deleted citations by Rappler and Vera Files, claiming that Rappler was just a "blog", when it is a reputable news organization and acceptable WP:RS as per Wikipedia consensus in the links jtbobwaysf himself here. This outlines another pattern in which jtbobwaysf has been deleting citations without just reason (such as calling RS like CNN citations "nonsense" ), rendering the article being sort of slowly whitewashed by removing citation proof of BLP subject wrongdoings (from accepted RSes!) creepingly over time. He also accuses other editors of POV-pushing and RGW, when other editors are merely documenting what is generally accepted by the global public about the subject (infamous for being the Guiness World Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for example) and has been documented for decades... (@Seav: outlines it well here at the BLP noticeboard on why it is not RGW).

Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Wikipedia project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to reiterate noting jtbobwaysf's behavior of demeaning the work of other volunteer contributors by calling them "junk", "nonsense" and "dribble" before deleting them. When attention was called to his behavior at the talk page, he posted a link to a satirical Internet comedian JP Sears instead of apologizing and implied that the editors who called attention to his behavior were too easily offended. -Object404 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to chime in that I consider Jtbobwaysf's edits and behavior on the Imelda Marcos article to be very disruptive. In his response above, he again repeats assertions that are either patently untrue or not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (1) "rare books" is not an excuse to dismiss sources per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2) "blogs such as Rappler" is patently untrue and a long discussion on WP:RSN has already concluded that Rappler is a reliable source; Jtbobwaysf's unilateral deletion of all Rappler citations without discussion is frankly extremely disruptive. (3) His assertion that the article subject attract[s] WP:RGW does not apply at all: WP:RGW is about not using Wikipedia as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and has extensive documentation in reliable sources—the article merely reflects this ongoing situation and so WP:RGW does not apply. —seav (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm very inclined to turn the tables around and ask Jtbobwaysf what Philippine sources he thinks we ought to use. Rappler generally is reliable, having used their articles as sources for what I've been writing, but I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use, when it fact we do. Unless you think Rappler's participation in the IFCN is a moot point, just because the site happens to have a blog component? No one's saying BuzzFeed News is not reliable just because it happened to be an offshoot of BuzzFeed now, right? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion Seav linked is the latest chronologically and it's the one that matters. Seriously, calling Rappler and Vera Files just "blogs"? They're serious news organizations founded by veteran award-winning journalists.[114][115] -Object404 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Echoing Object404, Jtbobwaysf, misrepresents the chronology of discussions about Rappler in the RSN. "second RSN and third RSN" as if those were the latest belies the fact that those earlier discussions (in 2015 and 2016 respectively) were hardly discussions that resulted in any sort of consensus. The 2018 discussion that I linked to had more participants, and even a poll to assess consensus which has established that Rappler's news articles are definitely reliable sources. —seav (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) now suggesting I need to be a Filipino to understand what an RS is, and foreigners need not apply. Which of the five pillars is this part of? And buzzfeed, WP:OSE... Rappler, buzzfeed, Verafiles, etc are all WP:USERGENERATED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything; you're the one suggesting that what we know to be reliable sources in the Philippines are, by your singular judgement as the "objective" foreigner, not reliable because you say they aren't, even when the consensus clearly suggests they are. Both Rappler and Vera Files were established by esteemed Filipino journalists, of whom you're claiming that the likes of Chay Hofileña, Glenda Gloria and Maria Ressa are mere "bloggers" despite having long, established track records as journalists. A blog can just spew out whatever it wants; both Rappler and Vera Files, on the other hand, have codes of ethics which they have to abide by. Unless you can prove to me otherwise (and likewise to the other people here), I'm not convinced one bit that the two sources are not reliable simply because you say they're user-generated, when it's pretty clear that they aren't. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You (Jtbobwaysf) really need better reading comprehension. I definitely agree that BuzzFeed is not to be used for citations, but BuzzFeed News, which Sky Harbor has already mentioned and is a completely separate (but associated) website from BuzzFeed, is definitely a reliable news source: it has won multiple journalism awards and has even been nominated for Pulitzer Prizes: [116][117]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128]) that these two news organizations are generally reliable. You continually assert the opposite without really providing any evidence of your opinion. —seav (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(Note: Wanted to say a few things, but then realized they were part of my original post and I did't want to repeat them, so I just went back and added boldface to my key points there. Just FYI to everyone that I changed the layout of that bit, for greater emphasis. - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC))

@Jtbobwaysf: has now also begun edit warring on the Imelda Marcos article, constantly removing valid external links without good reason. Claiming 1) External links are not allowed on Wikipedia ("no external links") and 2) Accusations of tendentious editing just because an archive.org link was used (the valid reason for which is the site is now down). -Object404 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into this mess, but has User:Jtbobwaysf explained why they removed sourced content using the edit summary "failed verification" [129] when they apparently hadn't actually checked out all or possibly any sources [130] the content was tagged with? This apparently includes one from 2018 which had a page number [131]. This is a serious problem IMO the kind of thing which may warrant an indefinite block if it continues. It's little better than claiming a source says something when it doesn't. In both cases you are misrepresenting what's in the source, and since a lot of the time we WP:AGF about what editors say are in sources, it can cause major problems. Especially in a case like this where according to Jtbobwaysf, the sources are rare, meaning many people won't have access to them. As I've remarked elsewhere, if Jtbobwaysf was concerned that the sources were unreliable or unsuitable for a BLP, represented a minority viewpoint or there was some other problem, they could have raised this issue without misleading people into thinking the source didn't support the cited claim. I mean heck, if Jtbobwaysf had reasons to doubt the source supported the claim, or felt the lack of page numbers made it very difficult to verify, I might support removal until this was clarified. But again this required a edit summary which accurately reflected why the changes were being made, and probably a talk page comment explaining the situation. Of course we all make mistakes, but it's concerning that AFAICT, Jtbobwaysf has persistently ignored any requests for clarification [132], including on this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf is claiming that the citation source books that he removed are rare and out of print as an excuse to delete them as sources when this is false as they have had recent printings: Some Are Smarter Than Others by Ricardo Manapat reprinted in 2020, available in print and as an e-book and Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption by Barney Warf (2018), also available in print and as an e-book. Even if the books were rare and out of print, his deletions are violative of WP:Verifiability#Accessibility: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." What is completely wrong here is that he claims they failed verification when he did not verify them, and was very dishonest with his reason. When asked point blank if he had read the sources before claiming that they failed verification, he evaded the question multiple times and was ultimately caught that indeed he did not when he asked Chieharumachi to e-mail him scans in this talk page thread. This is now far from Good Faith editing, and is worse than vandalizing the article as he has been deleting content under the pretense of Wikipedia rule violations. Neither is he excused from possible inexperience in Wikipedia as he has been throwing around WP rules in their acronym form that are supposedly violated left and right when they have not. Also, he did it multiple times: [133][134][135]. Furthermore he deleted more valid citations afterwards (Rappler) that WP consensus has determined to be RS, claiming that consensus said it was not RS when the discussion he himself linked determined that it was RS. This is an ongoing pattern that he has been repeating and he has been unrepentant. Despite all of these issues raised, he has now recently continued deleting content without valid reason in his latest edits (see above). It would be good if administrators can look into his behavior and take appropriate action. -Object404 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Why were you pinged by Object404 to this discussion? Which source did I delete that had a page number? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I assume because I commented at BLPN. In any case, I don't think the ping worked since I never saw it and it doesn't show up in my notifications history (I rarely remove them). I'm here because I saw the comment at BLPN about there being a discussion here, I was waiting for my concerns to be addressed somewhere but they haven't been so decided to finally join this discussion. I see you are still refusing to address the point of concern. I already linked to the diff above [136] where you deleted content as failed verification. It seems clear from your persistent refusal to say anything about it that you hadn't actually checked out any of the sources. I admit I misread this request [137], the page scans were about PCGG@30 (which didn't have page numbers) rather than Warf (which had page numbers). However I can only assume from your latest comment you hadn't checked out Warf either as you wouldn't need to ask which source if you had checked it out and found it wasn't there. And frankly the page number thing is only a minor point. While in some ways it's worse that you didn't even check the source which had a page number, the bigger issue is that if you did have some other reason why you deleted the content such as difficulty finding where it was in the sources which lacked a page number, this is what you should have said in your edit summary. And perhaps followed up with a talk page post. Deleting something as failed verification when you haven't checked out the sources is not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I apologize, I do now see the page number at the very end of this citation you have listed (#19) above, haven't seen that any of the times I have looked in the past. Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted. As you have pointed out I made repeated requests for the other Philippines Politics editors (Ill call that PP for ease of use) to supply the sources scans, page numbers, etc and they don't. This means nobody has read it, and the justification to keep it is that it is already there. Is there another logical justification if nobody can verify it? I believe WP:ONUS is on the editor that wants to include content, not the editor that wants to delete it for failing verification. I infrequently edit this article, every six months or so, and mostly my edits relate to removing chaff, dribble, and overt POV content. Normally these edits result in wails of dissatisfaction from the daily POV editors. If you have a look at the whole of my edits and what is going on in general on the article, you will see my edits are neutral and helpful to obtain WP:NPOV. I thought that other uninvolved editors (besides the PP WP:CIRCUS) might take this to note, but until now most of the focus on this talk page is unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part. To be clear, I do not have any connection to the article's subject, I am certainly not a paid editor, and there will be no basis to assert otherwise. But the allegations are fine, and hopefully more views of this discussion in the ANI space will make it the article and WP better, but I admit this this ANI has only seemed to involve two uninvolved editors (you and JzG). Guy's comment was just asking me if I knew the articles subject, which I took to be a justification for vilification. Yes, Imelda is distasteful, but 5 pillars doesnt take that into account. I think we all agree that a BLP must be neutral and the PP editors use of unverifiable rare books, overuse of biographies to pursue WP:TOOLONG, blog sources (rappler and the like), and other nonsense to promote the subject as important (apply a huge net worth to the article's subject) and then vilify her is incorrect from a 5 pillars perspective. You will note one of the editors said I was a "foreigner" and my opinion on the issue was not valid. This is the definition of POV edits and pure CIRCUS. I was asking how you came to this article, since there was also an effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS to get other PP editors to join the discussion. We all agree the article's subject is notable just from her infamous shoe collection, so we do not need to add UNDUE content. I would suggest that PP be added DS, just like AP2. It would then be easier to challenge and remove all the crazy content is at this article, and I guess is also on other PP articles (although I admit I haven't yet ventured to look). You might note that it was also a similar discussion relating to my edits that resulted in DS WP:GS/Crypto, dissention between editors is not always what it appears at first glance. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Just leaving notice that I have reverted the removal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government external link here, pending further discussion, since I can find no prohibition for the content, which is a "site that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail." I am bringing this up here because an editor claims that the neutrality of the government site is in dispute. So it might be good to discuss, which is why I have brought this up on the talk page, and will also bring this up at the ongoing BLPN. Thanks.- Chieharumachi (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor has numerous times deleted online sources which assert that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion," and the only reason we're talking about these "rare" references is that they were the last ones he deleted. The editor has also repeatedly refused to acknowledge the fact that the sentence as asserted on the lead makes no reference to current or recent net worth, but to the amount at its greatest estimated extent, in 1986. It is asserted by Warf, as indicated. It is the main premise of the entire Manapat book. The accusations of being blogs against Rappler and Verafiles are slanderous to those organizations, and the editor's refusal to acknowledge consensus asserting this is... I do not have polite words to describe it. Further, said fact is asserted by other articles which have in the past been removed from the lead. Fischer, 2020; and Davies 2016 come to mind. There is an entire section down in the article full of sources asserted the fact that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion." - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf has again and again repeated assertions and allegations that have been rebutted many times yet he has never responded or acknowledged them. And he keeps on putting words in various editors mouths. Here are some points of his that I would like to respond to:

• "blog sources (rappler and the like)": yet again: Rappler is an established news website not a blog (yes, it has a blog section, but editors are careful not to cite those), and Rappler has already been established as a reliable source in WP:RS/N. If Jtbobwaysf really believes that Rappler isn't a valid and reliable source for citations in Wikipedia articles, then he is free to start (another) thread on WP:RS/N with new points or evidence that have not been brought up in past RS/N discussions. Merely repeating that "Rappler is a blog" without any sort of evidence is bad form.
• "unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part": links, diffs, and detailed explanations posted here, on BLP/N, and the article talk page are "unsubstantiated"? Jtbobwaysf probably need to review what "unsubstantiated" means. Tip: Jtbobwaysf might be thinking of "unproven" which is a word with a totally different meaning.
• "one of the editors said I was a 'foreigner' and my opinion on the issue was not valid": This is a mischaracterization of Sky Harbor's mention of the word "foreigner". See the actual message ([138]) which never stated or implied that Jtbobwaysf's opinion is invalid, but rather that Sky Harbor thinks that Jtbobwaysf is being patronizing.
• "effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS": now this is an unsubstantiated allegation. Just because I agree with other editors that Jtbobwaysf's behavior is disruptive doesn't mean that canvassing has occurred. Personally, I've been monitoring several of the Marcos-related articles since 2016 because of contemporary events in the Philippines. For instance, Marcos's son ran for vice-president in mid-2016 and Ferdinand Marcos was given a controversial hero's burial in late 2016 and there has been a lot of one-sided Wikipedia editing that happened in the wake of those events that ultimately resulted in the one-sided editor getting topic banned.
• "do not need to add UNDUE content": As I have said elsewhere, Ferdinand and Imelda's excesses have been extensively documented in various forms of literature going back several decades and these are really the major talking points that can be readily found about the Marcos couple. I fail to see how mentioning some information that Jtbobwaysf keeps on deleting is a violation of UNDUE because these pieces of information are definitely not minority viewpoints.

—seav (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted." -> By "tools I have at my displosal", Jtbobwaysf means lazy Googling. Warf is a searchable Google book, and he did not bother checking in it before deleting it as a citation. And by extending this line of logic, he deleted swathes of citations of content just because they were offline sources, claiming "failed verification" when he in fact, did not check the sources, and this is completely unacceptable behavior. Jtbobwaysf is also gaslighting here claiming insertions of WP:UNDUE when the content in question are widely-held views well-documented by RS, not minority ones. -Object404 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This article subject is not Ferdinand Marcos. Please send me the scans of the offline sources that you are implying you have access to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos are inextricably linked and share the Guinness World Record for the Greatest Robbery of a Government. You cannot separate the 2 in terms of theft and wealth. As for sources, you have once again proved that you did not read the sources before claiming they failed verification, and is patently dishonest and unacceptable Wikipedian behavior on your part. x -Object404 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it should also be pointed out that the handful of sources around which this discussion currently revolves are not the only references that the editor has deleted. Numerous other sources cite the "Billions," whether referring to them as "stolen", "plundered", illegally acquired (that's based on a ruling by the Swiss Federal Court), were "ill-gotten" (that's at least one Philippine government agency). Several of these specifically cite the USD 5 to 10 Billion amount. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I decided to do some digging up of various references the editor has so far removed from the Imelda Marcos page (although other editors have since returned some of them). I'm not done yet, but from about March to July 2020 removed references these references either on the ill-gotten wealth or on related court cases:

• From The Guardian: Davies, Nick (7 May 2016). "The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 May 2018.

• From The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Primary source supported by other references):Supreme Court of the Philippines. "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E. MARCOS (REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE/HEIRS: IMELDA R. MARCOS, MARIA IMELDA [IMEE] MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. AND IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA) AND IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, respondents". Supreme Court of the Philippines. Retrieved 15 November 2018.

• From the Philippine Star: Marcelo, Elizabeth (11 September 2017). "Cases vs Marcoses, cronies remain pending at Sandigan since late '80s". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 9 November 2018.

• From the New York Times archives: Mydans, Seth (November 4, 1991). "Imelda Marcos Returns to Philippines". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 12, 2009. Retrieved August 16, 2018.

• From the Sydney Morning Herald: Dent, Sydney (November 23, 2012). "A dynasty on steroids". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved September 1, 2018.

• From Gerard Lico’s 2003 Ateneo University Press published book: Gerard., Lico (2003). Edifice complex: power, myth, and Marcos state architecture. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 978-9715504355. OCLC 53371189.

I haven't had time to complete a review, though. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

And also, quite aside from the sources, there's the matter of bullying behaviour, refusal to recognise consensus, and deletion of citations for no actual reason (just his opinion that they are "dribble")... all of which were raised in the first post of this thread, and further asserted by other editors. I believe it's clear that the editor wants the article either to not to contain or not highlight the negative history of the subject, which would be reasonable except that the subject is palpably notable because of that negative history. One's fear is that the editor will continue deleting details of this ill-gotten wealth, as he has had a long history of doing. I argue that this is would be as much whitewashing as not mentioning the holocaust in the lead of the Adolf Hitler article. Short of that, his refusal to recognize consensus and denigrating of news sources (and courts!) that disagree with his views have held the talk page hostage, making consensus in the article difficult to achieve, and editing intentionally vexatious for anyone who disagrees with him. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Court documents, including verdicts and rulings, aren't reliable sources, actually. EEng 14:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue on this article. Some of these editors are asserting primary sources, blogs, and decades old sources should overrule current sources that says the Marcos fortune is maybe only in the millions (or maybe billions, or maybe $168B as one of the sources listed). If the fortune is disputed, or there is no clear consensus, then it should be reflected as such in the article.

Note also, an editor above trying to walk back the "foreigner" comment which was "I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use". Essentially these editors assert 'I am a foreigner and thus have no right to edit this article.' This is wrong. @JzG: do you support this? You started this ANI proposal to ban me from the article. Is this your intent? I might have crossed some invisible line (I certainly was nowhere near 3RR), but you should be able to spot a circus when you see one. While I edit this article form time to time, this article is not of any particular interest to me, nor is Philippines politics as whole. Besides Manny Pacquio (the boxer) or Duterte (the Trump clone), I would not even recognize a politician from the Philippines if I ran into them. I edit this article simply as it is a poor quality BLP and I dont think it is right under 5 pillars to use wikipedia to inflate the importance (pump up a dubious net worth) and then vilify the article subject. What this article really needs is DS, not some focus on an editor. That's my two cents. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be great if you could list the diffs of the content you assert that I removed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: another falsehood from you. I never said that you did that. I said you should have done that. When I looked at the discussion before my earlier responses, what I said is you you never actually made any attempt to ask for help verifying the info before deletion. Instead you just went ahead and deleted it while claiming something had failed verification when it's clear you did not have access to any of the 3 sources, and made no genuine attempts to obtain access, so had no idea if it was verified by any of the 3 sources. Only when someone queried you about your deletion did you begin to ask, while still ignoring the question over whether you'd actually checked the sources. Missing a page number is an excusable error. What is not excusable is lying and claiming something failed verification when you don't have access to any 3 of the sources (regardless of whether they had page numbers). As I did actually say, even if you had made a genuine attempt to obtain access and failed, and were unsure enough about the info that you felt it warranted deletion until it could be confirmed, the correct course of action was to accurately explain why you were deleting (e.g. 'awaiting verification' with an explanation in the talk) rather than to lie and say it "failed verification". Similarly if you didn't have access but felt there was no point because you couldn't find the info in a long book and so the info should be removed until someone provides page numbers, the correct course would be to accurately explain (e.g. 'removing as the lack of page numbers make this very difficult to verify' with a follow up on the talk page). Likewise if you did obtain all 3 books, and couldn't work out where the info was because there was no page numbers and didn't find it anywhere obvious, again the correct response was to explain why you were removing the info (e.g. 'awaiting verification' or 'no page numbers, couldn't find this in the book' again likely with a followup on the talk page) rather than to lie and say it failed verification when the actual case is it was impossible to verify since you have no idea where the info was in the book. I'd be willing to accept failed verification if you'd skimmed through the books and couldn't find it although frankly I'm not sure why we need to be having this debate. Instead you could just use a better edit summary, or at least explain on the talk page, what the actual situation was, which let me repeat, you never did. Indeed you evaded questions over what you did. You've been given multiple chances to acknowledge you made a mistake not because you missed a page number, but because you falsely claimed something failed verification. But instead of doing that are now claiming I said something I didn't. Unless you're willing to undertake to stop making highly misleading claims in edit summaries, I won't engage with you any more. Frankly, if there weren't already 2 proposals, I'd consider making a community ban proposal myself. People who tell lies about what they did should not be on Wikipedia, given the harm they cause. I should be able to trust that when an experienced editor says "failed verification" they mean "I checked the sources, and don't see where it says what we claimed" and not "yuck this article uses books, I'm going to delete this content because I can't be bothered visiting a library or asking someone for help obtaining access". Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: AGF please. I have previously stated that I used online tools (with an s) to check and I couldn't find anything. You seek to keep challenging this point, including leaving a long post on my talk page as well on the same subject. I have already also admitted I missed the book in google books. Am I required to state the name of the tools I use? More importantly, does anyone in this ANI have any evidence from RS that the article subject IS a billionare? Do you? There has been plenty of this discussed on the article's talk page, and I recall I even challenged it on the talk page a week or more prior to me starting to remove it. Why is it such a big deal if they lady is a billionaire or not, my understanding of wikipedia is we dont care, and we just follow the sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

AGF? Assumptions of good faith flew out the window when you flat-out lied and claimed that the content "failed verification" when you did not read the citation sources. As an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor, this is unforgivable on your part. What is a big deal here is not Imelda's being a billionaire or not, but your patently dishonest and disruptive behavior which is detrimental to the Wikipedia project. What's more, in your latest comments, you seem unrepentant and continue to evade the issue. -Object404 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits. I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me, or to other uninvolved editors, to demonstrate that you (or anyone else here) has actually seen the disputed content. Have you got access to this? Or are you still pushing that the sources support the content, but you dont have access to it. The sources have been referred to as rare, etc. Do you have it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits" Agree. They fly out the window because you brazenly lied to the Wikipedia community. I'm now inclined towards Nil Einne's stance that you be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as you have not changed your stance. -Object404 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me" -> Note that Jtbobwaysf only started asking about scans to be sent to him after he'd been caught and called out for deleting content and citations for which he claimed "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations. -Object404 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Jtbobwaysf)

Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed.

• Support. I have seen enough. At best this is WP:RGW, and in reality it looks a lot more like WP:TE. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support. A lot of documents have already been cited yet the editor still denies them and goes against the consensus. This is obviously a case of WP:DE and WP:TE. Suitable sanctions must be meted to the erring editor. HiwilmsTalk 01:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The "consensus" on this ANI, and besides you and guy, is the all of the editors involved in the circus on an article (that I edited too much and got involved in rgw in the face of strongly opinioned political editors). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support -- as per proposed sanctions by User:JzG], and as per concerns I and others have raised above. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support. Propose too that Jtbobwaysf be topic-banned indefinitely from related articles such as Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, Ferdinand Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Imee Marcos, People Power Revolution, Ninoy Aquino, Martial law in the Philippines and the like. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Have i even edited these articles recently? (or ever). Or are you just listing the articles in your interest group? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding Operation Big Bird to this list. -Object404 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Was the edit on that article controversial? I did the same as I have done on the Marco's article, remove gross violations of WP:TOOMUCH. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. And with emphasis on "broadly construed". —seav (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support depending on how the term "broadly construed" is defined. Given Imelda's entanglements, I imagine a broadly-defined topic ban covering Imelda and topics secondary to her would be more than sufficient, including topics suggested by Object404 in his comments. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I think this overlaps strongly with her husband, Ferdinand Marcos. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It definitely overlaps with FEM. There's no doubt abut it. It's exactly why the book The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos exists. HiwilmsTalk 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Just because there is a book written we dont change wikipedia rules. There are other articles on the Marcos family (eg Unexplained wealth of the Marcos family) , and this ANI started over a dispute to Imelda's net worth, not her husbands net worth. I dont recall I have ever edited the husband's article and I tend to be more interested in BLPs than deceased people. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support the editor has provided no coherent explanation for why they lied and said something had failed verification, when they had actually not read any of the 3 source. Missing a page number is one thing, lying and say something "failed verification" when you did not have access to any of the sources is another thing completely. This frankly isn't someone who should be editing Wikipedia point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, do you have any evidence I lied? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You said content failed verification when you did not even read the citation sources. . -Object404 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Jtbobwaysf)

Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from subjects relating to Philippine Politics.

• Support. I hate to see what kind of headache Jtbobwaysf causes with the kind of disruptive and dishonest editing he has been doing at the Imelda Marcos article, applied to other articles relating to Philippine politics. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Object404, I think we'd fix that if it happened, by extending the ban. See also WP:ROPE. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, but more measured - I think maybe it will do to have a topic ban on the Imelda Marcos article, broadly construed (by which I understand "Marcos" and "History of the Philippines 1965-1986" - related articles) and then some sort of limitation on his reverting privileges on Philippine poltics related articles (say, 1RR instead of 3RR)? - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Support. -- I reviewed the conversation to better understand the differences between categories, and it looks to me that the concern is more with the risk posed by the editor's behavior doing damage to contemporary Philippine politics articles. (My primary interest is history, not contemporary politics, so I did not immediately notice this.) Changing vote to a more straightforward "support" for now, applying to Philippine politics articles broadly. But if there is further discussion on this section, I may be swayed towards a more measured application of the ban again. - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I am not sure if i have even edited a another article related to the Philippines more than once or twice. Nothing I can remember off hand recently. Or this some type of Preemptive arrest? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Too broad compared to the articles said user has actually edited recently. The only other Philippines-related article edited by this user in the last 500 edits is Operation Big Bird. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Adding Operation Big Bird to the list in the preceding section. -Object404 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support As I said above, this editor should not be on Wikipedia point blank. The more we restrict the, the better. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Philippines politics covers it nicely, and prevents arguments about individuals being in or out of the topic area. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment it is strange that editors such as Mjroots suggest that I be given a topic ban, when I dont edit any articles relating to the topic other the one article subject of this content dispute (other than a little cleanup a few months ago of one related article, and none of that was controversial). I rarely edit politics articles in general (regardless Philippines or otherwise), with the exception of a few BLPs that are related (Julian Assange, etc)). I often edit biographies of undesirable subjects that tend to be smeared (Harvey Weinstein, OJ Simpson, Leland Stanford, etc), and sometimes that crosses over into politics, as there are highly polarized editors in those realms (as you can see in this ANI). JzG showed up early on and asked 'If I knew who Imelda was?.' I guess implying that since she is a 'bad' person and has a large shoe collection that we should somehow invalidate the 5 pillars and allow her article to be smeared with unverifiable content? Practically speaking, I cant see how a topic ban would be any different from a single article ban, as this is basically the only Philippines Politics (PP) article that I edit. But is that the correct approach? Nil Einne suggested I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified ;-) is that more appropriate? I have repeatedly asked all the involved PP editors (who all voted in this ANI as far as I can see) if any of them actually have the sources that I deleted to substantiate the sourcing (other than 'this is a rare out of print book, etc' excuse) and none of them can provide it (other than one error which I admitted above). So this ANI is to suggest giving me some sort of ban, ranging from article level, to topic level, to full wikipedia ban (as Nil Einne suggested) because I deleted sources that nobody has provided a copy of until now. To my understanding the majority of the other sources listed above all were used to anchor content that wasn't supported in the source. Pretty vanilla deletes. Sad the Wikipedia process has degraded to this level where people want to weigh in on a ban, without actually looking at the supposedly offending diffs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• FYI the intent is to prevent further disruption by stopping you from expanding into other areas of Philippines politics. This is something that can also be done by means of an indefinite block. I can apply that if you wish, you've only got to say so. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I retain the position that more than the case of the three or so articles which have become the focus of discussion so far, subject's dismissive behavior towards other editors and towards sources which disagree with his view, and his insistence on his own interpretation of other editors's supposed intentions (his refusal to acknowledge the difference between supposed net worth vis a vis ill-gotten wealth, for example) - thus creating an environment where it is impossible to have discourse under WP:Assume Good Faith - are the broader and more-essential arguments in favor of Proposals 1 and 2. These violate WP:5P5, one of the five pillars, quite blatantly. I do not see that this broader behavior has been sufficiently addressed, thus my continued support for Proposal 2 and 1. - Chieharumachi (talk)

First, I apologize for taking the wrong approach. I have opened RFC Talk:Imelda_Marcos#RFC_billionaire to begin to address a few issues in the lede that appear conflated: One if the subject is a billionaire now (aka if she has wealth in the billions) which was the lede around the time of this ANI's opening, two if she and her deceased husband were billionaires (their 'personal net worth') in 1986 when they fled (the lede currently reflects this), and three if the wealth is ill-gotten (aka stolen). Each of these are separate claims and to keep the RFC simple, I only included the first of these claims in the linked RFC. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (DS)

I propose this issue above be dealt with using DS for all Philippines politics topics. It is pretty obvious that it is necessary from reading above. Same proposal as Chieharumachi posted above (before striking the cmt). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is unnecessary. -Object404 (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 4 - (Jtbobwaysf) - Indefinite Block

It is clear now that Jtbobwaysf is unapologetic in his stance and continues to lie, claiming in essence with his latest comment to @Mjroots: that books that are not free online as well as offline sources are unverifiable. For a very experienced editor like Jtbobwaysf to claim these things is ridiculous and goes against Wikipedia rules. It is likely then that Jtbobwaysf is probably going to commit the same egregious behavior of deleting reliably sourced content as well as citations in the future with his own justification that he could not find free online copies of citation sources, and claim "failed verification". WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" -> judging from Jtbobwaysf's latest comments, it sounds like he is willing to violate this tenet in a heartbeat again. Jtbobwaysf claims "I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified". False, the said content CAN be verified. Warf is online and searchable as a Google Book, Manapat is available in print and as an e-book, Jtbobwaysf was just not willing to pay for it. -Object404 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support As per @Nil Einne:, I support an indefinite block on Jtbobwaysf. -Object404 (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Firstly, let me point out that I am mainly uninvolved in the article. My only edits there are correcting her position (Manila -> Metro Manila) and removing an excess period. I agree with what Object404 has said. Typically, disruptive editors are given blocks. Also, I don't think I could still assume that the edits were made in good faith based on everything on this thread and on the article's talk page. Having said that, I am at a tipping point. I'm thinking of withdrawing my support for Proposal 1 and support a heavier sanction. I'd like to see how this will go and how other editors would comment. To the other editors, a lot of you are probably irritated already with how things are going here. The user is unapologetic. However, I would like to remind everyone to exercise caution with the proposals. Please support the proposal that you think is the most appropriate with regard to his behavior/actions. Thanks. HiwilmsTalk 18:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There's some progress now. The user has acknowledged the error. Even before that, I still think that an indefinite ban is an overkill (consistent with my previous comment). In the meantime, I'm staying with proposal 1. HiwilmsTalk 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment In this dispute I made the mistake of TE and RGW rather than running a RFC (or other DR process). In retrospect that would have been more logical in this type of highly politicized article. I apologize for that and accept whatever punishment is meted out even if it means the end of me editing. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - at last we seem to be getting somewhere. Jtbobwaysf has at last acknowledged they were in the wrong. If there is a chance that they will participate constructively in a DR process, then let's allow them to take that chance. Mjroots (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think this is too much. HiwilmsTalk 18:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The articles Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos are unbalanced, and I believe Jtbobwaysf was trying to remove the clutter of undue weight on Imelda's article.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I periodically try to cleanup this article (havent made any attempt at the husband's as he is not a BLP and less priority I figured), and made the mistake of TE rather than doing an RFC. I have started Talk:Imelda_Marcos#RFC_billionaire on the subject that related me my veering off course in my approach that ultimately resulted in this ANI. Feel free to comment. Apologies and thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Resuming

Thread retrieved from archive after a lull

Erm... the Imelda Marcos discussion about the Imelda Marcos page got automatically archived (at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Proposal_1_(Jtbobwaysf)) while people were voting on proposoals. Apparently there was a 72 hour lull. I think it was unclear when exactly a consensus would/could be achieved. May I ask whether there are next steps for this, or whether we have to start all over again? The potential for whitewashing seems too significant to just be let go of. - Chieharumachi (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC) @JzG: -Object404 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Chieharumachi, just revert the archive. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC) @JzG:, Hi. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean/how to do that in this case. Do I just go to history and click undo? - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC) @Chieharumachi: Just a heads up, I've asked the same thing here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Lengthy_ANI_discussion_archived_without_a_resolution. HiwilmsTalk 14:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think someone needs to ping back all the participants, but I just haven't got the energy so I'll leave that to some other kind soul. EEng 19:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Pinging: Chieharumachi, Object404, Seav, Sky Harbor, Nil Einne, JzG, LaundryPizza03, Mjroots, EEng, and Jtbobwaysf. HiwilmsTalk 05:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sound of crickets chirping. EEng 04:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Bumping this to prevent automatic archiving. Could this be closed already? HiwilmsTalk 09:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Sports seasons and bulk deletions / nuisance nominations

Hi, this may be an unusual case, but I wasn't sure what else to do.

Several deletions are currently being disputed by users, seemingly correctly, about soccer team season articles (of which Wikipedia has many; thousands, I presume).

At least a dozen season articles were recently deleted, including for some national top-level clubs, which would have a good chance of passing notability guidelines.

The "debates" started by User:Spiderone have been poor ones, or nonexistent. Discussions all involve variations on WP:GNG, which requires that a topic can be referenced by sufficient independent sources – but, of course, lack of citations is not the same as lack of notability. Page Tagging would clearly be a less contentious method. The 7-day topic deletion process is something that well-informed users can and do miss – and when the deletion is mistaken or biased, the work done on the article disappears for no reason.

Four current examples, including some vehement arguments:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996–97 FK Vardar season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Békéscsaba 1912 Előre season
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

These all involve WP:GNG and/or WP:NSEASONS, a slightly odd (and brief) U.S.-centric guideline on sports seasons – it was never designed to be an exclusionary device to delete as many articles as possible. The user in question also seems to say that the latter guideline has an anti-amateur stance, which it doesn't have; it simply says professional leagues should be included in Wikipedia. This is obvious.

These recent deletions happened with little or no discussion, always the same minimal arguments ("GNG/NSEASONS"), and sometimes as few as three votes.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 FC Banants season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bohemian F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 FC Ajka season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Balmazújvárosi FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Szolnoki MÁV FC season

Essentially, the recent nominations have been a waste of everyone's time, and I'm afraid Wikipedia is the poorer for it. - Demokra (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

In all examples, excluding the Melbourne Victory and Doncaster Belles ones, no evidence of WP:GNG being met were actually brought forward by any of the keep voters. If there is decent potential for reliable secondary sources, then alternatives to deletion can be considered, including moving the article to draft space until such a time when it is in a decent enough state to be returned to the mainspace. A lot of the keep votes seem to centre on ridiculous accusations of 'sexism' and 'bias' rather than actually addressing the notability of the articles in question. Also, I tend to see a lot of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments over and over again. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and notable. At no point, has the project ever been about posting excessive listings of statistics and match results for as many teams as possible. Spiderone 12:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 I brought forward WP:3SOURCES to support WP:GNG. Unfortunately certain editors have studiously ignored them. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

And I changed my vote as a result as you can see. Reliably sourced and SIGCOV so clearly the content was worth keeping, either as being merged to the main club article or being kept in its own right. I maintained my delete vote for the other two seasons only but, of course, that's not what this ANI is about is it? Spiderone 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Another issue is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season where people are treating the AfD as a 'vote' rather than a discussion. Three keep votes registered but no actual evidence to GNG being provided; only very vague assertions that it 'must' be notable. Also, as @Jay eyem: points out, some very bad faith comments by @Bring back Daz Sampson: against me and User:Fenix down which surely should be examined too. And canvassing and more bad faith against Fenix down Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 Spiderone 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• edit conflict There are a large number of sports club season articles on Wikipedia, many of which on their face violate WP:NOTSTATS because they're poorly written, but would pass WP:GNG if anyone would be bothered to update them. Unfortunately the football community has decided that WP:NSEASONS is an exclusionary standard and will delete these sorts of articles regardless of whether WP:GNG is met if the team isn't in the "correct league," the clearly stupidest of which IMO was the Leyton Orient season which clearly passed GNG for the year they played in the Conference, just because the Conference didn't pass the WP:NSEASONS test, meaning that we won't have a complete list of season articles for that particular club. (It's clearly stupid since I can go down to the newsagents and pick up several publications which cover that league in depth.) That being said, I'm not sure this belongs at ANI - I think this conduct is a bit disruptive, and I would politely ask Spiderone stop nominating these sorts of articles for deletion for a little while, but I'm not sure there's anything here that's sanctionable. This would be a better topic for an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 12:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Hjk1106 makes some good suggestions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season as to how we can move forward with regard to women's football league articles. With ones like the Hungarian second division and other non-Anglophone leagues, I would strongly suggest that people utilise the draft space and Articles for Creation options really. I see no value in keeping articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season in the main space. I also agree that there are many low quality season articles that clearly don't show GNG but get a 'free pass' because of NSEASONS. This Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 Veria F.C. season is the only example I can find of one that actually got deleted but it was a very small discussion. Spiderone 13:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

These are all content issues. In other sports, articles which clearly fail WP:NOTSTATS on their face are still kept if they would pass WP:GNG. In Kazincbarcikai SC's case, that's a current season that is receiving [139] ongoing coverage (as an example, I haven't translated that article) so I'm less concerned about that, but these are all content problems (especially for non-English speaking countries) and not ANI issues. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with both @Demokra: and @SportingFlyer: I covered much the same ground at the DRV. I didn't raise an ANI myself because there is still time for Spiderone - he's only had sustained pushback from multiple editors over the past two weeks or so. Perhaps he hasn't realised the extent of the disruption? If he slows down it might help to show the community whether the issues outlined above are actually arising out of his lack of understanding or simple carelessness from bulk editing. Having said that, if he continues down the road of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND I suspect he will end up with a short enforced 'holiday' from making any further deletion nominations. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If I am nominating too many articles for deletion, please can someone clarify what an acceptable number is? A WP:BEFORE search is always conducted and major contributors are always notified upon placing of a PROD or AfD. Please can someone quote the exact rule that I am breaking from Wikipedia's policy? People might dislike and take offence to some of the discussions I have started but that's all I have done. Start and contribute to discussions on an open forum. I haven't been abusive. I haven't flamed anyone. I haven't removed any posts from others. I've admitted to mistakes and changed my vote when appropriate evidence has been brought to me. If I am close to a ban then I at least need to be given clear guidance on how to avoid a ban, surely? Spiderone 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. Can you outline please exactly what steps you take on these alleged WP:BEFORE undertakings? Do you for example have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive, or its foreign equivalents? Are you seriously claiming to have carried out this rigorous process with each of the hundreds (thousands?) of articles you've recently nominated/proposed for deletion? Because the fact that you would nominate articles for deletion and then frequently find yourself voting keep, merge etc. in the discussion rather suggests you haven't done WP:BEFORE. Instead it suggests (to me) that you are relying on snap judgements - arising out of a dogmatic, black-white interpretation of some deeply flawed project-specific notability essays. Other editors have taken the time to patiently explain their concerns and you responded with a flippant "take it to DRV then". What are people supposed to think? I don't think anyone wants any bans we are just asking you to slow down and excercise a bit more discretion, to "dial it down a notch" in layman's terms. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually I've read a bit further down and essentially you've already agreed to do that, which is to your great credit. I apologise again if you felt I overstepped the mark with the use of words like 'crusade'. From my perspective I watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Article alerts and there was a massive sudden uptick in deletions there, attributable mainly to you, which - not gonna lie - I found annoying. Hopefully we can all learn from this and work together fairly to ensure that notable articles are kept and non-notable ones flushed. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is completely absurd. These have all been regular deletion nominations, albeit sparse in their reasoning, with perfectly legitimate reasons for deletion. A WP:GNG failure IS a reason for deletion, no matter how many are nominated nor how frequently. Not only has a lack of citations satisfying WP:SIGCOV been demonstrated for many of these arguments, but no actual notability was shown. There is a process for appealing deletions, so the work is NOT gone forever. WP:FOOTY has maintained a list of leagues for which club seasons have presumed notability at WP:FPL for a long period of time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these nominations other than the sparse justifications, and this is a completely absurd thing to be bringing up at ANI. Jay eyem (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment, FPL has nothing to do with seasons, it is for players. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was for both players to meet NFOOTY and for team seasons to meet NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes NSEASONS is for seasons, so there is no need of mentioning FPL here. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I also tried to tell Jay eyem that WP:FPL has no bearing on NSEASONS. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Good news! SportingFlyer and Spiderone have been working towards a resolution, which I thank them for.

Quoting from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season:

We should probably get rid of WP:NSEASONS as it's been fundamentally unhelpful in allowing us to figure out which seasons are notable, i.e. pass WP:GNG, and which seasons don't. [...]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm in support of ditching NSEASONS and using GNG alone Spiderone 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if we don't have the power to change that guideline, there are probably other ways of interpreting it regarding pro/amateur. It involves some lateral thinking – I mentioned in my first post, the U.S.-centric nature of the wording doesn't transfer well to other countries – but, the college sports section could be a workable equivalent for top-level amateur or semi-professional teams in other countries, perhaps.
(from WP:NSEASONS)
For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage)
Cheers, Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't really make sense to me. Guidelines exist for a reason: they exist to help guide our thinking about policy, and in this case whether or not a subject is notable. To that end, NSEASONS is useful because it gives presumed notability for a range of seasons. Where there is a larger disconnect as I see it is between WP:FPL and WP:NSEASONS, whereas the former is an essay about what the project considers "fully-professional", the latter is a guideline that simply uses the word "top professional leagues". There is definitely some room for ambiguity there, so I don't see a major issue here. And there is a pretty extensive consensus on what sort of team seasons merit inclusion when it comes to amateur and semi-pro for soccer: for college seasons, team seasons have presumed notability when they make the NCAA tournament (for Division I at least); semi-pro teams have no presumed notability. Jay eyem (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have stated this before and I state it again, NFOOTY and NSEASONS are basically OP-ED pieces. They are ESSAYS and GUIDES but NOT POLICY. You can use then as a reference but NOT as a sole source reason to include or preclude an article from the encyclopedia. Take Spiderone's lead with regards to these articles and make a change in your own approach. If there is a legit notability surrounding these teams, leagues, athletes and seasons it should be our position to include them where we can. If they do not pass the primary notability policy then they should be out. The only place I leave room for doubt is in women's sports/topics and aboriginal/indigenous people/topics prior to 1970 and with just cause but that's subject of another debate and discussion we can have. If you are a nominator or !voter in an AfD and you do a search and find that the subject meets notability, whether that is included in the article or not, yet choose to move forward with a deletion then your discussion and !vote is disingenuous, without speculation as to why. The same can be said going the other way so I am not picking on those with deletionist tendencies but also inclusionist as well. There are editors who will add to an article, if given the chance, to bolster notability within the encyclopedia article. The key is that they are not notable because they have an article or it even proves notability in the article. They have to be notable without an article and regardless of what information is in the article. Again, articles can be improved. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Bad news!

Oh wait, there are more.

Note the distinct lack of rigour in the deletion process, and the near-identical patterns of posts by a few interested users.

These do not include deleted articles about other football subjects, or ones from before Sep 12.

This is from the PAST MONTH:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004–05 Carlisle United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 Darlington F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Sligo Rovers F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Derry City F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Bray Wanderers F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Shamrock Rovers F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Hereford United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Stockport County F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Lokomotiv Tashkent season <- 2 votes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 FC Istiklol season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Galway United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Ajka season <- 2 votes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Drogheda United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Recreativo de Huelva season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Shelbourne F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Orapa United F.C. season
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_HNK_%C5%A0ibenik_season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 BFC Daugavpils season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Aberystwyth Town F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 FC Ajka season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Deportivo de La Coruña season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Budafoki MTE season* <- Nom. still open

... and there were more before that.

These were all articles that existed and were removed, often at the drop of a hat. Deletion is not a trivial matter. The reason, notability, has been widely disputed and misunderstood. Maybe it's fine to be pro-deletion in all cases, but this set of examples were not achieved by consensus, but by attrition.

Not commenting on a particular team (and not wanting to single out a user; I just think the deletionists should change their behaviour to be more constructive, as Spiderone has), but all of these articles need to be undeleted and reconsidered. Following from what Spiderone said today (below), I think a "GNG" tag would suffice, and then a discussion on an article Talk page. It needn't and shouldn't be a 7-day process, which heavily favours one outcome.

Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Demokra: the only one, in my opinion, that should be restored straight to the mainspace is the Doncaster Belles one. Ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Ajka season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season had almost zero content; even the squad lists, transfers and results were empty; they are potentially fine if someone works on them in the draft space although I have not yet spoken to anyone who has good sources that cover the Hungarian second division. I don't believe having articles with no sources or content/prose would be appropriate. I would have no prejudice against any of the above articles eventually returning to the mainspace but draft space might be the best place for some of them as, if users are happy to work on them, then they should be able to demonstrate GNG. 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, 2018–19 Melbourne Victory W-League season and 2015–16 FC Alashkert season are good examples of articles that were in an extremely poor state but have been improved to a state where it would be hard to argue anything other than a GNG pass. Because of WP:NOTSTATS, I think it's important for season articles to have some sourced prose and context. I've spoken to User:Klio654, who created a lot of the above articles, on their talk page. Spiderone 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, I kind of fail to see the issue here. Just on a glance, I recognize a lot of these teams as being from the Irish League, which is not considered "fully-professional" under WP:FPL. There has been virtually no dispute about these standards of notability in the past. There are always tons of deletion nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football and it's usually just players with one or two appearances total or who haven't even played their first game. It's not always super active and most discussions usually only involve a few users. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary, I fail to see how this constitutes nuisance deletion nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, FPL is irrelevant for NSEASONS. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

And again no, it isn't. FPL is an essay used to determine assumed notability. It's not as strict as policy obviously, but it is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability for both players making professional debut and for team season articles. I can't see all of these old articles obviously, but I imagine most of the coverage was pretty routine and that there was a lack of significant coverage. That's pretty common for these sorts of deletion nominations, there is nothing about them that makes them nuisance nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

And again no, FPL is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability only for players, here we talk about league seasons!!!

Feel free to take this up at WT:FOOTY and WT:FPL. And please sign your posts so I know who I am addressing. Jay eyem (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not have to take anything anywhere, everything is clear, you should read the policies and essays again, FPL has nothing to do with NSEASONS, it is for players, so stop refering to it! Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of an essay to pass off as policy is dangerous territory. If it passes WP:GNG, which is policy, then all the essays in the world mean nothing. The guidelines are for reference only, not to use as the sole-source of a decision or argument. The essays determine nothing, in fact, they themselves are riddled with phrases like "used as an aid" and "it is strongly recommended". Even the lists at WP:FPL specifically says it is incomplete. How can you use an incomplete list to justify the inclusion or exclusion of a league, team or season? That's why an element of common sense is required rather than a strict observance of policy and/or opinion.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This really is just restating my points. Guidelines and essays are NOT policy, but they guide policy-decisions. They help determine how a policy might be understood and applied, but they are not the justification for deletion themselves. It's worth noting that these nominations are mostly used alongside a WP:GNG failure, which IS policy. So while the reasoning is usually more sparse than it could be, these nominations are perfectly legitimate. I don't see a common sense issue here. If nothing else, a lot of these could be redirected, which is perfectly in line with WP:NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Want to clarify here real quick: WP:GNG itself is not policy, but nominating an article for deletion for failing WP:GNG IS policy. Jay eyem (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that many of the deleted articles were unsourced stats-only 'template' articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season. It almost looks as if someone accidentally posted it to the mainspace prematurely from draft. If people have an issue with deletion of these articles then maybe it's worth proposing that they redirect to the main club article or be sent to the draft space until such time that someone can prove that they meet GNG? People are having an issue with the use of NSEASONS but almost all of those articles (apart from the Doncaster Belles) had no evidence of GNG. Spiderone 09:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

NSEASONS clearly states that that "these articles almost always meet the notability requirements". You do not seem to respect that with all that nominations. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this notice has served its purpose now, as to be fair there has been a sea-change in @Spiderone:'s attitude and behaviour. He's recognised that the WP:FOOTY shibboleth of "fully professional leagues" should be ignored altogether when dealing with female players. In another startling 180° turn, the other day he even voted !keep in an AfD for a female soccer player of pretty dubious notability. So this ANI report has undoubtedly served its purpose, although it's a shame it had to get to this stage for Spiderone to see the error of his ways. Especially when plenty of us tried to discuss it with him informally first. Still, I'm sure in future he will be more receptive to other editor's concerns and use this experience to improve as an editor going forward. Disappointingly @Fenix down: has gone the other way and 'doubled down', claiming that legitimate concerns over him closing discussions early, !supervoting and/or being openly not neutral are all "unfounded". And while there are still open questions over the WP:GANG antics of a handful of other WP:Football editors, they are probably disussions for another day. There doesn't seem much sense in dragging this (or the artifice below) out any longer. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil and bad faith behavior of User:Bring back Daz Sampson

The past week or so there has been consistent bad faith accusations and uncivil behavior at this user who has been consistently accusing others across multiple nominations. These have frequently involved @Spiderone: making a variety of deletion nomination for football articles, including some articles about women's football. Some of the examples include:

From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9

• Describing the deletions as a "purge", suggesting underlying motives of nominator (diff)
• Describing an editor as embarking on "a large scale campaign to delete women's football articles" (diff)
• Dismissively ignoring the argument made by a user related to team seasons vs. league seasons (diff)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season

• Consistently describing dissenting votes as "footy lads", "WP:FOOTBALL lads", etc. (diff)
• Canvassing a vote for a deletion review (diff)
• Describing deletion nominations as a "sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles" (diff)
• Stating, without basis, that a user "clearly vehemently hates women's football" (diff)
• Complete lack of faith in other editors, demonstrated most clearly here (diff)
• Describing a regularly maintained (albeit, fairly, not well documented) essay describing fully-professional leagues as a "bullshit essay" (diff)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

• Continuing to describe those participating deletion nominations as the "usual suspects" rather than addressing the argument (diff)

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

• Continuing to describe editors citing WP:FPL as members of a "tiny cabal of 'football lads'" (diff)
• Describing deletion nominations as a "very sinister purge of women's football articles" (diff)
• Describing a closing admin as a "card-carrying memeber of the stuffy boy's club at WP:FOOTY" (diff)
• Additional canvassing (diff)

This is completely inexcusable behavior. The individual usually on the receiving end of these comments, Spiderone, appears to be making regular, albeit quite frequent and sparse, deletion nominations, which have not been solely dedicated to women's football. Describing these as a "purge" is not only inaccurate, but completely absurd and inflammatory. Describing regular editors at WP:FOOTY as a cabal, a group of "football lads", and a "stuffy boy's club" are. completely unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Canvassing individual editors to make comments at a deletion review is highly inappropriate. And simply stating, without basis, that a user "vehemently hates women's football"? Inexcusable behavior and clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jay eyem (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

NOTE I was initially unaware that I needed to post on the user's talk page (despite it being bolded in red at the top, this is my first time really using ANI). The mistake has been rectified. Jay eyem (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Personally I think a topic ban from deletion-related discussions is in order. BBDS has shown over the course of many years (including her previous incarnation as Clavdia chauchat – see this previous ANI discussion that ended in her being blocked for incivility and subseuqently inoking her right to vanish) that she is incapable of engaging in discussions without resorting to casting aspersions, insulting other editors or making misleading and intellectually dishonest statements. Number 57 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from deletion discussions as proposed by N57. GiantSnowman 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as proposed by Number57. These accusations and personal attacks are the same behaviour as in the previous account. Clearly nothing has been learnt. Reyk _YO! 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - too much incivility surrounding AFDs. Lev!vich 16:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I remember in January 2019, when Daz made personal attacks in an arbcom case and was called on it, Daz replied "Just calling it as I see it - as is my right as a neutral editor in good standing" [140]. I remember asking Daz to cool it with personal attacks at AFDs in May 2019 [141] and June 2019 [142]. The personal attacks in the October 2020 DRV shows no improvement over the last almost-two-years. Daz's comment below shows that even after this thread, they have no intention to change their approach. Upgrading my support to strong support of a TBAN. We have to clean up AFDs, we have to start removing problematic editors from that area. Lev!vich 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't agree with this - the football project has long struggled with women's football, and I don't think it's uncivil to call this out or be frustrated by it. A topic ban would only further serve to wall the garden. A warning is sufficient. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Just from the original AFD discussion, there is a string or casting aspersions and personal attacks - this is not behaviour that is compatible with working in a collaborative environment. I would at least think a topic ban from AFDs is required, and possibly something wider ranging.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I haven't looked into everything about this editor's behaviour, but must point out that any discussion of football topics, whether for players or seasons, seems to be based on whether a league is "fully professional" or not rather than the notability of the player or season in question. I realise that there are many sunken costs here, as many people have spent a lot of time on checking whether a league is fully professional, but can't we start looking at the notability of article subjects rather than an irrelevant issue about leagues? We currently have the absurd situation where, in the men's game here in England, we accept articles about players and seasons in 92 clubs as automatically notable, but in the women's game none before 2018, and in the rest of the world outside England and the United States none at all. We also have small countries such as Georgia, where there is a very big club, Dynamo Tbilisi, where players and seasons are far more notable than in any club in League Two, but are excluded from notability because some other teams in the league are not fully professional, which is nothing to do with those topics or that club. Surely it has been obvious for many years that this criterion is both Anglo-centric and sexist, and is not fit for purpose? It seems that anyone who asks this question is labelled as disruptive, as I'm sure I will be for making this comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is not disruptive at all, but it does show a fundamental ignorance about how NFOOTBALL etc. actually work. It's all based on a presumption of notability. If women's articles meet GNG, then they will be (and indeed are) notable and therefore kept at AFDs. GiantSnowman 19:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not a fundamental ignorance of anything. Nearly all deletion discussions of articles about footballers or seasons concentrate on whether the league is fully professional or not, rather than sources actually about the article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment

This is at risk of becoming a proxy "delete vs keep" debate, but maybe that's no bad thing. It should probably be seen in that context. This issue was brought here 3 hours after the deletions were (in the section above). All of the first 6 commenters here, from Jay down to SportingFlyer, have also taken one side or the other at least once in those unresolved Deletion discussions we invoked earlier – I've done so as well. I certainly don't feel I would really be neutral on this.

Hopefully some 'disinterested' admins can come up with an answer or mediation (I've called a few but they haven't shown up yet). I can't condone Daz's uncivil tone, but they evidently felt that the women's team articles were being attacked and valid arguments ignored. As mentioned by Phil, the site generally has some history of selective sexism about sports articles; both Doncaster and Melbourne have been significant clubs in the women's game, and I think most of us now realise deletion wasn't the best first step.

There are some new suggestions from both SportingFlyer and Spiderone, re: WP:NSPORTS, which I think are very promising. (Mentioned in section above.)
Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been disappointed by some of the callous accusations but I agree that we need to move forward. Whilst I'm not planning to abstain from participating in AfDs, I have changed my approach. Rather than going straight to PROD/AfD, I'm choosing to put a GNG tag on some of the other articles that I felt didn't meet our notability requirements and will leave them with just that for the next few months. Hopefully, this gives the editors keen on keeping those articles a chance to prove they meet GNG as User:Hack did with 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, a discussion that will end with me having egg on my face! I hope that we can agree that there are certainly some occasions, still, with both men's and women's articles, when deletion was the only valid option (see here and here). Moving forward, I will try to focus more on GNG, especially when it comes to the women's football articles where NSEASONS and NFOOTY are practically moot. Spiderone 07:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Civility is important. I never condone incivility but civility itself is also a relative term depending on who it is that is using it. President Andrew Jackson believed the Indian Removal Act was civility. He believed he was "saving" entire cultures from destruction by moving them to territory where he believed they would be able to grow and sustain themselves without colonial/American intervention. Some question his motives. The results are mixed at best. I certainly would have a few questions myself had I been given the chance. My questions and opinions would have been largely ignored and definitely suppressed because I am a woman and that was the way of it during that time. The point is that American Indians didn't view it that way. When one is fighting for what they believe in they tend to view their own position as "the moral high ground". I will address the complaints and give my perspective. Take it for what it is.

• Name calling/"bad faith" comments: I will go out on a limb here. I also repeated the position and even took the same as Daz at times. Whether it was intended to be that way, they aren't necessarily wrong about a purge. And they aren't wrong that it seems those engaged in WP:NFOOTY use fraternity like tactics in AfD's by following each other around and nominating and !voting together. I digress, some say they aren't, some say they are. In the end it doesn't matter and it isn't helpful to the encyclopedia at large to continue to refer to them as that. I am, however, very concerned about the practice of deletionist in Wikipedia. How many admins and editors have the number of AfD's they have made/won on their user page as something like a trophy? I saw one editor who actually keeps track of deletions versus creations and laments when the number of deletions doesn't outpace creations. I have had one self describe as a champion for keeping the encyclopedia pure in regards to a vote to delete an article concerning women. Name calling is never right, even though I have done it too. I admit it. Neither is this approach by editors/admins to infer that the encyclopedia is more pure because an article that many found useful and worthy enough to fight for has been deleted. When it comes to the two main genders, male and female, not to exclude others, I have no doubt more articles on men are probably deleted every year. I don't have figures here in front of me but I would be willing to bet there are a considerable amount more men's articles than women's articles. The deletion of women's articles hits our community harder because of the disparity between the two figures. If you are going to censor Daz then you probably need to look at quite a few others comments but I caution you, if your house is made of glass you probably shouldn't be throwing stones. Might be better to move forward with lessons learned.

• Canvassing: I don't view Daz as canvassing anything by trying to get the word out about such deletion nominations. I appreciate them posting it on the projects talk page. There are a lot of issues here on Wikipedia, especially in regards to topics on women and specifically in regards to indigenous/aboriginal people. What constitutes a purge? Five articles? Ten? Twenty? The issue I have seen most on here is when an editor uses their subjective opinion of an essay to pass off as policy. There is enough subjective use of the general notability policy without us deleting articles because of our interpretation/application of an essay. Asking for others to weigh in and giving your opinion is not canvassing. Daz has never written me and asked me to vote a certain way and any discussion has been left to talk pages where it is in the open and dissenting views can be expressed.

In the end, I would like to assume good faith on the part of every editor. But not every editor makes their decisions in good faith. Unfortunately, a lot of editors and even some admins counter the good faith argument by giving us reason not to trust their judgement. Time will tell and I can't be everywhere but I will challenge most deletions on articles about women and indigenous people when I find that they are notable subjects and regardless of what is specifically mentioned in the article. If I run across sources in the process then I will either add them or notify others. I will not apologize for defending an article even when others don't like what I have said. We aren't here to be friends and sing Kumbaya around a camp fire. If you can't stand your view point and subjective opinions being challenged then maybe being here isn't all that good for your psyche. Civility is a noble cause and we should be civil but some of us view any number of rapid deletions of subjects we may be passionate about as incivility in and of itself. That's a topic of debate I am willing to discuss. Ultimately, Spiderzone says they will try a different approach. I am good with that. I am also good with Daz challenging said approach when there is just cause. I may even side with Spiderzone as I have in the past. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note I did not bring up the discussion about fully vs any other type of professional because it is simply incorrect in every application of the sense. The reasons have already been supplied in my comments prior to this.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note

From my list in the section above, these are some more women's articles that were nominated and/or deleted, apart from Millwall London City Lionesses.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2012 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2011 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2019–20 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2018–19 Durham W.F.C. season

I've made my feelings clear about the shoddiness of this process (in the previous section). The wave of deletions wasn't specifically anti-women's soccer, but it could be seen as such if you weren't following all the men's team deletions, which I personally was unaware of until yesterday - had to look it up and was shocked by how many were deleted.
Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• These season articles are created by the hundreds using scripts. They're deleted by the dozen, which doesn't make a dent. It's all a giant waste of time, but it's some people's harmless hobby. I wouldn't get too worried about the deletion of a sports season article. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. (Except for the dozen or so people creating and deleting these articles.) Lev!vich 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The use of the word "harmless" and "grand scheme' and "makes no difference" sounds a lot like "let's make a treaty". It doesn't matter to you. We understand that. That's ok. Everyone has their preference. It matters to some of us though. It's emblematic of the encyclopedia as a whole. We should not take delight in deleting articles for anyone, much less women, and where we can we should fight against the exclusion of them, with justification for doing it and the use of common sense. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - It seems that Daz is refusing to take advice to stick to PAGs and instead will continue to personlize deletion disputes. This diff shows that he is still going after spiderone and intends to keep attacking supposed members of a footy cabal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Footy project has some serious issues with discrimination and inequality. This is not the right way to handle the justified objections. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, @Ludost Mlačani: It sometimes seems that WP:FOOTY is to gender balance what the 1997–98 Kent Football League is to notability! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (as the target of this section). There seems to be a bit of "tit for tat" here and a transparent attempt to derail the actual discussion. I've seen plenty of trumped-up finger pointing at ANI over the years. Usually editors trying to cause needless drama to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. And I can only think that's the motive for this palpable nonsense. Yes I commented in a few nominations; so did you, Einstein. If using the informal mode of address "lad" is to be considered a personal attack or "ad hominem" I think we can all pack up and go home. That's stretching the definition of WP:NPA to be so elastic as to be completely meaningless. Two editors discussing whether to start a DRV and then doing it is not "canvassing", it is good practice. Perhaps if Spiderone had sought advice before his scattergun approach to deletion nominations none of us would be here wasting our time on this. Your characterisation of my interaction with Number57 is bizarre. Note that I pointed out an apparent contradiction in his position, he flamed me (with the diatribe about "intellectual dishonesty") then my reply to him was a model of restraint. I won't comment on the rest of the tenuous guff you've cobbled together but it seems to continue in much the same vein. Look, the last time I checked it is still allowed to disagree with Project-specific notability essays, especially ones as outdated, misused and perennially contentious as this one. Plenty of us do. I can't really help it if half a dozen editors identify with it so strongly that they take all criticism personally and become wildly offended. More likely I think they pretend to be offended to try and put a chilling effect on any dissent towards their local consensus. Nothing I'm supposed to have done is worthy of comment, let alone sanction. I'm confident that any fair reviewer will recognise that. But it's interesting you present yourself as a neutral onlooker here. Even before I turned up you were offered guidance on the matter by a veteran editor, which you thumbed your nose at. If anything your one-sided approach has been belligerent and bordering on hysterical, culminating in this vexatious drivel, which I wasn't notified of until several days afterwards. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I was willing to give the individual the benefit of the doubt to defend themselves before !voting, and now that they have responded I believe my initial post has been confirmed. More ad hominem attacks ("Einstein", defending "football lads"), ignoring the definition of canvassing (vote-stacking, as defined on the page), continuing to ignore their rude behavior towards other editors (e.g. the Number 57 interaction), suggesting that I "thumbed my nose up" at an individual whom I actually engaged on my talk page, and describing my presenting this at ANI as "hysterical... vexatious drivel". I apologize for not notifying the editor immediately (again, my first time using ANI), but this just confirms the inexcusable uncivil behavior by this editor and continued lack of good faith shown. Jay eyem (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban When will Wikipedia leadership start looking at the referenced deletion discussions and the patterns of many of the editors here who are proposing a topic ban aka targeting the same editor and women's football articles in general? I'm not sure what the obsession is about - it's rather comical, really -- but indeed an old and quickly decaying pattern on an equally aging platform. Surely, there are more productive things to do in life and on Wikipedia. Hmlarson (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia's systemic bias against coverage of women's subjects is no better exemplified nor more infamous than in our grossly out-of-balance guidelines on "PrOfEsSiOnAl" football leagues, which as others have said in both more and less colourful terms, are bullshit. Here we have another very small group of editors claiming this bullshit guideline as a justification for erasing every bit of information anyone has ever written here on football teams/leagues/players who are not men, and whining to administrators when anybody notices. Daz's pointed commentaries on this phenomenon are fair comment; you're supposed to be offended when this crap happens. Counter-proposal: the proposers of this topic ban are themselves banned from the subject of women's football. That would both stop the disruption and improve the encyclopedia. And can we please trash that garbage guideline once and for all? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree and further, WP:FPL is an essay with years of evidence of "ownership" behaviors exhibited by some of these same editors here attempting to silence BBDS again (just look at the edit history). See also WP:BULLY. Hmlarson (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I think in football parlance some of the lads can "dish it out but not take it". They expect to foul with impunity themselves but when faced with a robust challenge in return they roll about on the ground, feigning injury and squealing to the referee! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This is completely absurd. It has already been demonstrated that the user originally accused (Spiderone) was not targeting women's football, and that many of the deletion arguments were legitimate, albeit sparse. There is nothing about Bring back Daz Sampson's comments that comprise a "fair comment"; slinging ad hominems while contributing nothing to the discussion (as they have done once again, immediately above my comment), canvassing editors, and continued lack of demonstration of good faith. There are perfectly legitimate ways to debate these issues without stopping to that level. You seriously think a counter-ban is what's necessary here? You have no issues with how Bring back Daz Sampson has behaved? You're not at all concerned that they have a demonstrated history with these issues? Jay eyem (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed ban is not warranted based on the record presented. Cbl62 (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Propose boomerang

This isn't a !vote, and you don't get to comment in your own proposal. ANI is for "serious, intractable" emergency stuff worthy of a block. What you're whining about here is very low-level "rudeness" (a lack of deference, in reality) Even my detractors in the football project aren't arguing for a block but a sort of one-way interaction ban, in a very narrow subset of soccer deletion discussions. Therefore the appropriate place for this 'complaint' would have been WP:AN or dispute resolution, not WP:ANI. Although, like I said before, the timing of it makes it clear it is a phoney complaint intended to silence me and open up a new front in the above content dispute. I've noticed that all across the recent AfDs you have been repeatedly and aggressively rebutting others' !votes, complaining of imaginary personal attacks and generally trying to dominate and control the discussions. Demanding everyone else "show good faith" while you endlessly pontificate your opinion over and over! It is beginning to look oppressive. If I were you I would be wary of my own actions coming under scrutiny here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

At no point did I propose a topic ban. This was done by Number 57. And given how massively disruptive you have been at the AfDs on which you have been commenting, I think it merits attention. And reubtting points made against myself is perfectly legitimate argumentation. Literally the point of AfD is to make arguments on whether or not an article should be kept. Comparing my actions to yours is completely absurd. Your slinging of ad hominems and hostile tone, while frequently contributing nothing to discussion, is not comparable to my rebutting points made in an AfD. Jay eyem (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, if you wanted to look through the diffs, you will notice that I did not initially attach this complaint to this discussion; it was added as such later by an uninvolved individual. Claiming that I am trying to "silence [you] and open up a new front in the above content dispute" is completely absurd and continued showing of bad faith. Jay eyem (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You had ample opportunity to raise your concerns in a more appropriate way before the ANI report on Spiderone, but did it here in direct response: so it looks to me like a childish tit-for-tat. Anyway, your continued activity at the AfDs is much more disruptive than any of the nonsense allegations I'm supposed to have perpetrated, like calling lads lads or engaging in non-canvassing canvassing. The point of the AfDs is to garner a wide perspective of views, even if we disagree with them. It's not for you to tell us over and over again about your opinion while miring the process in false allegations, bogus victimhood and needless drama. It's not just me you've falsely accused of bad faith and personal attacks, and the routine is beginning to wear thin. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is the diff showing my initial post on ANI. Here and here is the uninvolved user incorporating it into this argument. The diffs are clear, that wasn't my doing. And yes, your abusive language and bad faith arguments had gotten to the point where I felt it was necessary to bring it up at ANI, and it appears my concerns are shared. As Number 57 noted, this is not your first time dealing with issues like this. Responding to questions with reasoning is not bludgeoning. Linking individual users to a discussion is the clear definition of vote-stacking, which is covered under WP:CANVASS. You have, and continue to demonstrate a clear pattern of disruptive editing, and this "boomerang proposal" is another pretty clear example of that. No idea what you are proposing here. If an uninvolved admin would let me know, that would be helpful. Jay eyem (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Verbal attack and deliberate re-introduction of unreliable sources by multi-time blocked user

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

---

In a WP:POINT edit, 151.228.141.110 deliberately reintroducted unreliable sources that I had removed, while directing a verbal attack toward myself.[143] This user, who edits professional wrestling articles via the Sky ISP – with his "work" typically revolving around what wrestling writer Vince Russo said or did – has twice left similar insults on my talk page, along with abusing several other editors (calling people "pathetic" and "trolls" is his MO, as with tonight).[144][145] Both of those IPs were blocked (as was his sock account, R.Gadona), and I request that 151.228.141.110 be also. Thanks. Dory Funk (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Tvaughan1

• Tvaughan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tvaughan1 registered in 2006 but has fewer than 600 edits. Over 50 of those are at talk:Hunter Biden, and combine the usual mess of "Russia hoax", unreliable sources, belligerence and a few copyright violations revdeleted by EvergreenFir.

Given the current meltdown in the conservative media over the failure of the Hunter Biden "October surprise", I think the chances are that if he isn't guided firmly quite soon then he'll end up blocked. There are a couple of others at that talk page who are also long on outrage and short on actionable proposals for content, but I expect that will die down in time. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I've engaged in a good faith effort on the talk page to reach a consensus on WP:NPOV edits to Hunter Biden. Most of my efforts are from months ago and they've been archived. Quoting relevant passages of a newspaper article on a talk page, with attribution should not be considered a copyright violation.I'm not the only Wikipedia editor or person who has pointed out that Hunter Biden is far from WP:NPOV. It's embarrassingly obvious to all but the most partisan. In fact, describing the situation as "meltdown in the conservative media over the failure of the Hunter Biden "October surprise"" proves my point. There is a social media and news blackout on that story, and that has become a story in and of itself. Does the laptop not exist? Is it not notable? Are there not reliable sources reporting the existence of the laptop, and corroborating the authenticity of the contents? These facts may be uncomfortable to partisans, but they're widely known and widely reported facts. To defend blocking mention of the laptop Wikipedia editors are citing debunked theories of a Russian disinformation campaign, with no proof whatsoever (at best citing opinions that it must be or could be Russian disinformation). An accurate summary of the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden would mention the concerns of a conflict of interest, at a minimum. Censoring speech isn't the way for Wikipedia to go. The main topic is and has been hotly debated in the US and worldwide, but the article presents only a 1 sided view. This article has been the subject of a number of news stories about Wikipedia's left leaning bias. Tvaughan1 (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1, oh do please let us know which reliable sources you think are complaining about our "left wing bias" on this. Breitbart? Redstate? Conservapedia? 4chan? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, you're being argumentative. But surely you must have seen this blog post from the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger. https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

My observation is that Tvaughan1 seems to ignore Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy heavily. They have been making edits in the talk page that are up to the line, if not over the line, crossing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy to do so. At Talk:Hunter Biden#Chinese Communist Party they have made these edits by "sourcing" to multiple sites that are considered unreliable and marked in red on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources including RT (TV network), The Post Millennial, and Breitbart News which "has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories" and "should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability." I am also concerned about the potential connection to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NationalInterest16 but I had previously asked a different administrator for their advice before JzG posted this discussion here. The specific edit with the bad sourcing is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=984976350&oldid=984975986 IHateAccounts (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I made a point on the talk page that it has become an external news story that Wikipedia is biased - specifically because of Hunter Biden, and I linked to a set of articles to make that point to other editors, for their information, on a talk page. I wasn't attempting to cite those articles in a Wikipedia article itself. Accusing me of violating WP:RS for pointing that out is disingenuous. I have no connection to NationalInterest16.Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tvaughan1, how can a non-governmental organization ever engage in "censorship"? Please explain your understanding of what constitutes "censorship." Please do not use epithets, perjorative adjectives, or other non-neutral language. Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima According to Wikipedia, "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies." I agree with that definition.Tvaughan1 (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Having standards for reliable sourcing is not censorship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I never said it was.Tvaughan1 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima—you refer to "non-neutral language" but I think it is virtually axiomatic that any time there is a debate there will be some "non-neutral language". Bus stop (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, Larry Sanger thinks we should be more complimentary towards creationism. He’s tried to replace Wikipedia with something better and failed. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok so I've been trying to figure this out. Larry Sanger believes that false balance and the use of dubious sources known to fabricate and violate basic journalistic ethical standards are necessary for a "neutral point of view"? He's angry because debunked nonsense and buzzwords for talk radio, like "Solyndra" or "Benghazi", aren't 99% of the coverage on Barack Obama? Who is this Larry Sanger, and why should we care what he rants about on his blog? IHateAccounts (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Larry is an important former employee of Wikipedia, who helped set it up, but then left Wikipedia. In recent years he has veered towards accusing Wikipedia of being biased, and going by his Twitter account, he appears to endorse the QAnon theory, the "Antifa is a real problem" theory and some other nutty theories (I think he even claimed that climate change is not caused by humans). 45.251.33.147 (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Last rephrased at 17:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

That'd be Larry Sanger. As 45.251 says, I think his own radicalization towards the right and acceptance of the right-wing talking points and conspiracy theories has led him to believe that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by the left and all of that nonsense. See for yourself, but brace yourself. He seems to think that because we call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories, and don't treat fringe theories the same as we do mainstream scientific opinion, the project is "badly biased". GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—couldn't "acceptance of the right-wing talking points" be restated as nonacceptance of left-wing talking points? Bus stop (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No. I'm referring to things like his QAnon-esque claims around secret child sex trafficking rings etc., which is not "nonacceptance of left-wing talking points". GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that he alleged that Wikipedia is a "secret child sex trafficking ring"? I might have missed some of the relevant material but I thought Sanger's objection was to images on this project of young girls in sexually suggestive and revealing poses. But maybe I got that wrong. Can you provide sources for "claims around secret child sex trafficking rings"? Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Go look at Sanger's twitter if you want to wade through some right-wing conspiracy crap and stop trolling here please. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Only in death—I do not consider the views that I've read emanating from Larry Sanger to be "right-wing conspiracy crap". Bus stop (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

He also thought Citizendium would work, so that should tell you what you need to know right there. His bio says he's 52 but if that's really true there's something seriously wrong . He looks like Methuselah [146]. EEng 05:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Sanger offers good constructive criticism of Wikipedia: "There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call 'false balance'. The notion that we should avoid 'false balance' is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy.[147] Bus stop (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh. Turns out Larry Sanger doesn't know what the word canard means. EEng 06:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Reed College's department of Philosophy has a lot of explaining to do. —valereee (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Sanger wants people to buy a book called Essays on Free Knowledge? Narky Blert (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

So... basically, Sanger is an Almond Joy and not a Mounds? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps some kind of performance art. EEng 16:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

EEng see also Wikipedia's policy on canards... Guy (help! - typo?) 12:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't have time to fully investigate this at the moment but can anyone suggest a reason why I should not topic ban Tvaughan1 from American politics for a month per the report above, under WP:ARBAP2? Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: I've given Tvaughan1 some advice for how they can best move forward in their situation. Full disclaimer: I have no idea what is going on with this laptop thing or whatever. I think cocaine might have been involved? I'm not sure I want to know exactly. Either way, I have no idea if Tvaughan1 is advocating for something WP:FRINGE or just WP:POV, but I've assumed the latter given the discussion here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  OK, let's see how that works. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Don't bet the farm. EEng 14:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Tvaughan1 I thought I'd start a subsection on this topic. FWIW, the copyvios are because of the amount of copy-pasted text. One to three sentences would be okay. But in the second case you copy-pasted nearly 50% of the article's content. I understand why you did it, and you were right in providing the source and putting things in quotes. But WP:COPYVIO's instructions on fair use directs us to use as little as possible to convey our point. IMO, when you're using more than 10% of a source directly, you're veering into copyvio territory. In the future, please limit copy-paste and use your own summaries (which readers can verify with the linked source). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have read and I understand WP:COPYVIO but certainly a bit more leeway to quote articles should be given on a talk page, versus pasting quotes into the articles themselves. Given the defensive responses to every attempt I and others made to source facts, I doubted that a paraphrased summary would suffice. But I'll do as you suggest moving forward.Tvaughan1 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You're right about the extra leeway. EEng 14:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

EEng Thanks for the feedback. Tvaughan1 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG—I don't know how you are starting this out by saying "Given the current meltdown in the conservative media over the failure of the Hunter Biden 'October surprise', I think the chances are that if he isn't guided firmly quite soon then he'll end up blocked." Has there been a "meltdown in the conservative media"? Has there been an "October surprise"? These are expressions of your political views. You are imposing your own lens on current events. Why would Tvaughan1 "end up blocked"? Certainly not as a consequence of the differing political views that you each have presented. I should think that they would be blocked only if they are found to be severely in violation of our policies. Bus stop (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

There has in fact been a meltdown in conservative media. And yes, there's an October Surprise. "The Times reported last January that Burisma had been hacked by the same Russian GRU unit that was one of two groups that hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016. Last month, United States intelligence analysts contacted several people with knowledge of the Burisma hack for further information after they had picked up chatter that stolen Burisma emails would be leaked in the form of an “October surprise.”" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine-facebook-twitter.html

I think the only way to describe your reply to JzG is "willfully obtuse." IHateAccounts (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Another Reliable Source on this: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/24/trump-maga-hunter-biden-conspiracy-432046 IHateAccounts (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if it does count as wilfully obtuse. It's pretty clear that the conservative media bubble is telling a very consistent, though largely counterfactual, story. It's like the "Russia hoax": a walled garden of sources discuss Russian interference in the 2016 election as if the problems with the Steele dossier somehow invalidate not only the entire Mueller report, but also the contemporaneous findings of intelligence agencies throughout the West, the subsequent bipartisan committee findings in both Senate and House, and the numerous convictions and indictments. There's a clear Trumpist narrative promoted by loyalists, and a separate factual narrative in the reality-based media. Reports this weekend show the hard news reporters at the WSJ, for example, contradicting the opinion writers, exactly as they do on climate change. If you get your news from the conservative bubble, you've been told that mainstream is the opposite of conservative, and that all mainstream sources are biased against Trump because they do not reflect the faux-reality you're being fed. Of course anyone who is not capable of understanding that has a serious problem here because we know that the opposite of conservative is liberal and the opposite of mainstream is fringe. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As Joe Biden would say, c'mon. You are expected to maintain at least a veneer of objectivity, JzG. Now you blithely refer to the "conservative media bubble". How is this unlike your reference below to Andy Ngo as a "neo-fascist apologist".[148] If you are going to conduct yourself like this on a Talk page aren't also prone to creating articles that are skewed to your political interests? Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop we're also expected to understand the difference between objectivity and false balance. Reality is not the average of mainstream sources and media bubble bullshit. We don't split the difference between reality-based sources and left-wing anti-vaccine and anti-GMO propaganda, and we don't split the difference between mainstream reporting and the Breitbart narrative on this either. Mainstream sources are very clear: nothing about "laptopgate" stacks up. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:LTA at multiple Asian tourism articles

• Tourism in the Philippines
• Tourism in Myanmar
• Tourism in Laos
• Tourism in Cambodia
• World Tourism rankings

Multiple accounts messing with data over a period of months, looking like a sock farm of Bryandotr (talk · contribs). Current incarnation is 124.107.252.162 (talk · contribs). Blocks and page protection requested. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 3 days, Bryandotr appears to have been abandoned after the last block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks and severe battleground behavior by user

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

---

The User:Mehtar10 has only been editing for sometime but has racked up multiple warnings on their Talk page, engaged in edit wars with different users and even used WP:PERSONALATTACKS against me. They either need to take time off Wikipedia or remove themselves from the WP:ARBIPA space. But looks like the user wouldn't care either way because they show a serious WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality and clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I am surprised no action or block was initiated against this user. Gotitbro (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Gotitbro: Per the policies written up at the top of this page and in the notice when creating this section, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Now topic banned from all pages relating to India or Pakistan, which includes talk pages, noticeboards, etc - all pages. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Already violated the topic ban here. I've blocked for 24 hours. That's very short for a tban violation, but I'm assuming they didn't understand it. A short ban may be informative. Bishonen | tålk 12:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC).

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

Excessive plot descriptions from Pennsylvania IP6s

I've been trying to talk to a Pennsylvania user but this person does not communicate at all. They keep adding too much film plot detail in violation of the guideline WP:FILMPLOT, making the plot section far too large. They have been repeatedly warned about adding too much detail to Bohemian Rhapsody (film), for instance, but they keep coming back. There's apparently zero interest in making an edit summary or a talk page entry. The current ranges are Special:Contributions/2601:547:1:84B0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2601:543:4404:94A0:0:0:0:0/64, active for 14 and 13 months, respectively. Before that, the range was Special:Contributions/2601:543:4400:87:0:0:0:0/64, active from Jan 2018 to Sep 2019, also without an edit summary or talk page entry. And before that, I think there were some IP4s involved, starting in 2015: 24.154.239.241, 24.154.232.211, 24.154.232.234 and 71.185.171.23. Many thousands of edits in all. Can we get two rangeblocks? Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism and DE from 208.175.138.101

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

---

208.175.138.101 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Vandalism:

• Replacement of content contrary to existing citations[149], [150], [151], [152]

Disruptive editing:

• Removal of cited content, notes, and table keys [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158]

Continuation of same after warnings on User talk:208.175.138.101

• Final Template:Uw-vandalism4im warning on Talk[159] and then continuation of the above behaviors[160], [161] UW Dawgs (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Unambiguous legal threat

See edit summary. Am on my phone and will shortly be unavailable for a few hours. DuncanHill (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism from one IP range at Delta Zeta

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

---

Requesting both page protection and, if practical, a rang block. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

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

David Haye

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

---

I know this isn't the best place, but could someone semi-protect David Haye and block some IP addresses? It's getting boring over there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

2a00:23c5:30a2:8a01::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) rangeblocked for a week, that covers all the recent vandalism to that article. If they or someone else come back from another address, it can be semi protected! ~ mazca ^talk 12:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Re-instate range block 2605:A601:AD87:300

Range block granted multiple times. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042#IP range block needed for 2605:A601:AD87:300

User talk:2605:A601:AD87:300:4510:C510:1E10:45C7

User talk:2605:A601:AD87:300:35C5:69C7:3C13:BC20

Vandalism resumes soon after block expires. User has been warned numerous times. May seem minor but it is disruptive. Editors are spending a lot of time trying to clean up the damage. Long-term or permanent block would be appreciated.—JlACEer (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@JlACEer: A look at Special:Contributions/2605:A601:AD87:300::/64 shows no useful edits. This range has been blocked twice in the recent past and the user immediately returns to disruptive behavior when the block expires. Last block was for 1 month. I have reblocked this range for 1 year. ‑Scottywong| [communicate] || 05:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you.—JlACEer (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Strange editing pattern from 172.74.95.x addresses

Apologies if this is the wrong board, I'm not sure what is the most appropriate forum.

Several IP addresses in the same range are making repeated, high-volume (see their contribs), mostly-useless (see below) edits. Most of the edits aren't tagged, a small proportion are "visual editor". They appear to be interested in ethnic/racial groups and in video games.

Users noticed so far: 174.47.95.98 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.107 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.103 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.99 (talk · contribs), 174.47.95.102 (talk · contribs)

Examples: Mixed-race Brazilian (from 10 consecutive edits, one VE); Multiracial people 11 edits from 2 IPs, includes 2VEdits; Adriana Lima (re-ordering of ethnic groups in heritage), Afro-Asians 2, Afro-Asians 1.

Edit types: inconsistent toggling of upper-lower case on qualifiers like native/Native, white/White; swapping order of asian and african; upper/lower-casing of page names in piped links; changing links-to-redirects into piped links; moving label suffixes in/out of piped links, [[page|label]]s; uppercasing template names; adding (useful) or removing (not) spaces between template parameters; changing spaces before/after equals signs in headings; swapping order of section hatnotes and images; removing Oxford commas, changing color ↔ colour; not understanding how parenthetical commas work; some grammatical errors, some grammatical improvements. The source-code changes don't appear to be VE artifacts.

I thought they might have been using volume changes to hide some racial POV, but haven't found anything egregious.

Is this worth more eyes, or just ignore it? —Pelagic ( messages ) – (18:16 Sun 25, AEST) 08:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comments Taking a look at Special:Contributions/174.47.95.0/24 finds some very interesting behavior. These minor edits have been going on for at least a month now. When the edit spree begins, each of them are only a few minutes apart from each other. Almost all of the time you see the IP address change in-between these editing sprees. Few times it occurs during the spree. The behavior is also not 24/7, suggesting against the possibility of being some type of bot. In all, the edits appear in good faith and there doesn't seem to be any ulterior motive. Only egregious edit I've found so far was from Special:Contributions/174.47.95.80, but they appear to be blocked for editing behavior not consistent with the editing in question. Transcendental (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hounding by user Binksternet

User Binksternet seems to be engaging in actions that violate wikipedia's policies regarding harassment, in particular Hounding. He has followed me across multiple articles, sometimes undoing almost all of my edits. He has followed me onto the articles for integralism, Christian views on suicide, and Consistent Life Ethic. Following me around like this is very disturbing and discouraging.

When he has gotten to these articles he has engaged in policies that constitute edit warring and has been asked to stop doing such activities. He also has even gone to accusing me of creating multiple accounts to attack him, which is simply not true. He also usually deletes constructive criticism on his actions: such as here, and here.

When he does not get his way he engages in actions that could constitute wikilawyering and just throwing the book at editors in general that would not constitute good faith editing. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I certainly have followed the edits of LongIslandThomist914, for the purpose of removing violations of WP:No original research. My explanation to him is on his talk page here. He needs to stop relying on primary sources to expand articles, which he has been doing for the past year. He has never indicated any wish to stop these violations of policy. Rather, he was blocked yesterday for edit warring to keep his preferred version.

LongIslandThomist914 misrepresents me in his above post. I hatted the comments[162] of FBPlunger who is blocked for violations of WP:MULTIPLE, but LongIslandThomist914 accuses me of accusing him of the same violation. A simple mistake on his part. The removals he complains about were me removing FBPlunger's contributions per WP:EVADE, which is allowed.

The only thing I want to see from LongIslandThomist914 is him summarizing third party sources rather than pasting primary sources such as the Catechism into articles. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Binksternet: Dif's of problematic/policy violating edits would be helpful. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I have some diffs at his talk page, which is where I thought the matter should be discussed. The first place I saw a problem was this talk page complaint by Chiswick Chap who was pointing out the problem with LongIslandThomist914's lengthy quotes. Diannaa agreed there were too many quotes. This diff shows the first such "lengthy" addition by LongIslandThomist914, followed by more. The diff shows LongIslandThomist914 interpreting and indeed extrapolating from a primary source quote: a letter from Tolkien to his son. After I proposed removing these quotes (and their violations of WP:NOR), I was encouraged to do so by Chiswick Chap and PaleCloudedWhite, as you can see at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien#Heading in the wrong direction.
  • More problematic diffs from LongIslandThomist914 include this interpretation and expansion using primary source text from the Catholic Catechism, this expansion using only the Catechism, and this example of edit warring with El C to restore primary source interpretation of the Catechism. LongIslandThomist914 has never expressed regret for relying too much on primary sources; instead, he proposed a whole article containing only Tolkien quotes, which would allow him to continue in his preferred style. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

What I find deeply disturbing is that you tracked me for months before deciding to offer any corrections. You followed me across this site and then only decided to act now by tearing apart all my edits. You couldn't have spoken up sooner if this concerned you so much? The only people who have issues with my edits are you and one other person on the Tolkien article, while it seems a great many people have issues with the way you conduct yourself on this website.

I do not see the issues with my citations of the Catechism: I did not add any of my own interpretation but simply put up what it says, and allow people to draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongIslandThomist914 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not track you "for months". I saw your overreliance on direct quotes at the Tolkien biography in August, including your violations of WP:NOR, but the only thing I did about it was to remove them from the article, supported by other participants there. That removal was on Sept 1,[163] after we some time spent talking about it in August. But you showed up on my radar again a week ago with this addition to an article on my watchlist, which made me remember your previous problematic style. That's when I realized there was a bigger mess. That's when I started working to stop your problematic edits across multiple articles. So it's one week that I have been rolling back the dozen or so problematic edits you made, leaving alone all the good ones. I haven't touched your many additions to the List of converts to Catholicism or your big expansion at 2018 New York State Senate election because those are fine. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

LongIslandThomist914, Wikipedia makes it easy to see a user's contributions. In the "skin" I use it's a button on the lefthand side of the userpage and user talkpage. There's a reason we can follow a user's edits; it's a very convenient feature for admins and experienced editors. If we should see somebody making a dubious edit, we pretty much automatically take a look at their other edits — I know I do. That is not hounding. And it's not hounding for Binksternet to follow your edits, once he has noticed your tendency to engage in original research based on primary sources. He explains the problem clearly and in detail here on your page. Binksternet is highly experienced, he knows Wikipedia policy well, and you would do far better to listen to his advice, rather than complain about him on this noticeboard. Please stop violating the No original research policy, or you are likely to be sanctioned. Bishonen | tålk 18:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC).

LongIslandThomist914, please accept the comments made here about original research. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

User:ତୁମ୍ଭର ପିତା ଓ ରାଜା

As per Special:Contributions/ତୁମ୍ଭର_ପିତା_ଓ_ରାଜା it makes us suspicious to be a WP:SPA. The editor only edits on Dilip Ghosh (politician) and leading to content dispute with fellow editors. Please have a look. 42.110.204.193 (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This section was opened at the same time, by the same editor, as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dilip Ghosh (politician). See also prior discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#User:Amkgp is falsely accusing me of vandalism threatens block. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Howdoesitgo1's edits on Jim Rash

• Howdoesitgo1 (talk · contribs)
• Jim Rash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Numerous editors have repeatedly tried to (re)insert the actor Jim Rash's Instagram post in the article, which consensus agreed at Talk:Jim Rash not to use. One of those editors, the user Howdoesitgo1, has repeatedly reverted my removals of Rash's Instagram post recently:

• 20:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC): reverted my removal, which I made based on consensus at Talk:Jim Rash
• 02:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC): reverted another editor's removal
• 03:01, 27 October 2020‎ (UTC): reverted my re-removal after the conclusion at WP:DRN#Jim Rash (diff) was made
• 06:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC): reverted my re-re-removal without leaving an edit summary

I told the user to revert his undoings to my removal(s) and adhere to consensus, but the user's comment suggests otherwise. Then I warned him about edit warring, but then he told me to "stuff it", making remarks about me, which I found them untrue. I adhere to policies about living persons and am very cautious and wary about using self-published sources about oneself when there are no reliable secondary sources. Not only that comment, Howdoesitgo1 also made other comments to another editor at the thread that Howdoesitgo1 started.

I was this close to reporting him at WP:3RRN, but then his remarks show that issues are beyond edit warring. I can alternatively ask about the Instagram post at WP:RSN, but I bet they would have the same conclusions as other editors. George Ho (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC); edited, 19:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

George Ho, on the Jim Rash talk page, there were two editors for inclusion of that Instagram post (or the use of OTRS to verify it) and two editors against its use. I don't think that fits the meaning of consensus.

I don't think https://hollywoodmask.com/ is a reliable source but I think an individual's statement about themselves on a verified Instagram account would be acceptable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there were consensus in past discussions about the Instagram post. Maybe not. I thought there was a consensus until you convinced me otherwise. If that's the case, I can either go to WP:RSN to discuss the Instagram post or start an RFC at the article talk page. BTW, if my complaints are invalid, must I withdraw the complaints about the user? --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

In terms of this complaint, you don't need to withdraw it, you can just archive it with {{atop}} and {{abot}} or just let the bot move it to the archive page. Once a complaint has been posted on this page, it shouldn't be removed if anyone has responded to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat?

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

---

User:Scainder did this revert[164] with the edit summary "That was a Twitter banter. A notice can be issued in the name of Wikipedia and the moderator reverting the edits by Mumbai Police. It goes against Twitter guidelines to bring the banter on Wikipedia which will ultimately result in arrest of the moderator reverting the edits." I shall probably rev/del the edit summary as purely disruptive, but it clearly is meant to have a chilling effect as much as does a threat to sue. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Threatening arrest? That's definitely as chilling of an effect as it can get. User indef'd for the edit and thanks for the revdel Doug. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Being stalked by User:Koncorde

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

---

I've noticed it a while ago, whenever I create an article or edit it a lot... Koncorde appears there, reverting and edit warring, and I'm getting sick of it.

I think it's a result of a disagreement we had months ago... but it's not normal. No, it can't be a coincidence that he's on every edit I make.

Innovations in the piano, Concrete piano, List of Jewish Nobel laureates, Mifal HaPayis, Cadenza, Cadenza Piano, Sunderland A.F.C. supporters are just a few examples of articles he had never touched before I appeared there, and then suddenly automatically appearing and harassing me.

This is not a coincidence. Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Maxim, I have already blocked you from one article for edit-warring, and Dreamy Jazz has blocked you from another. I've never interacted with Koncorde ever, and I don't think DJ has either. I think you're pretty much a hair's breadth away from somebody thinking "is there any part of the project he's not disruptive on" and applying a side-wide block. You should take that warning with the seriousness it deserves. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

To confirm, I don't think I've ever interacted with Koncorde before. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm, never heard of yourself or Ritchie before today. Koncorde (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• A quick suggestion, when bringing these kinds of accusations, you should always supply the diffs that substantiate your claims. Not to do so will immediately render your claims invalid, and possibly worse, bring your own actions under scrutiny. I would think twice before following this course of action. It's very fortunate that after you were found to breach WP:3RR that you were allowed to continue to edit because of Ritchie333's generous interpretation of the edit-warring guidelines. That you then went on to continue to fight with other editors is not a good sign. I would suggest that unless you change your approach here pretty quickly, you'll be banned. Just based on my experience (and not on the very lightweight approach meted out by Ritchie earlier). Your disruption appears to be getting worse. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Is there a reason you've posted to both here and WP:AN? Just one should suffice. -- a lad insane (channel two) 23:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment the forum-shopping thread at WP:AN has now been closed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Original Poster was move-warring over Cadenza Piano, which has now been create-protected in article space. Koncorde wasn't doing the move-warring. Also, the Original Poster filed a frivolous Request for Arbitration which was closed very quickly. (I will note that ArbCom is now being much quicker than in the past to close frivolous requests. Some of you might not have seen the request if you didn't view the history.) In conclusion, this isn't about User:Koncorde. It appears to be about the Original Poster. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have site-blocked Maxim for 31 hours. I now have a sore head from having banged it against a wall. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there someone you have to notify when you block an arbcrat? Natureium (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to ask, what is one of them? Koncorde (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Maxim is a wikipedian who is both an arb and a crat. Both are high-status positions around here, and when you combine the two, you get... idk, there's probably a good nerd metaphor for that that I can't think of. Natureium (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Maxim is a WP:Bureaucrat and WP:ARBCOM member. Maxim.il89 is none of those. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Phew. I thought I was missing something for a moment. Koncorde (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

My fellow Wikipedians, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've finalized a motion that will outlaw questioning me forever. We begin banning in five minutes. Maxim_(talk) 00:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Spam in edit summary

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

---

This edit appears to exist only to promote a porn website in the edit summary. Is this the best place/way to report it? Thanks, --NapoliRoma (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary revdel'd. Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

IP has also been blocked. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Grudge editing by Benc0lins on Caster Semenya

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

---

}}

• Caster Semenya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Benc0lins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Benc0lins is edit warring against multiple other editors (including myself) to insert the unsupported and defamatory description "hermaphodite" into a BLP about a woman and also to speculate about her sexual organs. This user has ignored all warnings except to make minor changes to their edit which amount to wikilawering without any attempt to address the fundamental issue of why such content is unacceptable. This user is pretty much an SPA existing solely to pursue a defamatory grudge against Caster Semenya. The user has also engaged in dishonest/deceptive tactics such as marking substantial edits as minor and blatantly misrepresenting the contents of sources (e.g. on my own User Talk page). I believe that there is a clear pattern of malice and intentional dishonesty here. I believe that this user has been given more than enough rope and is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Also, it might be advisable to look into revdelling some or all of their edits and maybe even some of their edit summaries.

Note: I originally reported this to AIV and was advised to bring it here instead. Another user has separately reported it at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Caster_Semenya. Additional info, including diffs, can be found there. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Benc0lins I am the editor that DanielRigal is referring to. I ask that you please read all of my edits and citations as well as my messages to Daniel. Also read his messages to me. I believe that you will find that I have refrained from being abusive at any point. And that all attempts to engage with Daniel on a comradery level have been rebuffed in no uncertain terms.

I'm also not being abusive or derogatory towards Caster Semenya or anyone else. I've shown Daniel that Hermaphrodite is a medical term that is used today, and that it isn't necessarily pejorative - via citation. However, in an effort to compromise, I've changed my edit to use the word "Intersex", and merely now refer to the term "46 XY hermaphroditism" as a category clarification, so as to be clear that it is meant as a medical condition and not as a label or slur. I've

Sadly, despite me repeatedly asking, Daniel has made no effort to discuss or compromise to this point. Please read his messages to me to see how he has conducted himself, as validation of what I am saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benc0lins (talk • contribs) 18:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(copied from WP:BLPN)

Note that I've reverted one edit yesterday for egregious WP:BLP vio. I've now sysop-protected for 24 hours, and have left a message on the talk page to get editors to the table to discuss. I've also rev-del'd some of the more egregious violations related to the subject's genitalia. That kind of unsourced, deeply personal commentary is never okay. Leaving any 3RR sanctions to another admin - Alison ^❤ 18:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Alison Should we apply a longer-lasting protection do you think? Maybe PC for a while, or even indefinitely? A lot of the new / IP edits to that page seem to be at best unhelpful and often downright unpleasant. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Good idea!  Done - Alison ^❤ 23:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Copyvio and CIR issues with زینب_امیری

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

---

زینب_امیری (talk · contribs)

They have repeatedly uploaded blatant copyright violations after warnings, and created multiple duplicates of pages at names such as En.wikipedia.org/wiki/shervin bozorg and Shervinbozorg. There may be a language issue, but they are past the point of good-faith and at a CIR issue. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• The editor is currently blocked indefinitely due to the massive number of copyright violations. -- Whpq (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Breaching various policies

Hello - User:Heiko Gerber has breached multiple policies:

• Adding unreferenced content, see [165]
• Civility, see [166]
• 3RR, see [167]
• Engaging in an edit war, see [168] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that discographys dont need sources, when he have an aritcle available for the respective album, see literally any article by a musician, e.g. Michael Jackson -- Heiko Gerber (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note that in respect of their unconstructive behaviour User:Heiko Gerber has been censoring debate by removing polite comments to him / her by various users, see [169], [170], [171] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove discussions that are put on their talk page, unless it's a declined unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello RickinBaltimore - I recognise that, however I am noting the actions not as breach of policy but as record of possible attempts to hide that others have tried to engage constructively. Update: User:Heiko Gerber has removed a message from an admin, see [172] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Came here on the way to deciding if I should block Heiko Gerber for unsourced edits. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

": Note that discographys dont need sources, when he have an aritcle available for the respective album, see literally any article by a musician, e.g. Michael Jackson -- Heiko Gerber (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)"

Please review [173] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I will add a source now so we can get this over with and this dude is happy Heiko Gerber (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

My understanding of sourcing is that the albums themselves and their liner notes are the implicit sources in a discography, just like the films and their credits are implicit sources for filmographies. Of course, that bit doesn't take into account the vicious edit war going on between these two, for which there is no exemption from WP:3RR. Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

What, other than reverting, am i supposed to do if this guy keeps on blanking the section? (for the record, i have added a source now which is completely redundant) Heiko Gerber (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not about me. This is not about you. It is about following Wikipedia policies. Also, your recent edit to the article included both referenced and unreferenced content; the latter has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful editing. :) Please blank the discography on Michael Jackson next, cause that doesnt have sources either Heiko Gerber (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Such crude sarcasm and flippancy does not merit a response. However, in the spirt of being constructive for Wikipedia: in addition to the various policies which you have previoulsy been suggested to review it is also suggested that you consider the reasons you are editing. This because it seems you are more focused on 'winning arguments' rather than improving articles. This, along with the petulant behaviour you continue to exhibit, is indicative of immaturity. If you are a child then hopefully this tendency will lessen with age, however if you are an adult then therapy is likely to be beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

So each of you made 14 (fourteen) reverts at Richard Kruspe today. Why do you think both you should not be blocked per WP:3RR?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Because i've reverted the vandalism of the IP? Heiko Gerber (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Lets just move on, not every report here has to end in a block Heiko Gerber (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Heiko Gerber - Reverting content that is inconsistent with policies is not vandalism: however this attacking of others with false allegations is consistent with your abusive and unconstructive behaviour.

Hello Ymblanter - a block of both is warranted. A block of a single user would be unbalanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You literally just told me to get therapy. Now please stop wasting my time will you? Heiko Gerber (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not tell you. That you struggle to understand English, and your use of 'literally', is further support of your immaturity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.70.168 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done, for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note that I've checkuser blocked Heiko Gerber as a  Confirmed sock of Urgal. @El C:, I'm not sure how this effects your AE block of Urgal? Will also need a Steward to lock globally to match the master's block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed, Kemba Chucker.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ponyo, I blocked the user for one year because that is the lengthiest duration AE allows for. An indef, providing that it is longer than that one year, seems perfectly intuitive for me. Once that one year block expires, they will remain technically blocked by virtue of being indef globally locked (such is my understanding, at least). El_C 23:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Noted, and both confirmed accounts are now globally locked as well. I think we're done here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced edit and unresponsive

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

---

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

Note: User name changed after ANI opened

• New userlinks: MindSlayer13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been abusing their editing privileges persistently. They have been persistently adding unsourced contents in football related pages like here, here, here. Even after they were warned, they continued their unsourced content addition. Even after a final warning I've asked explanation twice here, for the reason of unsourced content addition but there was no response from their side. Above that the user has been blocked thrice most importantly for personal attacks and disruptive edits. Verifiability is an important content policy and failing this are considered disruptive, so it can be assumed even after the blocks the user did not learn anything or did not even care to read the guidelines. I will be thankful if an admin can take a look into this. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Templates are not the best way to begin communication 1, JMHO. With that said you have 10 times more edits than ShonRoY and I can see your frustration because the editor is not communicating about the disruptive edits. Seems we need to get their attention, and previous blocks may not have got their attention. Hopefully they will come here and explain their edits. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Lightburst, I think our expectation is too high for such users. They actually don't want to response anything. This is what they did now, changed their user name and pursue the same unsourced edit. Which shows they are pretending to be diffferent user and continue their editing behaviour. And this is not the first time, they did same thing before when they were warned they changed user name and did those unsourced edits. Drat8sub (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. So we need to get their attention. An administrator will have to come along and evaluate. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments I would like to add here that the user in question has been making not only disruptive edits but also vandalising the Mohun Bagan A.C. page ignoring all the discussions. There is no harm if he is an SC East Bengal fan but this user is just changing user names and going on with similar behaviour ignoring all the warnings as I noticed in his talk page. This requires perhaps strict solution. M Kariyappa (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Further comments: I have asked the user again to explain their edits, but it seems they have ignored as rather than explaining they again claimed something without providing any source. It's now out of control and quite frustrating to deal with such editing behaviour, my request to any admin please take the necessary actions, it seems the user is highly incompetent. Drat8sub (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, Yamla and GiantSnowman, I am pinging you, since this has not been addressed yet and you all dealt with this user before. Can anyone of you please take a look into this user's edits and bring a solution to the matter. Drat8sub (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think a competency block is probably required, this edit from 2 days ago is the latest example of them failing to add sources to BLPs. GiantSnowman 19:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• I made a request at User talk:MindSlayer13#Sources. I will probably see any response, but please alert me if I miss it or if similar editing continues with no response. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I think a CIR-block is pretty plausible here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The ANI opened on 18 and now it's 28, it's 10 days. In between I've asked the user to response, then Johnuniq, you asked on 25th, now after 3 days there is no response. Rather they did this edit, exactly the same edit here that they claimed without any source, (the player signing status which is not announced such by club). I don't think there is any need for waiting more to take action. They were given chances and now they wasted it instead. Drat8sub (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Drat8sub: I have blocked MindSlayer13 (talk · contribs) indefinitely. Let me know if any problems continue (such as new users). Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Thrylaraole

Thrylaraole has been consistently engaging in disruptive and unresponsive editing across the website for months. As you can see at his talkpage, he has been warned time and time again to stop, with no effect whatsoever. An example would be his editing on Organization X, a page that is currently protected because a blocked user keeps IP hoping and reinserting a whitewashed, neonazi POV version of the article. Then Thrylaraole comes in and reinserts the banned user's version word for word three times 1, 2, 3. Today he blanked the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article and copy pasted] its contents to Fall of Japan, this decision was not discussed in any shape or form. This user does not engage in talkpage discussions, does not leave edit summaries, just goes around controversial articles undoing other people's edits. For other examples of disruptive editing just check the warnings on his talkpage.--Catlemur (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like WhiteStarG7 to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violation at Gordon Rausser

Choielliotjwa has repeatly reverted my removal of inappropriate copyrighted information at this page. The content he has added is against the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and honors received by Gordon Rausser, which called for only the merge of only the most notable awards per WP:NOTRESUME (they are already listed in the prose part of the article), and is a copyright violation of [174]. Ping AFD nom DGG. Reywas92^Talk 18:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Reywas92 is accusing this content of being inappropriate copyrighted information, but the website the user redirects to is the CV of Gordon Rausser. How is this copyright? The discussion for the most notable awards was already been discussed and settled; if you don't like one of the awards, please put it up for discussion rather than deleting the whole section.

Choielliotjwa (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"How is this copyright?" Hmmmmmm.... How about the "© 2020 Gordon Rausser" at the bottom of the page? Genius. Yes, it was settled that you should not copy-and-paste the entire CV into the article! I don't like any of these because the most notable ones are already in the third and fourth paragraphs of the article. Reywas92^Talk 19:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a complete copy/paste of the CV - it's at least rephrased with citations added - but it might still be copyright infringement. That said, Choielliotjwa's only edits to Wikipedia have been related to Rausser, so I suspect that there's a COI, in which case Rausser could give Wikipedia a license to use the information. Gbear605 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It's okay to give a chronological list of awards, but some of the descriptions contain copyright text, for example from here. The whole list needs to be checked carefully. The article is now listed at WP:CP.— Diannaa (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Cedars Park, Cheshunt

• Jake Gutteridge (talk · contribs)
• 82.9.202.29 (talk · contribs)
• 82.3.246.74 (talk · contribs)
• 82.9.162.19 (talk · contribs)
• 82.6.111.69 (talk · contribs)

Accounts appear related. Edit warring, persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content, lists of non notable persons, and WP:COI, with Mr. Gutteridge adding his name. Over and over. Requesting user block and range block of the IPs and clean up of the article, as even my limited attempts are reverted. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

176.27.143.183

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

---

176.27.143.183 openly admits on User talk:Nathan2055, while trying to manipulate Nathan2205 into an ally, that he is the same user who was blocked yesterday. Block evasion, personal attacks and WP:POINTY troll edits dating back at least 18 months. Requesting block, thanks. Dory Funk (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"I’m contacting you due to being both repeatedly targeted and falsely banned by a factual troll who’s been endlessly vandalizing, reverting and deleting literally anything positive to do with a figure named Vince Russo on any page. As you just saw on the “Retribution” article, there was literally nothing worthy of being deleted in that quote by Vince Russo from a cited source, which is why you logically added it back from the pathetic troll “Dory Funk”, who’s been repeatedly deleting all positive sourced quotes made by Russo for months now. I even just looked at the “WWF Brawl for All” article which had a series of positive Russo quotes that were added all the way back in April, and yet they were all just deleted by this “Dory Funk” loser without logical reason a few weeks ago, all despite the fact that these quotes were worthy of being there without ever being deleted by anyone else for 6 entire months. This ridiculous troll has an incredibly pathetic, biased agenda against anything Vince Russo related, as well as me personally. If the only issue with me being repeatedly and falsely banned by this trolls reporting was me needing a “confirmed” Wikipedia account then I would have created one months ago, but this spiteful m0r0n is so embarrassingly obsessed with trolling anything Vince Russo related that i’m sure he would use his nonsense “sock-puppet” excuse against me even with a fully confirmed account. The fact that i’ve done nothing but make factually helpful ANTI-TROLL edits the entire time and yet this idi0t continues to stalk, target, and get my factually helpful edits reverted and my I.P. address falsely banned without valid reason is all proof that his trolling needs to be put to a permanent end. So to quickly sum up, can you possibly help with this long-term issue of repeated trolling? Or could you direct me to the page of a Wikipedia moderator who isn’t a pathetic, biased, trolling man-child like “Dory Funk” and any of these other equally pathetic, abusive figures who keep reverting factually constructive/factually sourced edits and ridiculously banning actual normal people like myself? ([diff) Aspersions? Check. Personal attacks? Check. Sock puppetry? Check. Darkknight2149 07:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) A knitted foot covering - 94.2.82.73. "This piece of shit troll freakshow has even followed me here now, proving my point yet again. I'll go to another mod on a different I.P. address have this basement-dweller dealt with.". Narky Blert (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

And that's been blocked as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Australian IP editor and "decisive" Turkish victories

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

---

• 203.220.140.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 14.202.44.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.221.7.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Battle of Dumlupınar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Turkish War of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Despite the dissimilar IP addresses they all locate to the Melbourne area of Australia, and based on edits are clearly the same editor. For many days this editor has been edit warring to add the term "decisive" to infoboxes relating to battles/conflicts. Template:Infobox military conflict specifically says not to do this for the "result" field, stating this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive" . . . Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". This has been explained at Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)#"Decisive", Talk:Battle of Dumlupınar#"decisive" in infobox, and on the first IPs talk page at 12:14, 21 October 2020. It did appear that the message on their talk page did the trick since they stopped attempting to edit war "decisive" into infoboxes, but they have been carrying on edit warring using the latter two IPs since 25 October. I assume semi-protection might be the best option, it seemed a bit complicated for a RFPP request. FDW777 (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the named articles for a month. Bishonen | tålk 21:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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

If we open new account in Gmail or Yahoo they asked email address. In wikipedia it is optional . change this procedure. if we forget passward we can recover through this mail address

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

---

Its my praposal . If open account in gmail or yahoo , they asked emai address or phone number. With out email/Phone number we cant open account in Gmail or yahoo.

But in Wikipedia we can open account with out mail address/Phone number .

My opinion is Change software to make it, impossible to open an account in Wikipedia without email address /Phone number .

Benefits of email :

1. If we forget pass ward , we can recover through our mail.

2. It secures .

3. Can restrict open "Multiple accounts by a single user"

(Idokkryu (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC))

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

How do we deal with undiscussed mass-mergers of articles?

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

---

Ordinarilly we use {{Merge|OtherPage |date=October 2020}} and {{Merge to|OtherPage |date=October 2020 }} to suggest that two articles be merged, and to open up a discussion. However, an editor, Reywas92, earlier today mass-merged some 60 pages in a little less than 4 hours, between 03:23, 28 October 2020 and 07:11, 28 October 2020 (can be seen here), the bulk of them were articles about Puerto Rico government/politics.

A single potentially controversial merge can be disruptive if not discussed first. However, in this case there are some 60 merges, many of them articles that had been stable for years. While merges can be a good thing if the edits follow WP:PG, the reality "in the field", "in the trenches", is that much of it can be downright disruptive politically-motivated POV, especually during these days of prime-time US and PR elections. For example, here the editor performed a merged admitting in his summary edit that "May largely duplicate bullet point list but I'm not going to go through that yet, just getting rid of duplicate article". I don't about everyone else in this ANI forum, but my MO is that I first clean up my own mess in our article before I proceed to the next. In addition these weren't "duplicate article"s.

Is there enough here to admonish/block/mass-revert the editor/his edits to reign undiscussed mass-mergers like these. I couldn't find any invitation to discuss any of those mergers. Mercy11 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mercy11: Merely mass merging is no crime. The real question is: were the merges good? If they were generally good, then I see no issue. If there are some bad ones, open a discussion and they can be undone. I see no evidence to indicate that they were all or mostly bad though. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment and Questions: A few opening observations:

• Disclaimer: I generally feel good merges are a very positive way to improve the encyclopedia.
• Editors are allowed to merge boldly if they believe the edits will not be controversial. IMO however, articles that have existed for a while (~2yrs) or articles likely to be expanded in the future generally deserve a discussion.
• "A single potentially controversial merge can be disruptive if not discussed first." Merges can be undone easily. Unless there is a broad and consistent pattern of bad merges it is not DE.
• Merges should be done thoughtfully, with the resulting article being improved rather than just added to and cluttered up. Merges should not be done haphazardly or in a way that creates work for others. 60 merges in 4 hours is a lot to think about, perform the merge to the chosen page, and ce the result, even if you're merging stubs. Reywas92, can you describe the process you use to decide on and then perform a merge?
• Mercy11, you provided no article names for the merges that you feel are problematic. Can you please provide them. You also state "downright disruptive politically-motivated POV", can you provide diff supporting "politically-motivated POV" in the merges in question.

I have not looked into the details because I would like to hear from the principles before looking at specifics.   // Timothy :: talk  00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek:One problem is that they are all copyvio's as best practices regarding edit summary wording weren't followed (Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia).

Second, I picked one of the merged product pages at random, Secretary of State of Puerto Rico. This is the before of the FROM-Page and this is the before of the TO-Page of two articles that were merged. Neither of the two had any errors in the Refereces section. Now, this is the after of their merge. The AFTER product has errors in the Reference section. The failure here is clear WP:PG wasn't adhered to, specifically here WP:V. Mercy11 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

How does a simple merge violate Verifiability? Also, the copyvio thing can be fixed with a dummy edit providing attribution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: One of the beautiful things about editing at WP is that, as volunteers, we each choose the type of work we want to do. Mine is perhaps best described as creating quality articles. I am sure someone will come along whose love is to go thru all those merges and seek-and-destroy all the bad stuff. This could also be termed doing the janitorial work after what I perceive as risky merging at best and just downright sloopy merging at worse. Mercy11 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reply to Mercy11: Forgive this humble janitor asking for diffs and information; I was unaware of your special calling. Please accept my humble thank you for your concise response which tells everyone everything they need to know about the merits of your report.   // Timothy :: talk  04:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have a concern about a specific merge I performed, please say which one directly to me or on its talk page, rather then broadly complaining here. These pages have low readership and no recent edits, so it was reasonable to assume there would be no response to a {merge} tag, as I have encountered before, with WP:BOLD perfectly acceptable per the bolded first line of WP:MERGEINIT. In every one of these cases, the merged-from page was duplicative of, very similar to, or closely related to the page merged to, with no need for a separate page, and I see no controversy about the content of any of them. It should be uncontroversial that the list of secretaries of state should be in the same article describing the role of secretary of state. If your concern is that I accidentally missed the {notelist} template on a single one of these pages, as I have now fixed, you can alert me directly rather than whining to administrators. Double-checking my edits, I merged 30 Puerto Rico articles into others, not "60 merges", and I am confident that every one of them should have their content on the merged-to page: all were redundant, very similar in topic, or lacked notability for the need for a separate article. The most blatantly obvious were Article Four of the Constitution of Puerto Rico, Bill of Rights of Puerto Rico, and Article Three of the Constitution of Puerto Rico into Constitution of Puerto Rico – should I have waited a week to do that? With respect to merging the duplicative List of cays and islets of Puerto Rico to List of islands of Puerto Rico, do you really think these should have remained separate pages? I have now consolidated the table and bulleted list. Was worth whining to administrators about the very next day, before saying something on the page itself or directly to me? I have never been to Puerto Rico nor have a formed opinion of its local politics – just that there shouldn't be duplicative stubs – and your assuming bad faith and POV is rude and unfounded. Your implicatation that these are full of "bad stuff" and "risky" from one missing note list template, and that I am incapable of creating quality articles, is likewise rude and unfounded. Reywas92^Talk 01:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no merit to this report. Reywas92 performed quality merges with a few minor easily corrected oversights.   // Timothy :: talk  05:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits from self-confessed sock-puppet Heatxiddy

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

---

Can an admin please block the account Heatxiddy, he has self-confessed to being a sock-puppet of Zalgo [175]. He is making disruptive edits claiming users are abusing policy. This is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

: Can you point to ONE edit (outside of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zalgo of course) that you think is "disruptive"? And don't worry -- they will eventually block this account, so you will soon be able to revert my legitimate edits by abusing WP:BLOCKEVASION (hence, "policy abuse") so as to suit your agenda here. Heatxiddy (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC) comment made by sock Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You have been disrupting articles related to animal source foods, vegetarianism, veganism, pescetarianism, carnivore diet etc for the last year on about six or seven different blocked accounts with an agenda to push. Its the same thing every-time. You were the same person pushing the pseudoscientific carnivore diet on Wikipedia and Reddit now you are trying to promote others on here. You ignore WP:MEDRS and seem to lack knowledge about these topics. For example most of your edits on plant-based diet were reverted [176]. After your account is blocked, I guess we will see you next month on a new one. You are not making legitimate edits. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Lansing Michigan rapper rangeblock

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

---

Somebody in Lansing has been vandalizing hip hop music articles for more than a year, using the range Special:Contributions/2601:405:4600:DFC0:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get a rangeblock?

Typical vandalism from this range includes wrong names,[177] changing song titles and credits,[178] adding unreferenced future stuff,[179] and more.[180][181][182] The vandalism probably goes back earlier with other IPs. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done, for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Emigré55

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

---

• Emigré55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I closed an RfC on the use of a specific self-published source as a speculative identification of the subject of this painting: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 314 § Marc Couwenbergh. Emigré55 did not accept this close and edit-warred to include the text based on the self-published source, leading to the article being protected. Protection expired and Emigré55 has just done exactly the same again, reverted by The Banner, who was also involved in the original discussion. The article is now protected again (by Deepfriedokra). Talk page discussion is circular, with repetition of the same claims of reliability that were unsuccessfully advanced in the RSN discussion. It looks as if The Banner was correct in their original prediction that the RSN result would simply be rejected. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You forgot to mention edit-warring over related, if not identical, content at Anna van Egmont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FDW777 (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JzG: in case you weren't aware, there's a potentially related dustup involving these two editors in a thread near the top of this page ('Request for Boomerang Site Ban'). It appears that Emigre55 inserted themselves into a separate dispute involving The Banner in an attempt to get the latter sanctioned, possibly because of their otherwise unrelated differences with the editor. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

That discussion is certainly related as Eissink did not like the fact that I kept asking for proof. Proof of Marc Couwenbergh being an art historian of note and proof of the blog posts being peer-reviewed reliable sources. Here, the talk page of Hoary, he was fishing for support for his stance that WP:RS/SPS was satisfied with claiming that Couwenbergh is a notable expert on his filed (no proof delivered). And here he started digging in my past to get info on a block I don't know how many years ago. This looks more like an attempt to get rid of someone instead of delivering requested proof. The Banner talk 16:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW, the temptation to just block Emigré55 for disruption was great. Don't like blocking people, but see no other option if the previous WP:BRD has been fruitless. The purpose of FP is to get users to discuss, so. . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
  

JzG, The RfC was about the reliability of Couwenbergh, as judged by consensus. And you are right, consensus on that point was against me. However, the RfC was not about RKD, and there was never any discussion about RKD as a source, and of course its reliability. RKD had not published anything about the hypothesis I mentioned in this article before the RfC.
Now RKD did, only a few days ago, here, writing, “it has been suggested that the sitter is Anna van Bueren."
The argument I am making now is hence dramatically different from the argument disputed in the RfC. I am just claiming to cite RKD and what they write. That is to write a fact, and evidence it by a most reliable source. No more, but no less.
And I believe I comply with all rules of Wikipedia in so doing.
I did not revert based on an alleged refusal of the result of the RfC. I just reverted on the basis of RKD new statement, as stated in the header, referring also to the talk page where I had previously explained the reasons why.
Nor did I "edit warred", as there was only one overall change on my part to restore the article and this useful information as a whole. The edit war started when The Banner promptly reverted my changes, based on his old and unchanged arguments, which do not apply anymore. I did not go further than my first changes, so, if there must be an edit war, it is coming from him, not me.
Moreover, please kindly note that I did not mean to be disruptive in doing that, but to add information, and properly sourced, to this article, as opposed to delete only, as The Banner did. My overall contribution to this article can be judged here, as well as his and others’ contributions, and usefully compared to The Banner's.
My overall contribution to the article about Anna van Buren, which is related to this one, can also be judged here.--Emigré55 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it's exactly the same argument: that the occasional mention of this self-published speculation thus justifies its inclusion as fact in the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

My addition was the referral to the Reliable sources noticeboard. That you do not like the outcome is not something can blame on anyone. And that the RKD uses that same sources shot down at RSN does make that source sudden useful. The Banner talk 18:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

JzG, well, you can see it this way, but this is definitely not how I saw the point and the situation, when I learned about RKD recent publication. All the more since it is legitimate to think that RKD operates here a peer validation of what you call a speculation, but what is in fact an hypothesis, which is quite current in art history as to sitters or painters of a particular painting.

Anyhow, if you have read my personal page, you know that I do not wish to further contribute to Wikipedia, mainly due to The Banner harassment, which I suffered since this summer. (and of course which I can document if I am asked to). With this important hypothesis/info for the history,I just wanted to finish 2 articles I have spent a lot of time on. Now, I do not not have either the courage anymore, or the motivation, to bring to Wikipedia the other biographies of painters/old masters I have worked on all my life, and which are poorly or even not at all represented in Wikipedia....

The Banner has properly killed my earlier enthusiasm (he will he happy to learn that, I am sure....)--Emigré55 (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you blame me for the fact that you were unable to provide proof of Marc Couwenbergh being an art historian of note and proof of the blog posts being peer-reviewed reliable sources? The Banner talk 03:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I really wish people who decide to stop contributing would just stop contributing. EEng 09:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

He still seems to think that I am fabricating rules, while he is ignoring a community decision. This is going nowhere. The Banner talk 09:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

And it goes on and on. This discussion is nor funny nor useful: Talk:Anna van Egmont#His publications pertinent to the article. I dislike it to ask for it, but a block or topic ban might be needed. The Banner talk 13:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for Boomerang topic ban

If this is "going nowhere", as claimed by The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), here above, it is because :

• of The Banner constant and immediate opposition to ANY change I have brought to this page, and not let alone this one, but on other subjects too.(I can of course document this point if I am asked)
• the fact that he only deleted information, and NEVER contributed positively in this article, not a single byte, as shown here.
• the fact that he never accepts any compromise in the wording I proposed. On this precise issue, I proposed a different and compromised version today for the third time.

I, on the contrary, have a history on this article of long and positive contribution, which can be assessed here, having brought 17,845 bytes(76.7% of the added text to the initial article).
Taking into consideration such a constant opposition, sometimes even based on lies (which I can also document if asked), in my humble opinion, he is the one who should be topic banned.
--Emigré55 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact, you are the one that deserves a block. You keep ignoring the decision taken on the Reliable sources noticeboard. And you seem to think I am evil, because you fail to prove that Marc Couwenbergh is an art historian of note. And you fail to prove that the blog post of Couwenergh are relevant, peer reviewed sources. But no, time and time again you come with the same stories. Unfortunately, in all your walls of text there is still no proof. And you start more and more shouting about personal attacks from my hand. The Banner talk 16:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Emigré55, are you proposing a site ban or topic ban for The Banner? The section title is for a site ban, but you end your proposal with he is the one who should be topic banned. Can you clarify whether you want a topic ban or a site ban. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Based upon what? The same lack of evidence that was (not) provided in the previous thread? Could an admin please just close this? Grandpallama (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, My apologies, my mistake. I am just asking a topic ban, and just corrected the title. Contrary to The Banner, I am not looking into goading and escalating, and I leave it to the admins to decide if his overall behaviour deserves more. My aim is just to finish quietly this article in which I have invested a lot of time and efforts. I am totally discouraged by his continuous harassment, as I wrote it on my personal page, and have stopped writing other articles on other topics. Getting old and suffering from heart disease, I also cannot afford coping with so aggressive people, for the sake of my own health.--Emigré55 (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, Should I give diffs for the points I have offered to document? --Emigré55 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It is important to support any accusations / points you make at ANI with diffs to show it. If you could add a few diffs which directly support the points you present that would be useful. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, Thank you for your answer. I will work on these points in the coming hours, and come back at the latest tomorrow morning. --Emigré55 (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could explain this edit? Since the timestamps are forty minutes apart, it's not clear to me that it was the product of an edit conflict. Grandpallama (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  I doubt you'll be hearing back, or hearing back anything creditable. We've now got two editors, Emigre and Eissink, caught in a sort of folie à deux. It's long past time for an admin to end our hopeless attempts to cast clues before the unclueable by closing this thread, and #Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition, with appropriate action. EEng 03:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  Emigré55 have you seen this question? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz, I had seen it, but not looked into it, as I did not take it as addressed to me. Having now clicked on the diff, it seems that copy pasting my answer directly under your previous question might have accidentally erase this comment. If it is the case, my apologies, as it was obviously not my intention to erase anyone's comment. --Emigré55 (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Facts and diffs concerning The Banner:

1/ "The Banner constant and immediate opposition to ANY change” , “constant opposition, sometimes even based on lies":

• e.g. reverting even the name of Anna van Bueren, bluntly claiming that she acquired her name “by marriage” (a pure invention of him), without a diff, here,

and against all evidence , as I had to remind him here: "You wrongly reverted this. for a wrong reason. If you had read further, you would know that she was "suo jure" Countess of Buren. And if you had read her father's biography, you would know that he was Count of Buren."

• e.g. again, and the very next day, now claiming that she is not “better known as Anna van Buren” and that other wikis prove it, here.

a pure lie, since he could not ignore they tell the contrary, and that it is based on numerous sources, as I reminded it on his talk page, and here, adding 3 references to evidence.
I now regard these 2 malicious and futile reverts from The Banner as the beginning of his harassment against me, which lasted until now.

2/ The Banner uncivility and harassment:
I myself have been goaded/attacked numerous times byThe Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), up to a point when I felt literally harassed.

• “Great, you clearly have no flipping clue. And due to your lack of understanding, you need edit wars and personal attacks. To be honest, you give me the uspicion that you and Marc Couwenbergh are identical.” The&nbsp ;Banner&nbsp ;talk 09 :45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A clear triple “personal attack”, as WP:NPA clearly states that “ Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. », also violating WP:GOODFAITH. It’s here.
And he continued:

• again, on the very same day, posted on my personal talk page, "Nice try to hide .......the fact that you simple do not have a clue. The Banner talk 10:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)", here.
• and again, “you read badly...”, posted on my personal talk page, probably to goad me more, here, on 16/9.

I expressed to The Banner several times that I felt harassed by him, as here: "I read badly": A personal attack, to top up your continued harassment? --Emigré55 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)".
But he continued, and came again:

• for instance calling me “Dude”, here.
• and even adding, what shows a clear harassment, as much as his clear intention to provoke me : “And yes, this was on purpose.»

--Emigré55 (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no interest in looking at all claims here, but the "dude" one above, I noticed this at the discussion involved. Where did it come from? The Banner started a reply to you with the perfectly innocuous word "yep", to which you reacted as if they had committed some heinous crime:

""Yep" ? could you refrain from using such trivial interjections, and / or onomatopoeia? I do indeed feel offended by such vulgar comments from you on my remarks. They don't belong to an honest and civil dialog. And I fear that, unfortunately, this is not the first time that you dare to write to me like this. Purposely?"[183]

If you react so extremely poorly to such comments, then I think Wikipedia simply isn't the place for you. Civility doesn't mean writing like some 18th century members of the nobility addressing each other in convoluted sentences and using words they don't really understand (like, in this case, "onomatopeia"), and at the same time starting a duel for the most minor slight they perceive. If you can't stand someone saying "yep", then it simply is not possible to have you around in a collaborative, multicultural, and informal project. Fram (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup. I think we're now in CIR territory. EEng 10:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I will keep my reply short, just look here. Attack after attack and his tone and style did not change a bit since August.

But I am in fact concerned about the fact that there might be something more fishy behind this: User talk:Emigré55#Your submission at Articles for creation: Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) has been accepted and User talk:Emigré55#File:Portrait Young Noble Lady by Pourbus.IR Details 05 gauche.tif where two different editors vent their amazement about infra-red pictures presented as own work. Not impossible, but this looks more like pictures made in a professional environment.

And still no proof that Marc Couwenbergh is an art historian of note and that his personal blog posts are reliable peer-reviewed sources. The Banner talk 09:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

3 short comments on the 3 sentences here above by The Banner:

1/ Claiming I am attacking whereas I am defending myself against his malicious and goading reverts? Typical of the personal attack style/tactic of The Banner. Has tone and style of The Banner changed since last August?

2/ The answer to the first question is unfortunately no, as The Banner himself is revealing with this second sentence, moreover totally out of the points made in this paragraph.

In so doing, he is sticking to his tactic, another “ad hominem”, as explained here, why he uses this tactic: “a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue".

Also openly against WP:GOOD FAITH.

Hence pure stalking, pursuing and proving with this new stalking step his harassment.

3/ A further “ad hominem”, constant tactic of him to avoid answering the points raised. Moreover, this “ad hominem” reveals that The Banner fabricates Wikipedia rules he pretends to see applied in demanding again and again:

• that Couwenbergh should be "of note". Whereas WP:RS/SPS DOES NOT require that "of note" characterization. Only that he is "an established expert", which is definitely not the same. "of note" is hence a pure fabrication of his.
• that his blog should be "peer reviewed". Whereas WP:RS/SPS DOES NOT require this. Only that "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". No "peer review" required, a condition he purely has fabricated, in order to make up his case.

To me, this reveals that he is purely gaming the system, fabricating tools for his endless harassment against me.

--Emigré55 (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

An edit like this is 100% harassing. And you did that twice.

And here you are clearly making up your own rules by ignoring the community decision at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#Marc_Couwenbergh. It would be nice when you stop with your attacks and harassing. Just come up with the proof requested. The Banner talk 15:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Asking a third party, the admin who blocked you indef about the circumstances (in order to better understand) is harassing YOU??? My question seemed then to me perfectly legitimate, whereas I had just discovered that you precisely have a long history for harassment. You have been blocked 9 times (and 1 times indef.!) among other grounds for: "Personal attacks or harassment", "Disruptive editing: continued battleground mentality; frivolous ANI thread", "Disruptive editing: battleground mentality, edit-warring, absolute refusal to engage in discussion",..., and for actions which now repeat. For your bloks, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=The+Banner&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers

Asking an admin for advice, as I did with Hoary, is ignoring a community decision???

We don't seem to speak the same language, I am afraid. One thing is sure, you prove with these 2 sentences again that you continue to attack me "ad hominem".

En passant, can you remember the advice Hoary gave to you, here? ""The Banner, if you're offended, perhaps you'd benefit from taking a break from this particular article. Wikipedia has so very many more on offer. -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)"

--Emigré55 (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Request a block for Emigré due to constant harassing, following around and personal attacks. I have enough of his disruptive and battleground behaviour. The Banner talk 15:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Request a topic ban for The Banner, limited to the 2 articles on Anna van Egmont and Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) and their talk pages, with additional order to refrain to interact directly or indirectly with Emigré55.
So that The Banner WILL HAVE to now conform to Hoary’s recommendation.
I leave it to the admins to decide which sanction is appropriate for the insidious harassment I have suffered for 2 months since August 2020, which was evidenced again today by The Banner himself with his stalking new attack (here) on one hand, and for insidiously gaming the system on the other hand. --Emigré55 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be a better plan to give you a topic ban for those articles. To be lifted when you provide evidence that Marc Couwenbergh is an art historian of note and that his personal blog posts are peer-reviewed reliable sources (what can be a bit pf a problem seeing Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_314#Marc_Couwenbergh). It looks like asking for evidence is a personal attack in the eyes of Emigré55. The Banner talk 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It is amazing how you keep ignoring what I wrote here above and also before, i.e. that you impose conditions that are NOT stated in WP:RS/SPS. Hence, keeping fabricating WP rules. WP:RS/SPS DOES NOT require that "of note" characterization, nor that his blog should be "peer reviewed". Only that "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications".

And I have already provided all evidences needed by WP:RS/SPS, here, but you have chosen to ignore them. So, claiming now that "asking for evidence is a personal attack in the eyes of Emigré55" is both contrary to the mere truth, and a new breach by you of WP:GOODFAITH.

Furthermore, I would say that the mention by RKD of both Couwenbergh hypothesis AND his personal blog (at the end of their entry on this painting) is the obvious best "peer review" of this blog you demand, but also , and at the same time, want to ignore, or reject.

Therefore, you should ask yourself: why should a mere Wikipedia contributor reject a source which has been accepted by RKD, at least for being worth mentioning in their research pages?? It is mind boggling to me that you, or any wikipedia contributor, would dare to put yourself/himself as a better judge that RKD, for what is an acceptable source or not for an art history hypothesis! It would also be simply ridiculous.

--Emigré55 (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it sounds that you have informed the RKD about those blog post, seeing this edit of your hand: Now, the most important: The RKD is aware of the false/incomplete entry, and as far as I know will correct it, and of course add the catalogue references, which you will notice also are missing in their description. Everybody is welcome to check this information, as I did, by calling RKD or writing them. So, my suggestion is to wait until the correction is made in their own database. RKD is slow moving, but it will be done. I am 100% sure of it.--Emigré55 (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC) . The most likely way that they could have known this while at the same time you know that, is when you informed them. The Banner talk 21:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

So what?

Are people not grown up enough, professional enough, at RKD, not to make their own opinion?

You are just evidencing that it is the case that they found, at least, worth mentioning Couwenbergh, his blog, and his hypothesis. Merely the "peer review" you demanded. and that you seem now to reject??

Now, as I wrote, everybody can call them and check. Why don't you call them and ask that they take out these mentions?--Emigré55 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Call to site-block Emigré55 I am sorry to be making this post because it comes after I tried personally counselling Emigre at their talk page, with limited success. I there and others here have explained to Emigre that the "attacks" he perceives are not attacks under any reasonable standard yet they have doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on insisting that every statement the Banner makes is somehow offensive. Emigre continues to take the most innocuous possible utterances as evidence of a grand plan by The Banner to drive them from Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this becomes self-fulfilling prophecy: By continuing to propose sanctions against The Banner, Emigre has instead provided proof that sanctions are necessary against themself. This has gone on long enough and, as Bishonen often puts it, editor time is a precious resource. Emigré55 should be short-term blocked to allow them time and space to stop focusing on ephemeral conspiracies and to prevent further disruption. I still believe they can make great contributions if they let this one-sided animosity go and a block is the best tool to help achieve that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Let me correct you: I am not proposing sanctions against The Banner, what he has been and still is doing against me.

I am only proposing/asking that he be topic ban. A mere admin measure.

I leave it to the admins decide if and which sanctions are needed for the undeniable harassment I am experiencing since August.

May I also remind you that you wrote on my talk page : "I'm not going to pretend to tell you you shouldn't feel harassed. Your feelings are yours and nobody can tell you what they should be. "

So, please do not now write the contrary, and/or that "Emigre continues to take the most innocuous possible utterances as evidence of a grand plan by The Banner to drive them from Wikipedia". This, I have never written, so please do not attribute to me such ideas/plans, also contrary to WP:GOODFAITH....TY. --Emigré55 (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

A topic ban is a sanction, I don't know how you think it is not. You are listing "Yep" and "Dude" as evidence of "attacks" and you in this very post accuse The Banner of a pattern of continuing attacks and on your user page you say "Hence I am strongly considering to no longer contribute." I think that's the ""innocuous ...utterances as evidence of a grand plan ...to drive them from Wikipedia". These are the feelings you've clearly and copiously expressed so I can hardly be stated to be attributing anything to you that you have not said yourself, although not in so many words. I wish it were otherwise. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

My history on this article is a long and positive contribution, which can be assessed here, having brought 17,845 bytes(76.7% of the added text to the initial article).

By contrast, The Banner has contributed not a single byte, as can be seen here, only deleted. Also deleted verified information, against all evidence, and without reason (even lying sometimes) as I evidenced here above at the beginning of this paragraph.

And you want ME to be site-blocked? --Emigré55 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. No amount or percentage of contributions to any particular article justify repeated aspersions and personal attacks. Just for the record, The Banner has created 380 articles, including at least two with an initial size of over 100,000bytes. By your logic, that should fatally undermine any request of yours for any type of block against them. In point of fact, however, this project can and does block or sometimes permanently ban editors with copious content contributions. I am not asking for a long-term block here, just a short one to prevent further disruption. You have the opportunity right now, this very second, to make changes that would allow you to keep contributing. I hope you take it but my advice has not proven effective so far. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

If your point is that you really want to prevent disruption, then ask The Banner not to fabricate the rule and repeatedly twist WP:RS/SPS by adding conditions of his inventions which simply do not exist in this rule. THAT is a true disruption. And you will then solve most of the problem HE created.

If your point is "allow you to keep contributing..." and "make great contributions", a site block will bring exactly the opposite. For I will definitely lose the little remaining rest of confidence I still try to have in the community that it is able to control evident abuse of some contributors, like the ones The Banner allowed/allows himself on this article (abusive deletions to start with, but above all using a fabricated version of WP:RS/SPS, i.e, gaming the system, whatever his reasons on intentions for that can be). In that case, how can you imagine that I could still be motivated to further contribute?

Food for thoughts. I sincerely wish you a good night. --Emigré55 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked. I have blocked Emigré55 for a week for persistent slow edit warring at the article and vexatious litigation here at ANI. Also for unreasonable deflection at Talk:Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus), such as taking elaborate offense as the use of words like "yep" and "dude".[184] That kind of thing is a waste of the valuable time and patience of other editors. I considered a much longer partial block from Portrait of a Noble Young Lady (Pourbus) and its talkpage, but considering Emigré55's creation of the article and considerable input in it, that seemed cruel. It remains a possibility if their disruption at the article should continue after this short (all things considered) sitewide block. Bishonen | tålk 09:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC).

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

edit warring and apparent white washing at Canada Christian College

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

---

Over the past few days, 2 ips and a user: 76.10.169.60, 2607:FEA8:31C0:3520:2833:B935:EF57:8EE1, and User:Quartzgoldbling, have been involved in a lengthy dispute over Canada Christian College, which has been involved in some sort of controversy that somehow involves us. It seems like the user account and one of the ips are trying to do a little pr, while the other ip is trying to prevent this. I'm a bit at a loss to do, on whether I should block, protect the page, or do nothing, so I'm bringing this here so others can weigh in and more eyes will be on the dispute. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 00:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Moneytrees🏝️ for drawing attention to this, but I dispute your characterization about my intent, so I want to be clear. This is not an attempt at PR (at least, speaking of my edits), but rather, an attempt to offer an objective view of an existing institution and preventing overt and excessive negative spin. Canada Christian College is currently under political attack due to having pending legislation for university status under review in the Ontario legislature. 76.10.169.60 has made edits on pages speaking about the Liberal Party of Ontario, and thus, is likely favorable toward expanding this controversy on Wikipedia. All observers can note that I have not touched past controversies (except moving information 76.10.169.60 placed in history under the Jewish Studies Department controversy) nor made any significant edits to the present university status controversy other than offering additional statements made by the college's President, which 76.10.169.60 explicitly chose not to include.

However, 76.10.169.60 is continuing to fill the section on the history of the school (the most visible part of the page, as it is at the top) with an excessive amount of material from Toronto Star articles from the 1970s to create an unfair portrayal of the school. Moreover, 76.10.169.60 insists on including tangential information within the article, such as a college that was "affiliated" with Canada Christian College as well as the academic status of a defunct institution that Canada Christian College (*in the 1970s*) purchased curriculum from). Additionally, 76.10.169.60 continues to move the Academic Programs below the controversies in an attempt to foreground present and past controversies. I have moved them up, without altering any other content to offer a window into the current programs the institution before readers engage with controversies.

• Close to 500 students -- 80% visible minorities, 60% black -- currently attend the school and have their degree credibility at-risk by dredging up an unnecessary amount of hit-pieces from 45 years ago as "implied proof" that Canada Christian College as it exists in 2020 is somehow deficient in its academic offerings. There is no attempt at PR, but rather, a recognition that an overreliance on clearly biased articles primarily dating to the 1970s should not be given undue weight in an article about a college that currently exists and has numerous academic offerings, ALL OF WHICH have not been seriously questioned since 1999 (the most recent time full-degree granting ability for theological degrees was granted by the Ontario Parliament). As observers will note, only two or three sentences of the history even reference 1999 and beyond -- 21 years of the most important, current information about the institution missing -- while entire paragraphs are devoted to events 30-40 years ago.

One additional note: Moneytrees🏝️, I apologize for inadvertently breaking the Wikipedia copyright rules. 76.10.169.60 created a section on the school's code of conduct which quoted a single line from an article. I included the full student code of conduct from the Canada Christian College website so that readers could see the entirety. The code of conduct goes well-beyond "hot topic" issues and incorporates numerous smaller, more interesting items that deserve space in the article. If I need to paraphrase it I will, but I thought that citing its webpage would suffice. Again, I apologize and can move forward according to your recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzgoldbling (talk • contribs) 00:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting there's absolutely nothing on the article talk page. Recommend some level of protection (maybe pending changes). Also worth pointing out that Wikipedia prefers independent sources for all but the most basic uncontroversial facts. We cover aspects of a subject in proportion to how much coverage those aspects have in the body of sources about that subject (not including the subject's own website). Whether something should be included or how much space a particular topic should occupy is a discussions that needs to take place on the article's talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Rhododendrites. Concerning the aspects of a subject in proportion to the body of sources about that subject, the crucial issue is this -- for an existing institution that presently affects the lives of hundreds of marginalized individuals *presently*, is it defensible to place undue emphasis on sources 35+ years old centered on degree-granting issues when there have been 21 years of no similar controversies? Again, I am not arguing ALL history should be removed; its a matter of balance, not whitewashing. For living individuals, Wikipedia gives guidance for undue emphasis/negative spin (not only attack pages, which are usually instant removals). Why should such protection vastly differ when you're dealing with issues that impact hundreds of individuals as opposed to a single individual?

Again, I have not substantively altered any controversies from the page (which would be textbook "whitewashing"). Indeed, all past institutional controversies (very hot topics!) have remained. The present controversy about gaining university status that is creating a media frenzy has also remained in an unaltered state.

In the history section, I have continued to remove references to "affiliate institutions" whose controversies should not be brought into play within an article focused on a particular college. Two companies get founded by the same person; fair game to cross-reference them *on that person's Wiki,* but strikingly immaterial on each institution's page unless an explicit rationale is given (them being "affiliates" should hardly count, especially in an academic setting where schools have cooperative agreements and intiatives with one another all the time). Any school page with a reasonable history will have interacted in some way with other institutions. Should Harvard admissions scandals be added to the University of Chicago's page because they share faculty? How about MIT and Yale if they have a joint degree? I would contend, only if the FACULTY (Harvard, UChicago) or JOINT DEGREE (MIT/Yale) are in question. Simply having some affiliation does not mean that the controversies from one institution are suddenly bestowed upon the other.

Lastly, I believe I have provided the "most uncontroversial facts" as a balance to the excessively negative spin being offered -- again, from sources over 35 years old, predating the current degree-granting regime. Specifically, the *current* degree programs offered by the college is hardly controversial; the current *actual* code of conduct [as opposed to snippets from a newspaper article] is hardly controversial). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzgoldbling (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The president of the college is quoted in the press criticising wikipedia. "It is sad that the NDP and MPP Kathleen Wynne would recklessly damage the lives of hundreds of students and thousands of graduates with mindless, hateful name calling, all while reading directly from a disreputable source, Wikipedia.”[185] I'm wondering if User:Quartzgoldbling or anyone else editing the article is a member of the management, faculty, or staff of the college or otherwise affiliated? Some of the edits suggest personal knowledge . 199.7.156.249 (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Quartzgoldbling FYI I took the liberty of formatting your comments above. Feel free to change if you don't like it. It's rare to create separate subsections for each response. We indicate we're responding to one another by indenting (increasing the number of colons before each comment indents by one more) and the signature takes the place of a name in a heading (remember to end each post you make with four tildes ~~~~, which automatically adds your username and a timestamp to the end ... otherwise you get those "preceding unsigned comment..." templates added by bots). As for the content of this response...

is it defensible to place undue emphasis on sources 35+ years old centered on degree-granting issues when there have been 21 years of no similar controversies - what is considered undue emphasis is based on the proportion of coverage. we do tend to prefer more recent sources where they conflict with the past, but how much space to devote to various historical events is a ubiquitous question on Wikipedia. It sounds like you may have some valid concerns. I'd advise opening one or more discussions on the talk page proposing changes based on reliable sourcing or arguments based on WP:WEIGHT. Again, this page isn't going to result in any changes to that article, though -- this is just where people go when there are behavioral concerns that merit wider attention. It has done that job, but it's unclear that any actual intervention is needed other than perhaps protection (as I mentioned above). (Protection restricts editing of a page to experienced editors to reduce disruption, regardless of who's right). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I genuinely appreciate the formatting assist and expanded response addressing my concerns. I will take your advice and move my discussion (which will pertain to WP:WEIGHT more than reliable sourcing) to the Canada Christian College talk page hereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzgoldbling (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Quick update: just added concern to talk page and made an edit based on that concern. I look forward to fruitful discussion on all of these matters, and on my part, will aim for independent sources covering more recent news about the college. Cheers, Rhododendrites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quartzgoldbling (talk • contribs) 03:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

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

British automobile vandalism range

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

---

We need a third rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2A00:23C8:1194:D900:0:0:0:0/64, as the most recent block has expired, with vandalism resuming. And some British car expert is needed to comb back through the contribution history and fix all the vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Took care of the block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Anyone willing to explain User:Szczeszek2035 that personal attacks are not allowed? I failed.

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

---

Is anyone ready for the challenge of explaining User:Szczeszek2035 the basics of collaborative editing, of what WP is not, and of the prohibition of personal attacks? I feel I've wasted my time here and here. Note that the editor has already been warned about NOPA by another editor[186] but it doesn't look like it have worked[187]. Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiri, (non-admin) I've left them a short note for now assuming good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asartea (talk • contribs)

Thank you! By the way, seems you forgot to sign. Best, — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiri, Goddamit. Its because I was trying to use replylink which died and then just mindlessly copypasted my message Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 19:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

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

IP address adding unsourced content and original research

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

---

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

Diffs: [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], and more. Has persisted since early 2019, despite a 3-day block in May 2020. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the same user, and no response to multiple warnings for unsourced content, original research, synthesis, copyvio, etc. Meters (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month. Let's see if that gets their attention enough to get them talking on their user talk page. If disruptive editing continues after the block expires, then keep re-blocking with increasing timeframes. ‑Scottywong| [spout] || 05:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent WP:BLP problems at Rabiya Sundall Mateo

I requested page protection over sixteen hour ago, to no avail. There's been prolonged warring over the subject's full name. Any assistance will be welcome. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

JM199723

• JM199723 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Single-purpose account, WP:MEAT. This user always add negative content to articles about China, make many POV edits. According to the interview of Epoch Times ([194][195]), this user said he has set up an organization to vandalise Wikipedia, and he maybe the Internet Water Army of Falungong. --DavidHuai1999※Talk 23:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In the future, please remember to notify the user in question on their talk page as is policy here at the top of the page and the edit notice when you started this thread. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody provide a translation of the key points of those articles? Google translate doesn't give me something intelligble enough. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Just to state the obvious, Epoch Times is not a reliable source. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And I would especially not trust anything they have to say about Falun Gong, aka their overlords. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: JM199723 is clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. His only purpose is to add negative content to articles about China, obvious POV pushing. Then, he blatantly accept the interview of Epoch Times (this media is a propaganda tool of Falungong cult). In these interview, we can also find he set up an organization and unite Internet Watch Army (it is probable that Falungong's Internet Watch Army) to disrupt Wikipedia. --DavidHuai1999※Talk 05:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @CaptainEek and JzG:. --DavidHuai1999※Talk 10:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

DavidHuai1999 you have come here to promote a claim made in an unreliable source, not sure why you would want to draw attention to that. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I think JM199723 maybe Falungong's Internet Watch Army. He accept the interview of Falungong's media, and Falungong's media promote him, glorify his disruptive editing. --DavidHuai1999※Talk 11:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Does the article actually name this account? If so, I'd like a translation of exactly where it does. Otherwise, this seems like WP:OUTING and should probably get sent to ArbCom instead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The interview article doesn't name this account, but list some Wikipedia article what he edited. In this interview, he said he has edited English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia. See global account information, JM199723 also edit English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia. And according to editorial preferences and interview date, I can know the interviewee is this user. --DavidHuai1999※Talk 05:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

These reports on the Epoch Times claim that how the Democracy Party of China members Ben and his son Benjamin adding negative China-related content on English and German Wikipedia and intended to set up an organization named "Wiki Truth", which made up by the people with same intention, to disruptive editing on all-languages Wikipedia. That is all. 隐世高人 (talk) 12:40 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Leinster IPs, block evasion by Lapsed Pacifist and Claíomh Solais

I have been seeing a bunch of Leinster IPs editing in the same style as banned users User:Lapsed Pacifist and User:Claíomh Solais. The IPs are pugnacious in the same manner, frequently reverting established users,[196][197] and they blank their talk pages the same way, with mocking edit summaries.[198][199] Does anybody want to sort this out? I'm not familiar with the past cases. Davide King has been dealing with the guy at Grover Furr, Transcendental, Thepesar and Crmoorhead at Evo Morales and Luis Arce, while Beyond My Ken, Grayfell, FDW777 and Mutt Lunker were active in the sockpuppet cases against Claíomh Solais. Anybody want to pursue this? Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevant links:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Claíomh Solais/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapsed Pacifist/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician/Archive

Recently involved IPs:

• 31.187.0.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 31.187.0.163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 31.187.0.238 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎31.187.2.16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 31.187.2.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎31.187.2.39 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎31.187.2.42 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 31.187.2.115 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎31.187.2.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎31.187.2.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• ‎31.187.4.154 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 80.111.17.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I assume per the latest (filed today) report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician that SpaceSandwich (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the same editor, especially as they are active on Grover Furr. I don't know whether they are related to that sockmaster, or either of the other two. FDW777 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Whoever they are, they were named SpaceLeninist before SpaceSandwich. All of these might be the same person. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The recent edits on Luis Arce did whiff of sockpuppetry and I did look at the user contributions to note one minor edit on an obscure page followed by an attempted edit war and a refusal to engage with my points and examples of similar material on similar pages. A few of the Bolivian politics pages get edited by IP users who don't seem to have much history, but usually they fade away and I don't consider them further. I remember the 2020 election material that you linked to and tried to delete because using material from a party political page doesn't seem a good source for anything. There isn't any accountability about what they can claim on a self-published page, particularly (IIRC) for a party that is only the fifth largest in a country of 2 million people. Thanks for bringing to my attention. Crmoorhead (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Scolaire says here that it's unlikely that Lapsed Pacifist was the same person as Apollo The Logician because the two had an extended edit war. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

JIMBOB8 and BRD

• JIMBOB8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jamie Vardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Multiple users have opposed an edit to the Jamie Vardy page made by JIMBOB8 that changes how information is presented. While the user makes his argument in edit summaries, he simply refuses to discuss on the Talk page, even after an attempt I made to start such a discussion per WP:BRD. Note as well that this user has had edit warring issues in the past, and rarely uses a Talk page even to discuss controversial changes. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Stepping aside and retirement are completely different, he is still currently an active member of the national team until he announces retirement, he is still available for a call-up in the case of an injury crisis so he is therefore still playing for them. JIMBOB8 (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the talk page discussion @JIMBOB8:. You can discuss the content dispute there. Tiderolls 20:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to hijack this venue to mention that I've noticed JIMBOB8 engage in disruptive editing for a while now. This is, by my count, the third time he has been reported here (once was by me). Here and here are two previous reports. In addition he's been engaged in a slow motion edit war misgendering Sam Smith, despite being told several times our policy on this. [200][201][202][203] That was a while ago, but he's recently started up again. [204].

When can we safely conclude that JIMBOB8 is not here to build an encyclopedia? — Czello

I’d like to point out that we may also be dealing with yet another sockpuppet of AH999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note the edit warring pattern at Hernanes compared to the last sock. If no one is opposed to this, I can take this to SPI. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead. — Czello 18:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Multiple issues at Louise Linton

nsrapp (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:COI and perhaps an undeclared paid contributor. Attempting to puff this bio up with promotional content and a recent philanthropy section that was largely copied from sources. Requesting more eyes on the article and rev/deletion of copyright violations. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

User:തീട്ടം കമ്മി: Block evasion, personal attacks and general tendentious editing

തീട്ടം കമ്മി (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account a bit over 24 hours ago and since then has indulged in an exclusively disruptive pattern of editing across various articles many of which are also BLPs. The account is also most likely the same person as IP 2409:4073:2E83:5870:0:0:38CA:B803 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was active on the same pages and was recently blocked for personal attacks and harassment through edit summaries.

The account is heavily invested in editing the page of the politician Kodiyeri Balakrishnan. The section they intend to introduce is accusations against family members of the politician in clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. The aforementioned IP introduced the section and the account is being used to restore it. Diffs of edit warring and personal attacks in edit summaries from the user account on the page are as follows.

1. 17:25, 31 October 2020 "Bineesh and Binoy Kodiyeri are sons of Kodiyeri Balakrishnan. His family, that's why his son's cases are added in his bio, commi anoop comrade"
2. 18:41, 31 October 2020 "Some communist illiterate got hurt. But, it's a fact. Look the reference"
3. 19:29, 31 October 2020
4. 19:49, 31 October 2020
5. 20:11, 31 October 2020
6. 20:31, 31 October 2020

To me this appears to as a pretty clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverting my content

User named Tayi Arajakate and Anoop 3737 are reverting my content without sufficient reason.

What I mentioned in my content are all evidence based. Please check the reference.

തീട്ടം കമ്മി (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

User:തീട്ടം കമ്മി has been blocked for block evasion (see above). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Harassment in edit summary

This Edit by User:Daccalimit. Possible sockpuppet of User:2.186.126.235 (who has been blocked for one month), as the edit is identical and the edit summary similar. Caius G. (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Favonian: This is almost assuredly Special:Contributions/2605:E000:2748:6F00:0:0:0:0/64, who has also evaded on open IPv4 proxies such as 84.167.3.195. May be worth a CU sweep, has past CU blocks. -- ferret (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

More than likely, Ferret, but I'm not a CheckUser so you'll have to contact them. Favonian (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Can do! @NinjaRobotPirate and Mz7: you both applied CU blocks here in the past and may be more familiar. I came across the IPv6 range a few days ago and dropped a block after I realized how deep the issue went. -- ferret (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably an LTA vandal based on the CU log. I can convert it to a hard block – nothing good is ever going to come from this IP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Now at Special:Contributions/2A00:1910:4:AA1E:0:0:0:0/64, already blocked. As info @Acroterion -- ferret (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced information

SBS3800P (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still continues to add information without sources or information that is blatantly false. Several editors have warned that user for 2 or so years but no action has been taken so far. Please deal with this ASAP. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._Geethanandan&diff=prev&oldid=978515765

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

---

Anybody hanging around to take a look at what Citation bot has been doing? Going bananas I guess. Look at my last trials to repare. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Bot problems should go to the bot's talk page. However, this doesn't look like it's got anything to do with Citation Bot. Special:Diff/953856648 seems to be where the "gravatar" nonsense was added to that article, if that's what you're talking about. It's hard to tell what you're reporting, though, because your report is so vague. If you have a specific problem with something that Citation Bot is doing, maybe you should tell one of the bot's developers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment NinjaRobotPirate. In the meantime I fixed them all manually and in the future, I will follow your advise: go to the bot's talk page if is a bot. I figured out it wasn't the bot after all. Glad I didn't react there . The bot might have become angry with me. Lotje (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Miki Filigranski - WP:CIV, WP:WAR, WP:VERIFY or WP:SYNTH

Miki Filigranski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Miki Filigranski replaced the map, that was in the article before, with the new one: [205]. Here is a page from the article of Mate Božić that the old map was based on: [206]. It can be seen that the new map seriously contradicts the source referred to (broadly speaking, a quarter of Poland with Kraków in the 10th century suddenly became Croatian, which is not at all considered the generally accepted view). I checked the other sources on Commons and couldn't find a reputable source that would confirm the new map (I cannot check the Croatian books, but I've seen the Russian ones).

During the discussions, Miki refused to provide a prototype of the map or in any other understandable way to explain its origin, instead making personal attacks: I am not wasting any more time with someone who has personal agenda stalking editors, blatantly lying there are no reliable sources and interpretation of the policy. Enjoy your block

He also violated the WP:3RR instead of providing the source:

1. 16:52, 13 October 2020
2. 17:10, 13 October 2020
3. 17:20, 13 October 2020
4. 16:42, 14 October 2020

Please explain to Miki Filigranski that while working on Wikipedia, he is obliged to back up his statements with sources instead of personal attacks and edit warring. I also ask permission to return the old map or delete both until the content issue is finally resolved.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

FOUR acronyms... Whoa, that's bad. --Jayron32 11:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Four-acronym pizza

-EEng

Well, what should be the title in your opinion?--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm just a smartass. Ignore me. This is what I do from time to time. You'll get used to it after a while. --Jayron32 11:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, you're required to notify him that you brought him up at ANI. I've taken the liberty to do so. I'll note this is the third time his behavior has been discussed here in about a week, sooo..... --Jayron32 11:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, I forgot again that ping is not enough.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: these two cases are unrelated, as well the previous one was an inflated misunderstanding that was resolved through emails. However, it doesn't change the fact the previous one was brought up after a content dispute where the editor who reported me didn't listen to me and other editors that the scientific content was fringe and cited from unreliable sources ([207]).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This editor is editing in areas covered by WP:ARBEE, is he not? Do we need to impose some restrictions here? Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, this report needs short context. The editor Nicoljaus is making WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and WP:WALLS commentary on the article and talk page of White Croats for over a year and even after failed and poorly-formed RfC, making a same baseless issue with VERIFY, SYNTH and which closure made them even more furious ([208]). Afterwards the editor was blocked for many months and after block expiration ([209]), they immediately returned edit warring at the same article of White Croats and in the process violating 1RR restriction of arbitration enforcement on Eastern Europe for which received another block for two weeks. And here are we again, immediately after another block expiration the editor still doesn't leave in peace the article's content and those who made edits ([210]). I violated the 3RR on their 1RR after they got blocked ([211]) for a few minutes because wasn't careful enough on the clock for which forgive me, but again, should the disruptive edit been kept at the article for hours and days? Does 1RR restriction has some advantage over 3RR? Regarding the content, the editor is still pushing their extremely biased POV by refusing to get the point about the topic, accept the editor's consensus and move on. I am really sorry to say it, but the editor is not telling the truth about the sources and synthesis. Their behavior on the article and misunderstanding of the topic as well as what's written in the sources got to the point where there's no denying. All the sources on which the map was based were reliable and reputable. This map is more extensive and neutral according to the available reliable sources, while the one made by Nicoljaus is based on a single reliable source which makes it biased and limited in information. As such, and a fact we are dealing more or less with scientific approximation on the location, in the creation of the map were used several reliable sources to make a more accurate map. Besides the map made by 1) M. Božić 2019 were used 2) H. Łowmiański 1964-2004, which work is completely dedicated to the location of White Croats and in conclusion locating them in Poland 3) V.V. Sedov 1979, which content and map on pg. 138-139 ([212]) is dedicated on the location and migration of the Croatian tribes and a variation of the map can be seen on Commons here 3) V.V. Sedov 1995, content and maps (1, 2, 3 of which the third can be found at Commons here) 4) IEA 1997, content and map 5) С.С. Михайлович 2010, content and map for Western Ukraine (for which could cite other as well) 6) A.V. Majorov 2012, which work is completely dedicated to the location of White Croats and Croatia 7) N. Budak 2018, which 10th-century map at the end of the book was used to make more accurate borders in which lived Croats in Western Balkans.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• In other words, one author writes about Croats in the 6th century in one place, another about Croats in the 8th century in another, and Miki transfers all these places to the map and calls it "Croats in the 10th century". This is WP:SYNTH. Let's go through the sources:

1. M. Božić directly contadicts the new map (no huge Croatian area around Krakow): [213]
2. Henryk Łowmiański was born in 1898 and died in 1984, twenty years before 2004. His work Początki Polski was published in 1964. I would prefer a more modern author. Besides that, does he really give such a map? As far as I know from Mayorov's book, he believed that White Croatia was the name of the ancient Bohemian state at the time of Boleslaus I.
3. Sedov's 1979 book is also somewhat outdated (in later works he revised his views). But the main thing is that the map in his book does not depict "Croats in the 10th century". It depicts suggested migration routes several centuries before. And if you read the description to the map on the previous page, it says: "All known ethnonyms of Croats are within the area of Slavic ceramics of the second group", i.e. inside the red colored area on this redraw: [214] And on Miki's map, they spread far to the north.
4. Sedov's 1995 book is very revealing. Although he earlier assumed migration of Croats through Southern Poland, he admits that no trace has been found and questions this location: [215]
5. Old map from Russian textbooks. There are also no Croats in Poland in the 10th century [216]
6. Well, this map, at last, really serves as a prototype for Miki's ideas. It is absolutely fantastic, and its author is not "С.С. Михайлович", but Semenyuk S. M. As I wrote on the map deletion page: "Mentioned Semenyuk is a complete freak. See his article in Ukrainian Wikipedia [217]. There is no education, he writes books that Poland, Hungary, Romania, Austria, Saxony, etc. are Ukrainian ethnic lands." [218]
7. Majorov book says (p.51-52 of original Russian edition of 2006): "However, the "Lesser Poland theory" also finds a considerable number of opponents, who point out that the Croats in ancient times could not occupy such a vast territory. At least, there is no evidence of their stay in the upper reaches of the Vistula and on the lands of historical Lesser Poland: according to various sources, Polish tribes have lived here since ancient times." There are no maps in the book with such a huge area of settlement of Croats in Poland.
8. N. Budak 2018 - I don't have access to this book, but Miki said that it was used only to "make more accurate borders in which lived Croats in Western Balkans." But we need source for Croats, occupying the quarter of Poland in the 10th century.

• I apologize for such a lengthy discussion of the content related issue. But it was needed to show - Miki cites 8 sources for the new version of the map, but only one of them - the fringe book of Semenyuk - somehow supports his views. I think this is something like WP:BOMBARDMENT. In any case, this discussion should have been conducted on the talk page - as you can see, it is rather difficult to understand what the map is based on. Instead, there was a war of edits and insults like " blatantly lying" and so on.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry, but nobody can have a constructive discussion with those who are constantly twisting and ignoring what's written in the sources. They are not talking only about 6th century, the area of Krakow and more was included in the Bohemian state until the end of the 10th century (map), the "freak" is a historian, and else is a simple cherry-picking statements. It is dishonesty and disrespectful behavior at best.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 08:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Small unnecessary addition: I tried to look at the book of Henryk Łowmiański. As far as I can understand from the Google translate of the text obtained from the OCR, White Croatia was sometimes located in Lesser Poland by Yugoslav historians, while Polish historians who knew Polish territory better and who "were better aware of the weakness of information sources about Croatia on the Vistula" - they have rejected this theory since the end of the 19th century. The own opinion of Łowmiański is the following: "Unfortunately, the testimonies of the sources about the original seats of the Croats are not clear enough (otherwise the issue would not be open to discussion) and allow for various interpretations. It was not possible to apply it - it must be admitted - due moderation, in particular by emitting the unclear text of document 1086. Therefore, the results of this research do not seem particularly convincing when it comes to the location of this people in Little Poland. (Niestety świadectwa źródeł o pierwotnych siedzibach Chorwatów — nie dość wyraźne (inaczej kwestia nie podlegałaby dyskusji) — dopuszczają różnoraką interpretację. W jej stosowaniu nie umiano zachować — trzeba to przyznać — należytego umiaru, w szczególności emendując niejasny tekst dokumentu 1086 r. Toteż rezultaty tych badań nie wydają się szczególnie przekonywające, gdy idzie o lokalizację tego ludu w Mało-polsce., Początki Polski, Volume 2, page 121).--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be cool if we can see on this map not the expansion of Bohemian state, but Croatian people in the 10th century, as on your map.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

As first and foremost, start to comment in chronological order without constantly using asterisks because you're making a disorder and you could not have an edit conflict after almost an hour. Regarding else, you're again ignoring the context. The (Czech and) Polish scholarship in the 19th and early 20th century "tended to diminish the existence of the Croats on their territory ... Polish scholars avoided to locate the Croats at Kraków and considered that did not border at Ruthenia because when Vladimir the Great attacked the Croats in 992 it would have been perceived as a call for war by Bolesław I the Brave.[33] However, whether the Cherven Cities were inhabited by the Lendians or White Croats, and were independent from both Poland and Kievan Rus', it is part of a wider ethnographic dispute between Polish and Ukrainian-Russian historians". The subsequent generation by Łowmiański (and until today hasn't been written anything more relevant and new except for synthesis which extensively cite Łowmiański), who was a scientific authority on the early history of the Slavic people, revisited the primary and secondary sources and point by point disagreed with the trend of some older Polish historians. The "following opinion" isn't Łowmiański's conclusion on the topic at all. What you cited was the introductory part in which wrote about scientific literature and as such 19th-century scholars who located the White Croats and Croatia on River Vistula in Poland and those who didn't. Łowmiański in his conclusion of the analysis of the primary sources writes, in Croatian translation from the bookstore, "Concluding the analysis of written sources we can finally say that they clearly show the existence of Croats on the Vistula: one can also clearly accept the presence of Ukrainian Croats whose headquarters are on the upper Dniester because on the lower Dnieper were Tivertsi, and in the basin of the Bug and its near tributaries of Pripyat - Volhynians. Nowhere in the sources is denied the existence of Czech Croats. It is not excluded that Dragomira fled to the Croats who lived on the upper Elbe, that one of the Croatian tribes from the document in 1086 had its headquarters in the East Bohemian area; yet we find no original account to support that conclusion. Such a picture of the seat of the Croats is based on written sources between the 9th and 12th centuries and does not show a picture from the great migration period. Croats came to the Czechia from the east, but also on the Dniester they did not belong to the first wave of Slavic people who settled there, but came from other areas because they did not participate in the migration to the Balkans together with the Sklavenes who lived north of the Dniester. The area on the Vistula should be recognized as the primary nest of Croats; pg. 125-126, We stay with the second possibility that Croatian settlements in both Moravia and the Czechia were founded as a result of Moravian campaigns in the 9th century and then Czech in the 10th century against Croats on the Vistula before joining the Moravian and then the Czech state alliance... Thus, concluding this discussion on Croatia on the Vistula, we do not know to resolve the question of whether Croatia existed on the Elbe. We acknowledge the fact that the later tribes of Vistulans and Lendians were branches of the Croatian tribe. The second - Ukrainian branch of the Croats lived on the upper Dniester and certainly also behind the Carpathians" (pg. 98-99, Zaključujući analizu pisanih izvora možemo na kraju reći da se iz njih jasno vidi postojanje Hrvata na Visli: također može se jasno prihvatiti prisutnost ukrajinskih Hrvata čija su sjedišta na gornjem Dnjestru jer su na donjem bili Tiverci, a u slijevu Buga i bliskih mu pritoka Pripetja - Volinjani. Nigdje u izvorima nije zanijekano postojanje čeških Hrvata. Nije isključeno da je Dragomira pobjegla k Hrvatima koji su živjeli na gornjoj Labi, da je jedno od hrvatskih plemena iz dokumenta 1086. godine imalo svoja sjedišta na istočnočeškom području; ipak ne nalazimo ni jedno izvorno svjedočanstvo koje bi taj zaključak potvrdilo. Takva slika sjedišta Hrvata temelji se na pisanim izvorima 9.-12. stoljeća i naravno ne pokazuje sliku iz razdoblja seobe naroda. Na područje Češke Hrvati su došli s istoka, ali i na Dnjestru nisu pripadali prvomu valu slavenskoga življa koje se je tamo naselilo, nego su došli iz drugih područja jer nisu sudjelovali u seobi na Balkan zajedno sa Sklavinima koji su živjeli sjeverno od Dnjestra. Kao primarno gnijezdo Hrvata treba priznati područje na Visli; pg. 125-126, Ostajemo pred drugom mogučnošću da su hrvatska naselja i u Moravskoj i u Češkoj osnovana kao rezultat moravskih pohoda u 9. stoljeću, a zatim čeških u 10. stoljeću protiv Hrvata na Visli prije njihova uključivanja u moravski, a zatim u češki državni savez ... Tako dakle zaključujući ovu raspravu o Hrvatskoj na Visli ne znamo riješiti pitanje je li postojala Hrvatska na Labi. Priznajemo pak činjenicu da su kasnija plemena Višljana i Lenđana bila grane plemena Hrvata. Druga - ukrajinska grana Hrvata živjela je na gornjem Dnjestru i zasigurno također iza Karpata).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification, I really didn't quite understand the author's point of view. Of course, I do not agree that all subsequent historical science only agreed with Łowmiański - on the contrary, he seems to be "the last of the Mohicans." He was forced to admit that "White Croatia" could not be located on the Vistula, but eventually declared "Croatian" the Polish tribes that lived there. For example, such an undoubted authority as Labuda (1916—2010) consistently disagreed with him in his works of 1949, 1958, 1960 и 1988. Majorov in his book of 2006 clearly doubts Łowmiański's assessment (page 48): “And although the literature sometimes attempted to localize the Croats of King Alfred ... even in the upper reaches of the Vistula, where the Polish tribes of the Vistulans and Lendians lived, who supposedly could also be called Croats, the most convincing identification of them with the Czech Croats who lived in the areas adjacent to the Upper Elbe." Your map completely ignores all controversy on the issue; it can only be given with direct attribution to Lovmianski's book of 1964. And, again, this discussion should have been calmly conducted on the talk page instead of edit warring and other... things.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Where he was forced to admit White Croatia could not be located on the Vistula River? You're again cherry-picking and misinterpreting Łowmiański. Labuda also located White Croatia in the realm of Boleslaus I, Duke of Bohemia which included part of Vistula River and its area of Krakow. Do you understand that the present Czech and Polish borders weren't the same in the 10th century? Łowmiański isn't a single source for such a direct attribution. My map doesn't ignore any controversy, yours is doing that by being biased.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If you are telling the truth that Semenyuk is a historian, show his articles in scholar publications. Not books about "Ukrainian ethnic lands" in Poland, Hungary, Romania, Austria, Saxony, etc. that need to be united in a single Ukrainian state, but scholar articles. --Nicoljaus (talk) 09:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Semenyuk graduated history at the University of Lviv and in addition worked as a professor in schools and universities. I don't need to show anything. You don't become a historian by publishing scholar articles but by education.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

He graduated from the university in 1973 and did not even become a "candidate" (the lowest degree in the Soviet system for scientists). Please provide his academic publications over these 47 years, in which his views are somehow accepted by the scientific community. If there are none, stop promoting this "nationalistic bullshit" (quote from a colleague from RSN). As far as I see in this discussion, no one supported you there: "looks fringy" and "no sign of reliability" (another quotes). In the meantime, you react as if the author has doctoral degree in this field and dozens of publications on Scopus and Web of Science.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Please, stop making false accusations. What "nationalistic bullshit" I am promoting? I am not promoting anything nationalistic citing a part about the Croats. Also, they are commenting on the reliability of the source, book as a whole, primarily using a quote from another person who's doing it on behalf of some organization. If you think that a critical review of some literature is done using secondary and third party context and not the source's content then you're missing the point completely and making Association fallacy. I am not reacting like that at all, I'm simply addressing that your representation of the person is done in a very biased manner. I already said before the report that the removal of the source isn't out of question. However, you're using that source reliability as an argument to make a bunch of baseless claims to make it seem like an incident.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to say I am getting a bit of a wp:nothere vibe.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh well it does some so.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:ARBEE was mentioned above but it doesn't look like Miki Filigranski is 'aware', their most recent alert was in July 2019 [219] and I didn't find anything in AE. I therefore gave an alert. [220] Nicoljaus who looks to be the primary other editor involved in this dispute has been sanctioned very recently [221] so appears to be 'aware'. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Unidentified user:71.13.41.195

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

---

 Courtesy link: Théodore Canot

An unidentified user added "hi people" in the article "Théodore Canot" (section "Bibliography"). Please delete this inappropriate message. What punitive measure is appropriate in this case? -- Veillg1 (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Veillg1, PearlSt82 has already deleted it. What administrative action needs to be taken? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Veillg1: That is minor routine vandalism, and you are free to undo it yourself. For mild cases like this usually no action by admins is needed. It's probably just some kid who has discovered for the first time that you can edit Wikipedia and is testing it out. More severe vandalism however, such as continuous or particularly vulgar and abusive kinds, do need immediate admin attention so admins can block the editor and do any necessary cleanup. You may report them here, but for straight vandalism and abuse you will often get a faster response at WP:AIV. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Teahouse legal threat

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

---

User:Philip H Taylor threatened to sue Wikipedia at WP:Teahouse#HELP with edits and make Wikipedia delete articles. He also attacked User: Nick Moyes. Firestar464 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No question about this one. Personal attack and clear legal threat [222]. Meters (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Firestar464, appropriate notices added on user's talk page. Mr. Heart ^(talk) 07:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek and Firestar464: Thank you both for dealing with this. It's always nice to wake up in the morning with a threat of having one's ass sued right off. I wonder, however, whether the generous offer to employ a team of high-flying lawyers to go through all the non-notable artist pages for us and help us speedy delete them all is too good to refuse. It would save our volunteers so much effort in weeding out trivial and promotional articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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

A follow-up

Ordinarily the above would be where things end. However, Phantom Blue - the article that the page he was seeking help on now redirects to - has been seeing an odd spate of vandalism from an ipv6 address that's been receiving warnings. User talk:Philip H Taylor seems to imply he's on those IPs but denies any wrongdoing. I'm thinking we have block evasion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 16:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

diff in the event he blanks his user talk page again. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 16:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Persistent promotional push at Bashar Masri

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

---

• Bashar Masri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Raynole87 (talk · contribs)
• Dreamerlight00 (talk · contribs)
• Karencxq03 (talk · contribs)

Even in its previous version this is an advert. Two Three promotional accounts have been working on this recently, and there's at least some copyright violation embedded, as from [223], [224] and [225]. Requesting user blocks, possibly page protection, and rev/deletion of copied prose. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist and User:Ohnoitsjamie have blocked some socks. The article is now semiprotected for a month. There does not seem to be anything more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent legal threats at Phantom Blue

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

---

Phantom Blue is receiving persistent legal threats by the multiple IP's which are strongly suspected socks of User:Philip H Taylor who was blocked for legal threats. Eyebeller (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Eyebeller, could we get specific diffs or users to examine these? (Non-administrator comment) Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Main two IP's are: User:2a01:e0a:185:c2f0:4c7a:77fb:b4cf:2ef and User:2a02:c7d:6445:9c00:3162:3d25:3534:7dce. I have clearly explained to the first IP that these images are free use on their talk page. Legal threat here - "Removing photo. no rights for usage were obtained by Universal Music Group. Stop stealing intellectual property unless you’re looking for legal action.". In this diff they say that usage of the photo is "illegal". Eyebeller (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Eyebeller, I do agree that this could be the same person based on similar interests. (Non-administrator comment) Mr. Heart ^(talk) 15:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It is - See here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 17:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just a point - if we're using a non-free image because there isn't a free one available, why are we using a pretty poor black and white photo when we could use one of the many (equally non-free) colour images available of the band? Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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

2601:484:C000:3900:ACC7:197D:B11C:EF47

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

---

For the last 4 hours 2601:484:C000:3900:ACC7:197D:B11C:EF47 (talk · contribs) has been changing italic text to "quoted text" with no apparent reason as they have not included a single edit summary. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Italic type we use italics where this user is replacing them incorrectly to quotes, for example Billboard to "Billboard"[226] (every other diff is the same issue, except for this contraction and it's strange they did it. I reported it to AIV as disrupting editing. Unfortunately, I know admins tend to overlook and ignore non-obvious vandal edits, but we don't have a "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against disruptive editing" noticeboard. But when an user has already 4 warns asking them to stop, and has continued editing for 60 additional minutes, you are don't simply ignore the request. As I know AIV will not do something here, I have moved it to this noticeboard. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Whitewashing an altright figure

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

---

——– Wallyfromdilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –——
 Courtesy link: Owen Benjamin

User wallyfromdibert continuously removes sources, evidence and proof from Owen Benjamin's page. When it is suggested he has political motivations, he becomes extremely defence. Yet he consistently removes any negative information from the page. Wallyfromdilbert removed a whole section of an article from The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, despite it being a syndicated and accepted paper, around since 1917. The author who wrote extensively for the JTA on Benjamin, and Wally simply removes it. There is no other reason for it to be removed, unless one was attempting to whitewash Benjamin and paint him in a positive light. Moreover, Wallyfromdilbert removed multiple quotations from Right Wing Watch, which is also a reliable and official publication. While some of Wallyfromdilberts edit are justified, such as removing links from GODTV and others, it is unacceptable for him to continue to remove acceptable sources in a blatant attempt to hide Benjamin's document behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthBuster21223 (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) @TruthBuster21223: In the future, please remember to notify the user in question on their talk page about this thread, as policy states at the top of this page and as you're submitting this. I have done so for you this time. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

No action is needed here for this content dispute; but if anything this should boomerang. Wallyfromdilbert's initialmost recent period of editing's first edit was October 29, and was removing sources that on-their-face seem problematic; despite Truthbuster's claims the "Jewish Telegraphic Agency" source was not removed. There is now discussion on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Apparently there's a longer history than just this week here; I don't see anything too problematic in the past, though despite Wallyfromdilbert removing it from the article due to poor sourcing, Mr. Benjamin apparently has said that the moon doesn't exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's safe to say that he's become a controversial figure, banned from all major social media platforms. I haven't looked at each edit of Wally's but the article doesn't seem whitewashed to me, it's frank about his outrageous comments and anti-Semitism. I don't know that we need to enumerate every crazy comment he's made. Besides this seems like a content dispute best handled on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Worth remembering on that point that a lot of controversial figures say a lot of "questionable" things but often only a small percentage of them end up being covered in reliable secondary sources. While WP:BLPSPS nominally allows the use of self-published material when it relates to the subject, this should be limited to simple stuff not the latest questionable thing the person said somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: Providing diffs for claims about other editors' actions would probably be helpful since I have no idea what information you think I removed. There was never any information in the article about Benjamin claiming the moon doesn't exist, and his comments about the moon landing that were reported by Right Wing Watch are still in the article. Here is the diff of all my changes since October 29. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

[227] power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok, from over a year ago. Do you think that source and information should have been kept in the article? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it is important to give a little more consideration to when a user like TruthBuster21223 repeatedly makes baseless accusations against another editor. Wikipedia is a very unpleasant place to edit when you have to deal with random single-purpose accounts like TruthBuster21223 who make comments about "political motivations" and "consistently removing any negative information from the page" without even any diffs. I think it would be nice if experienced editors took more time letting users like that who are uncivil or make repeated false accusations know that their behavior is not appropriate. Only one comment here even mentions WP:BOOMERANG or TruthBuster21223's conduct. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Hoang Dat La thang dien

Hoang Dat La thang dien (talk · contribs) Apparent bot editor making numerous edits in a few minutes. Seems to auto-restore content Adakiko (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging interested parties: @Deadbeef and Donner60: Adakiko (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Adakiko: Thanks. I am not sure whether a bot is being used. It may be that the user just keeps returning quickly to a few pages where the user has seen the edits being reverted. User:Deadbeef and I have both reported this to AIV but the board is quite backed up right now. I also left a message on the user's talk page about this being the English Wikipedia and added Wikipedia page links concerning guidelines and policies. This has had no effect. Non-English is not the only problem because some of the edits have some English words but that addition is unsourced and not very clear. I am going to give up reverting this and hope that an administrator deals with it soon. I have noticed that a few other users have also been removing these edits. I should add that this is not to say you are not right about the bot. Donner60 (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Editor has been blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

User Thucydides411

I am filing this report against the above editor in relation to his/her edit warring on the China–United States trade war article. Specifically, the editor reverted material that was arrived at through explicit consensus on the talk page and despite being warned that such (unilateral) action would result in escalation of the content dispute process to the appropriate forum. It's clear that this editor is WP:NOTHERE as he/she has had an extensive history of such battlegrounding editing on other articles, and I ask that administrative sanctions be imposed on the editor. Flaughtin (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have no idea what's going on at that article, but you shouldn't be WP:CANVASSING, nor mentioning Thucydides411 on other editors' talk pages without notifying them [228][229]. -Darouet (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) I haven't taken a look at the original dispute, but the OP seems to be exhibiting WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior themselves by canvassing an editor here because of their extensive prior interactions with Thucydides411 and to have the clearest idea of who my opponent(s) will be at ANI. There's also clearly edit-warring by multiple parties there including the OP (e.g. reverts on the edits in the original complaint 1, 2). — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• TBAN both. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• I think both Flaughtin and Thucydides411 need to take a step back from that article, hopefully that can be accomplished without formal sanctions of any kind. Looking at the talk page you’ve both raised good points and there appears to be genuine disagreement about what constitutes consensus but at this moment you guys appear to be talking past each other and not really listening to the other people on that talk page. Sometimes its best to move on to greener pastures when you come to loggerheads with another editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Darouet - I don't see how that's canvassing; as I said, User talk:Horse Eye's Back made significant emendations to the main article and had extensive prior interactions with the above editor, and so I only saw it reasonable to notify that user to participate in a debate whose result would have significant consequences for the article. If an administrator thinks that what I did was canvassing and if the use of my language was too extreme (use of the word opponent), then I will going forward self-correct. That said my actions (licit or otherwise) should not detract from the violation(s) that that user committed when he/she deliberately overrode the consensus on the talk page (which was arrived at without Horse Eye's Back's involvement) and administrators should note for the record that it appears that you aren't a neutral observer to this issue as the above user has commented in support of an arbitration enforcement request that you filed against an uninvolved editor on a separate issue here. As you aren't a direct party to the debate, you aren't an administrator and there seems to be a conflict of interest (administrators are welcomed to correct me if this is a false accusation) on your part as you appear to have an established connection with the user in question, I'd recommend that you let the report run its course amongst the relevant parties and recuse yourself from commenting any further on it.

Just as I had suspected, you've known Thucydides411 for nearly a decade and you even gave the guy/girl some Wikilove. Clearly you're not an unbiased party to this report as you have a well-established connection with the user and the fact that you (along with user MarkH21) responded to this report within minutes of my filing it (and which it should be noted also means the both of you responded within minutes of each other's response) suggests something more is at work. Administrators: I don't know what you call this and if there has been some stealth canvassing that's been going on (this is not a personal attack and nor do I intend it to be that, it's conjecture based on the best available evidence. However, if it is deemed to be a personal attack then I retract it), but whatever it is, something is afoot - i've never seen this pattern of response where an ANI is filed and then two uninvolved editors rise to the defense of the accused within minutes of its filling. To put it in street talk not even an ambulance (let alone two) arrives that fast in real life. In the meantime, as I said, I'd recommend that you (Darouet) let the report run its course amongst the relevant parties and recuse yourself from commenting any further on it. Flaughtin (talk) 04:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Flaughtin, there is no reason for someone commenting here to be "unbiased". We need admins to be objective when considering sanctions, but that's an entirely different matter. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

... something is afoot - i've never seen this pattern of response where an ANI is filed and then two uninvolved editors rise to the defense of the accused within minutes of its filling. First time at ANI? Lev!vich 05:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I have User talk:Horse Eye's Back (from past discussions) and ANI (one of the most watched pages on enwiki) both watchlisted... the OP is throwing a bit of a wild accusation there. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Levivich - no but compared to the other people on this thread I'm just a beginner. I don't know about you but ANI isn't really a place where I prefer to spend my time on Wikipedia. But since I am here, thank god they are here too to show me the ways of how best to avoid coming here in the future. Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

User:MarkH21 - not an aspersion when I'm just stating the facts. You are not a neutral observer to this issue given our disputes on an unrelated article. I don't know why you need to get all defensive about it when i'm just telling it like it is. The same rationale is at work when WP:3O prohibits editors from offering their opinions on disputes in which they have had prior dealings with either the article or editors involved. There's plenty of other reports you could have participated in but I don't see you there - as a matter of fact, this is your first intervention on this entire noticeboard. Nothing stopping you of course from participating in this one but let's not like act like you don't have a vested interest in its outcome. Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

You conjecture that Darouet and I were stealth canvassed here because we responded within minutes of you posting at HEB's user talk and ANI. That's completely non-evidence since ANI is one of the most watched pages on WP, and is an accusation of misbehavior without evidence. I saw your inappropriate post at HEB's talk page so I commented here; it's not mysterious stuff.

Also, as a matter of fact, this is your first intervention on this entire noticeboard is verifiably false, I have commented as an uninvolved editor on ANI threads dozens of times (e.g. here).

I don't have any vested interest in any of this. That's your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior assuming that editors are "out to get you". — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you're getting all dramatic in making my conjecture out to be some kind of conspiracy theory. Neither you nor Darouet are neutral observers to the party: you and I have had disputes in the past, Darouet and Thucydides411 have had a well-established connection, and both you and Darouet each made comments against my report within minutes of its filing - I'm just telling it like it is because those are just the facts. And when I said entire noticeboard, I meant the entirety of this iteration of the ANI noticeboard. As I said ANI isn't really a place where I spend my time on Wikipedia so if this pattern of response where an ANI is filed and then two uninvolved editors (to the immediate dispute) rise to the defense of the accused within minutes of its filling is something that commonly happens here, then just say that's what normally happens. Until then I stand by my initial remark that something is afoot.

There's a hell of a lot more I could say but per the recommendations of an uninvolved editor consider this my last comment to you on this thread. Flaughtin (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

If this pattern of response where an ANI is filed and then two uninvolved editors (to the immediate dispute) rise to the defense of the accused within minutes of its filling is something that commonly happens here, then just say that's what normally happens: As Levivich hinted above, yes it's normal. Especially if you post on someone else's talk page asking for their help right beforehand. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

User:MarkH21 - the revert was based on an explicit consensus to remove the material that the above user unilaterally decided to revert and what "edit warring" their is on my part does not compare to the extensive edit warring by the above user on the article with another editor (User:Light show). As I said if an administrator thinks that what I did was canvassing and if the use of my language was too extreme (use of the word opponent), then I will going forward self-correct. That said my actions (licit or otherwise) should not detract from the violation(s) that that user committed when he/she deliberately overrode the consensus on the talk page (which was arrived at without Horse Eye's Back's involvement) and administrators should note that you are not a neutral observer to this issue given our disputes on an unrelated article (Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests and the corresponding talk page). As you aren't a direct party to the debate, you aren't an administrator and there seems to be a conflict of interest (administrators are welcomed to correct me if this is a false accusation) given our interactions on other articles, I'd recommend that you let the report run its course amongst the relevant parties and recuse yourself from commenting any further on it.

Guy - Why? Everything I've done on that article has been strictly by the book and it's been nearly a whole month since I made an edit on that article. It's the other user that's been violating all sorts of WP policies and procedures (and not just on the aforementioned article).

User:Horse Eye's Back - it's been nearly a whole month since I made an edit on that article. If that's not what you call "take a step back" then i don't know what is. On the other hand, during that time, the user above has been engaging in all sorts of edit warring (that includes you [230] and [231]) and ramming in all sorts of material that nobody has agreed to. I mean, really, the edit history is there for everybody to see. And as I pointed out at the outset, it's not just this article where the user has displayed this battleground editing/mentality, it's many others. If there's anybody who needs to take a step back (or be banned) from the article (or Wikipedia), it's Thucydides411. Flaughtin (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I've agreed and disagreed with most of the editors here at some point across multiple venues. Plus, disagreement with someone at an unrelated discussion a month ago is not what a conflict of interest is and ANI isn't restricted to observations from editors who have never interacted with the reporter & reportee before.

I just took a look at the actual article discussion at Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 4#Discussion of former "Background" section, and I don't see how your own description of three people who want it removed as opposed to two others who want to kept is an explicit consensus. You're both edit warring. If the existing discussion is not reaching a clear consensus (which 3-2 is probably not), then open an RfC or another content dispute resolution method. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You're free to participate in this report; my point is that nobody needs to take it seriously as you - as a matter of fact - just aren't a neutral observer to the it. The same rationale is at work when WP:3O prohibits editors from offering their opinions on disputes in which they have had prior dealings with either the article or editors involved. Aside from trying to deflect attention away from the act that gave rise to this report - the violation(s) that that user committed when he/she deliberately overrode the consensus on the talk page - I don't know why you need to get all defensive about it. And again what "edit warring" their is on my part (I made 1 revert based on explicit consensus on the talk page) does not compare to the extensive edit warring by the above user on the article with another editor (User:Light show).

It's a clear consensus because we know who voted, what they voted for and how they voted. (for the record, this is also how our disputes at the Reactions to the 2019–20 Hong Kong protests article and the corresponding talk page has hitherto been resolved) At any rate, the entire debate is somewhat moot as the BURDEN of the argument applies to the other users since they are the ones who want to reinstate the disputed material. Of course the consensus isn't absoultely conclusive but it is sufficiently conclusive within the context of the disputes on that article - as I said, while vote tallying is not the ideal mechanism for resolving this content dispute, it is ideal enough for the way previous content disputes (on this page) have been resolved, and their outcomes have been, for the record, abided by by the participants involved. You are more than welcome to go through the edit history of the article if you want proof of this. Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

That I disagreed with you on a different article a month ago doesn’t mean that nobody needs to take it seriously regarding diffs or comments that I point out here. That's grasping at straws as you battleground against every single editor in this ANI thread.

You counting 3 editors vs 2 editors is not a explicit consensus nor a clear consensus. Right now it's definitely not explicit since there has been no formal closure from an uninvolved editor, and 3-2 is roughly even (if it was formal closed by an uninvolved editor it would probably result in a "no consensus"). — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This is about the background section to China-United States Trade War. We've been at an impasse for months, and I agree that an RfC is the only way to solve it. Just to give some background, there are basically two versions of the background section under discussion, which I'll call A and B. I have objected to version A's use of White House press releases as supposed reliable sources and its extensive reliance on Op-Eds (such as two paragraphs based on a single opinion column by Thomas Friedman; all of the Op-Eds used by version A are in support of the trade war). By contrast, version B is sourced almost entirely to economics journal articles that discuss the trade war, and to a news article summarizing the trade war. There was recently an RSN discussion in which Light show asked about the relative strength of the sourcing for each version. Two uninvolved editors commented to the effect that version B is better sourced. Buidhe wrote, The sources cited look better than the ones they replaced, while Chess wrote about the problems with version A citing government press releases as reliable sources, and the reliance of version A on opinion pieces. Buidhe additionally commented on the problems with version A making use of articles that were published before the trade war, and which therefore do not discuss it (my personal view: using these pre-trade-war sources enters into WP:SYNTH territory).

Anyways, we've been back and forth many times on the talk page. I've tried to ask Flaughtin what specific issues they see with version B, which just summarizes what economics articles say about the background: [232]. Simply deleting the section and proposing that we return to version A is not productive, particularly as it comes right on the heels of a WP:RSN discussion that pointed out the serious problems with version A. But I don't think this issue will be resolved without fresh eyes on the article, and I would favor an RfC. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

There aren't "basically two versions" there are at least 12 versions (stemming from your battleground editing/mentality) and that's just within the timeframe when I was gone from the article for a month. There's more if we go further back in time. If you want to reduce the version of the background section to the "basic options" there are actually three - A, B..................or C - which is to gut the subsection entirely. You couldn't even get that right. Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• The OP (User:Flaughtin) has caused disruption at this article multiple times in the past few months; see the previous ANI discussion from August. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators should note the above user is a direct participant to and supporter of Thucydides411's arguments/position on the above article and corresponding talk page, and has him/herself made disruptive edits on the main article ([233], [234], and [235]). Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I came here due to getting pinged, but anyways I didn't specifically mention whether or not I preferred version A or version B (haven't really familiarized myself with the content dispute). I was making general comments about the reliability of certain sources in general related to international disputes; which is that opinion articles aren't always the best for matters of fact and that government sources have a conflict of interest. That being said, there are certainly cases where these sources would be appropriate, such as if government sources were being used to cite their claims on the causes of the trade war or opinion pieces were being used to attribute opinions on what the factual situation looks like. As a tangentially involved editor though, if you really have been at an impasse for months and believe the only way to solve this is an RfC, why hasn't the RfC been started yet? RfCs are the best way we have of clearly establishing consensus and while I understand that you feel as if a consensus has already been established and other editors aren't respecting that; the truth is that a formal RfC is the best way to establish consensus and that hasn't been done yet.

You already have two versions of the article, A and B. Those are the two sides of this dispute; which version of the Background section should be used. Unless Flaughtin or another editor in this discussion is objecting and believes you're misrepresenting their position you effectively have all you need to create an RfC at this point. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 20:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Heck, I'll start the RfC for you if you want. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 20:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyways, I've created an RfC at Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 5#RfC on the background section about this content dispute which should've been done a long time ago. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 20:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Chess Per your comment here, I've pulled the RFC as I object to it. (administrators are welcomed to correct me if I'm not allowed to pull an RFC in this manner as this is the first time I've done this) There's been no prior consensus established for it, it's an inaccurate description of the issues at stake, doesn't give the full range of options to choose from and there may be canvassing issues, particularly given the way this ANI request has developed. Flaughtin (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

For reference, here's the RfC diff [236]. I narrowed the RfC down to two choices and tried to neutrally word exactly what the RfC was about (what version of the Background section that should be used). Earlier on in the discussion on said page you mentioned 12 different versions [237] of the section that's disputed. It's not tenable to have an RfC with 12 different options, and so I picked two versions that seemed acceptable to both parties. Specifically, for the first version I chose Thucydides411's last edit reinstating his preferred wording and for the second version I picked "version 5" in your earlier comment as that's the version you and Light show agreed upon. It's possible maybe the RfC should've been phrased differently or a third option that could've been added, but at the same time you need to have an RfC on this. It's incredible to me that this is the second time this discussion has been brought to AN/I and you still haven't had an RfC. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Chess: I think an RFC is a good idea. Thank you for trying to start one. The RFC you started looked fine to me; it's also fine to add a third option if anyone thinks neither of those two options are acceptable. Listing 12 different options would be unnecessary and hopelessly complex. (To be clear, the previous ANI discussion was about a different issue, now thankfully resolved, in the same article.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Chess Or we could get an administrator to go through the debate and make a decision; afterall there is a reason why this noticeboard is called ANI. An RFC at this point doesn't make sense because the content dispute for the relevant section is still continuing on the talk page (and so the fullest range of RFC options has not been discovered yet). At this point, it's best to migrate any further exchanges wrt your RFC to that page as this isn't the appropriate forum for it (and at any rate isn't the reason why I filed the report against user Thucydides311) Flaughtin (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit by the user above is further proof of why administrative sanctions needs to be imposed on him/her. At this point it isn't even a battleground issue, it's a matter of basic competency. Flaughtin (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

And another, this time involving another editor Flaughtin (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You're not making yourself look good here. Complaining about other editors lacking basic competency while stating that an RfC doesn't make sense because the "content dispute is still continuing" demonstrates a lack of understanding about the purpose of RfCs which is to resolve content disputes. WP:RFCEND also outlines that you're not allowed to close RfCs because of a belief that the wording is biased, for what it's worth. You should also be aware that just because you filed the report against Thucydides311 doesn't meant that this discussion won't turn into an examination of your behaviour in the overall dispute. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

That's ironic when you were the one who unilaterally decided to initiate the RFC even though you weren't even a participant to the previous disputes. If you want to get all civil about it, you would have waited for my response, not least because even you recognized that I might object to it. Not do you what you did instead, which is to propose the RFC, recognize that there might objections and then go ahead with the RFC anyway. And while we're at it about civility, let's be clear: the only reason why this report was filed was because that user deliberately overrode the consensus that was explicitly arrived at on the talk page - we wouldn't be here if he/she had never done that. So if you want to turn this exchange into one about civility, it's only fair that you at least spend some time talking about Thucydides411's conduct, instead of just trying to make it all about me.

When I said that editor lacks competence, I'm not saying it as a complaint/personal attack. I'm saying it as a matter of a fact - it's not just a matter of the user arguing that WP:INTEXT doesn't apply; it's that he/she doesn't even know that WP:INTEXT applies. Bekkers & Schroeter (2020) is a reliable source - it doesn't need in-line attribution. - those are his/her words not mine. And this is from someone who has been on this encyclopedia for nearly two decades. Completely different from the way I handled my ignorance with regard to WP:RFCEND where I explicitly acknowledged my lack of knowledge on the issue and asked for administrative guidance on it. I never said I was against having an RFC, I said I was against having an RFC at this particular time - you just didn't read what I wrote. And I didn't close your RFC because I thought that your was "biased." - you just didn't read the reasons I gave. It makes no sense to hold an RFC when the relevant content dispute process is still ongoing because we can't have an RFC when we don't even know what the options will be. (as we speak I am in the middle of reinstating some of the preferred material by the user in question from a previous version of the article to the extant version of the article as a compromise measure...which will probably be rejected and lead to another RFC option) Flaughtin (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

In-text attribution is required for opinions, but not for factual statements made by a reliable source. WP:INTEXT gives this example:

When using in-text attribution, make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation. For example, the following implies parity between the sources, without making clear that the position of Darwin is the majority view: "Charles Darwin says that human beings evolved through natural selection, but John Smith writes that we arrived here in pods from Mars."

Bekkers & Schroeter (2020) make a number of uncontroversial statements in their background section, in which they review the economics literature. They're summarizing the majority view in economics about the causes of the US trade deficit. Every economics paper I've read on the subject has shared that same view. In-text attribution would give the false impression that this is the view of just a few economists.

In any case, this is too much detail for ANI. Can we move forward with an RfC? I thought Chess' RfC wording was fine. We can also add a third "remove the background section entirely" option, if that's what you'd like. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

All your arguments have been rebutted at the relevant sections ([238], [239], [240] and [241]) of the talk page and any further exchanges with regards to an RFC should be made there and not here. Flaughtin (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Need for admin intervention

This months-long dispute between the editors at China–United States trade war has escalated

• An ANI thread by Mx. Granger reporting Flaughtin (including a proposed partial block on Flaughtin by HandThatFeeds) in August 2020
• DRN case in August 2020
• DRN case in September 2020
• An RSN thread in September 2020
• An RSN thread in October 2020
• This ANI thread with edit warring/WP:BATTLEGROUND/canvassing/CIR accusations from & against Flaughtin above
• Chess's RfC being removed by Flaughtin yesterday.

JzG is the only admin to have commented so far, suggesting a topic ban on both Flaughtin and Thucydides411. This entire mess needs to be resolved and it looks like administrator intervention is necessary, whether it is via warnings, page protection, or further action. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC); DRN threads added 20:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC); expand description of this ANI thread 20:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Just note that JzG and I have had some rather serious disagreements recently at Julian Assange (where JzG is an editor, not acting as an admin). At China-United States trade war, what we need is an RfC, because only a handful of us have been edited semi-regularly there over the past few months, and we're at an impasse. Chess recently initiated an RfC, but it has since been deleted. I hope it will be reinstated and can go forward. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thucydides411, This has nothing to do with Assange, and everything to do with your tendency to obsess over a small number of articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I'm just pointing out that we have had (recent) conflicts elsewhere, in which, among other things, you have referred to me as belonging to a "small cabal of fans" ([242]). I would prefer impartial administrators to comment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thuc, let's be fully honest with those who are not familiar with all the details regarding your history and conduct. Guy did act as Admin at the Assange article -- he placed a page restriction there per Discretionary Sanctions, in part because of your tendency to dominate articles related to Russia and US foreign policy. It doesn't advance your credibility on the merits to bully Admins such as Guy and @Drmies: to back off by claiming they're involved. That only creates the appearance you think anyone who objects to your conduct is disqualified from community process. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  User:SPECIFICO, I think that's a pretty accurate description of Thucydides's MO. I mean, I wouldn't call it "bullying", but yeah. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  Point taken. I was just trying to get close enough with a polite word.👩 SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Drmies. For people who don't know the backstory of you and me, this sudden outburst of hostility is going to look pretty strange, though. Anyone who is curious about the backstory can look at WP:AE, where there's a discussion between a few admins, including Awilley and Swarm, about what to do about SPECIFICO's recent violation of discretionary sanctions restrictions at Julian Assange. My comment there has apparently led SPECIFICO here.

We're discussing something else entirely different here, which is China-United States Trade War, where there have been various disputes about the background section on and off for a few months. Let's not let the drama from Julian Assange spill over here. There's an obvious way forward here, which is to let the community give input in an RfC about the background section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) That's exactly what I have been arguing for from the very beginning. Flaughtin (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I think a ban on post-1932 US politics broadly construed has been mutually earned by Flaughtin and Thucydides411 for battlegrounding. They are generating far more heat than light and the time it takes others to deal with their heat (and walls of text) is wasted. Thucydides411 has a well known history of battleground style editing. Flaughtin dug themselves a deep hole at the article, and it gets deeper every time they post here. It is clear Flaughtin does not understand what is wrong on their end, so I think it will probably repeat. (Flaughtin, when you've dug yourself into a hole, that's a battleground; stop digging and just walk away). Disclaimer: I've had disagreeable interactions with Thucydides411.   // Timothy :: talk  04:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

When you say that sanctions have to be imposed on me, then obviously I will have to respond. I wasn't the one who started this edit warring and I've been trying my best to back away this thread - that's one of the reasons why I've been arguing from the very beginning for administrator intervention on the trade war article. As I said in one of my earlier comments ANI isn't really a place where I prefer to spend my time on Wikipedia. Giving you the last word per your recommendation if that's something you wish to take up. Flaughtin (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think such a strong sanction needs justification. You can look at my contributions at China-United States Trade War, and see that my main contribution has been to find strong sourcing for the background section. I have gone and found a whole number of economics review articles on the trade war, and tried to summarize them in a neutral manner. Previously, the section suffered from a lack of good sourcing (it relied heavily on opinion columns and White House press releases). Anyways, I don't think my participation there has been a net negative. You're saying that I'm a "battleground editor", without actually looking at my contributions to the article in question or citing any diffs. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced additions

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

Despite a plethora of warnings on their talk page, including 3 final ones (I didn't bother to leave one today as they seemingly have no effect) and personal pleas, Qwickthinkin has neither communicated with concerned editors, nor have they heeded the requests to reliably source their edits as can be seen from this edit today and these just recently: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Please could an an admin remind them of the importance of WP:V and communicating with concerned editors. Robvanvee 06:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey Please remove the block

Hello team, please remove the block from my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.124.11.231 (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@37.124.11.231:, there is no block on your account. Do you have another account?Deb (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@37.124.11.231: if your account is blocked, you must log into it and make an unblock request on your account's talk page, or if you do not have talk page access you can appeal to the unblock ticket request system. We cannot process a request to unblock your account when you are not logged in. Please see the guide to appealing blocks. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Still trying to stop two ranges of Pennsylvania IPs adding too much plot text

Restoring a post from archive...

I've been trying to talk to a Pennsylvania user but this person does not communicate at all. They keep adding too much film plot detail in violation of the guideline WP:FILMPLOT, making the plot section far too large. They have been repeatedly warned about adding too much detail to Bohemian Rhapsody (film), for instance, but they keep coming back. There's apparently zero interest in making an edit summary or a talk page entry. The current ranges are Special:Contributions/2601:547:1:84B0:0:0:0:0/64 and Special:Contributions/2601:543:4404:94A0:0:0:0:0/64, active for 14 and 13 months, respectively. Before that, the range was Special:Contributions/2601:543:4400:87:0:0:0:0/64, active from Jan 2018 to Sep 2019, also without an edit summary or talk page entry. And before that, I think there were some IP4s involved, starting in 2015: 24.154.239.241, 24.154.232.211, 24.154.232.234 and 71.185.171.23. Many thousands of edits in all. Can we get two rangeblocks? Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a tough one, which is probably why your request didn't get a response previously and had to be unarchived. This user's behavior is obviously disruptive, but it's not so extreme that you'd normally be blocked for it. However, given the very long-term nature of this behavior and the user's refusal to engage with anyone about it, I think it makes sense to "throw a shot across their bow" to see if it wakes them up and gets them talking to someone. I've blocked both ranges for 1 month. ‑Scottywong| [chatter] || 05:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the action. I will communicate with this person if they surface at a talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Range IP vandals

A number of vandals in the 2401:4900:51 are changing long standing dates in Indian (mainly 19thC) articles. Such as [[243]], [[244]], [[245]]. There may be other dubious edits as well.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we narrow this down? Not everything in Special:Contributions/2401:4900:5100:0:0:0:0:0/36 is bad. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2401:4900:5130:0:0:0:0:0/38 for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Mini-Sock farm at Friend of Dorothy

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

---

Could someone semi-protect Friend of Dorothy? A group of anons/brand new users inserting what looks to be a joke quote. Thank you in advance! Glee^anon 09:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be a meme-pushing campaign; I've semi-protected that article for a month to stop it. -- The Anome (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Glee^anon 09:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I've also blocked all the single-purpose accounts involved, and tracked down and removed a more elaborate version of the same vandalism in one other article, also by an SPA, now blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

You nailed it, it’s meme bait.[246] Glee^anon 11:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Port Perry High School

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

---

Port Perry High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting range block for IP 2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6. Disruptive individual constantly switching IPs every time he/she is reverted at Port Perry High School. Jerm (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

/64 range blocked for six months, since two earlier blocks haven't gotten the point across, I'll watchlist the article. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion Thanks. I also had made a request at WP:RPP, but since your keeping the page on watch, I went ahead and removed the request. Jerm (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It just seems to be that single IP range, a single user, so I don't think protection will be needed. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Page protection request

Please add protection to Aramaic, which has faced persistent vandalism in the last few hours. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I've actually just blocked that IP, separately, for edit warring. This seems like a content dispute though. Canterbury Tail talk 22:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

XiAdonis behavior: Japanese ultranationalist?

• XiAdonis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ABCD line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• APA Group (Japan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Uyoku dantai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

XiAdonis has been warned by Ian.thomson about bringing to Wikipedia the ideas of uyoku dantai, far-right Japanese nationalism and denialism.[247] In October, I warned XiAdonis three times against edit warring, with no improvement in behavior. Myself and Ian have been trying to talk to XiAdonis to stop the disruption, but he continues. I think it's time for bigger action. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not an ultranationalist, i am trying to discuss an article with you but you refuse to explain your reasoning for an edit or to even acknowledge my existence, you just revert my edits and accuse me of edit warring (which i do not fit the qualifications for). I am open to bringing in a third party but you really need to improve your conduct, you are misrepresenting our interactions and trying to slander me by likening me to uyoku dantai. XiAdonis (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Above, I added names of some articles where the editor has been active. The user made a series of four identical reverts at ABCD line over the period from 19 October through 2 November, on the subject of Japanese militarism in the 1930s. There has been a talk page discussion at Talk:Uyoku dantai#Censorship and historical negationism. From that thread it's not clear whether XiAdonis is trying to deny the reality of the 1937 Nanjing massacre. In that discussion, User:Ian.thomson's point about WP:FALSEBALANCE seems well taken. If the Uyoku dantai sincerely believe that the Nanjing massacre did not happen I'm not sure if that is a point in their favor or helps to prove their sincerity. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The wording of the article as is implies these people acknowledge the nanjing massacre as fact and are trying to censor any mention of it, this is not true their motivations lie in altering what they perceive to be an incorrect version of history, i am making no claims about the veracity of anything i just want their motivations to be portrayed accurately WP:FALSEBALANCE can be avoided because im not portraying their views as equal to or as an alternative to mainstream history but clearly labeling them as their own views. I'm not going to be editing the Uyoku Dantai article anymore but i will continue to discuss this in the talk page to see if another editor wants to do something about it. sorry if this isnt the place to write this — Preceding unsigned comment added by XiAdonis (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Uyoku dantai, like all fascists, don't care about truth, only power. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• As can be seen in this diff that Binksternet already posted where I warned XiAdonis, in the XiAdonis's first 50 edits 28 of their edits form 13 readily identifiable episodes of problematic behavior. (The edits I did not comment on are not necessarily great, either... Although the article "Anti-Japaneseism" has some bad grammar that really seems to be the least of its worries, since it seems to be cobbled from primary sources like Ryu Ota). In the 19 edits since I left that warning, they have doubled down on that behavior. In light of their edits, their response that they'll use the talk page more comes across as an attempt to switch to WP:CIVILPOV, but then they edit warred. A topic ban from Japanese politics after 1926 is the minimum necessary action to enable this user to become a fully useful editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Mostly seeing a content dispute here. Not seeing great behavior from either side if I am honest. PackMecEng (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Multiple copyright violations by 100.11.62.135?

100.11.62.135 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has many edit summaries such as Copied from library science today, copied from Timeline of women in library science, copied from Loriene Roy today, etc. This implies a lot of copyright violations. I removed the latest edit as of now, but there appear to be many more. Not sure how to proceed with this. Adakiko (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

They are actually doing it right. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Bison X:. A second IP undid my edit and I apologized on 100.11.62.135's talk page. Thanks for your correction! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Casting aspersions, personal attacks from Normal Op

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

---

Normal Op was previously topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs (ANI report), during which they were blocked for socking to circumvent the ban. They were later unbanned with the advice that they steer clear of pit bulls.

Since they have been unbanned, they have been uncivil and repeatedly cast aspersions and personal attacks against other editors in this area. They must recent and most egregious is in an AfD discussion where they insult another editor, Doomsdayer520, by saying, among other things At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off.. In previous discussions related to other animal matters, they have baselessly accused me of lying, cast aspersions at Cavalryman, and accusing him of gaming the system, and cast aspersions at Atsme, baselessly accusing her of COI.

Additionally, they have submitted a lot of articles for deletion that resulted in keep votes:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of veterinarians
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Rescue Sofia
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Bay Cat
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog camp (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois Leveen
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loving Hut
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Rescue Foundation
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Russell
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Phipps (2nd nomination)

while this isn't a problem in and of itself, combined with the hostility and previous problematic behavior in this area suggests WP:GAMEy behavior.

Since their topic ban, they have been warned a number of times 1, 2, 3 about their behavior, but it is still persisting.

I'm requesting that Normal Op's topic ban on dogs be reinstated and extended to animals in general. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have seen Normal Op around the project and they are a net positive. I do hope that they would listen to the two admins who recently warned them: 1, 2. Perhaps they can agree to take a step back because none of this looks good. Sometimes we all get hot and need to simmer down. Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Response from accused: I wasn't aware that counting AfD statuses was a competition, and I'm not all stuck on seeing an article deleted that I nominate. In fact, in some cases I have afterwards enhanced or re-worked a poorly written article I had nominated for AfD which was decided as Keep. In other cases, I have rescued articles nominated for AfD by others through enhancing them so well during the AfD process that they are Kept. On the flip side of AfD nominations, here are 15 AfDs I nominated that were decided as Delete: Clifton report, K9 Pro Sports, Street dogs in Chennai, Dog Scouts of America, Kitten Rescue, Rescue Chocolate, Lawyers to the Rescue, Delta Humane Society & SPCA, Rent My Wedding, Pritzker Military Presents, Muttshack Animal Rescue Foundation, WiseStamp (2nd nomination), Western Plains Animal Refuge, List of governments supporting trap–neuter–return, and Annie Harvilicz. And here are 5 AfDs still open: New Woodlands Hotel, Humane Society of Huron Valley, Richmond SPCA, Animal Liberation (album), and Indian microlight aircraft competition — 3 of which will probably be decided Delete, 1 probably Keep (been enhanced since nomination), and 1 still up in the air. You might as well excoriate me for !voting on the wrong side of an AfD.

Now, PearlSt82, if you're going to write a report on me then you should get your details right (like where another editor corrected you about details on this ANI post [248]). The "sock" you mention was a houseguest who visited me in the month after the 2019 ANI and was not me and wasn't "during" the ANI. Further, I have submitted a detailed UPE report on you, proving your connection to the industry. Your own edits [249] in a very narrow window of topics (pit bulls, dog bites, breed-specific legislation, and fatal dog attacks) are the longest running single-purpose account I've seen in Wikipedia. Your COI on "pit bull topics", along with another editor who has connections to a (bully-breed) dog breeding business, are the complete source of my troubles with "pit bull topics". As for AfDs, of course there are AfDs where some were deemed Keep; that's the nature of community consensus. I'll remind you of your own Support !vote at my request to un-topic-ban: "Normal Op has come a long ways in ten months and has made a great deal of positive contributions to the project, and has clearly been learning the law of the land. I think the most important takeaway is that Wikipedia is a community-based consensus project, not a battleground of who is right and wrong, and their recent contributions have shown a great deal of evidence of this." [250] Normal Op (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd love to read your evidence of my connection to the industry, because there isn't one. I did indeed support removal of your topic ban, but your edits and personal attacks since have been disruptive despite multiple warnings. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Also it completely strains credulity that a houseguest would edit only in articles related to dangerous dogs and animals while you were topic banned. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, you need to get your facts straight, PearlSt82. I wasn't "topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs" (as you wrote in your first sentence of this ANI post). And not only did my houseguest NOT edit in "dangerous dogs" topics (as you assert), but looking at the list of articles they did edit [251], 49 of the 50 topics I had not edited in before, and only about 3 have I edited since then (a year later). Their single edit to the one article I had edited, was to add a new fatality of a baby boy (mauled to death by the family pit bull) that happened during the time of their visit with me. [252] You have been targeting me since early 2019 when I first discovered the Dogsbite.org article; a topic on which you have put an extraordinary effort into defaming since at least 2015 [253], nay, since your very first edit on a dog topic in 2013 [254] (over 5 years before I even came to Wikipedia). Normal Op (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Correction: Pardon me, I made a mistake when I said your first dog article edit when in fact it was your second. The first edit was also on the same topic, however, [255], as was the third [256] (which included a most curious choice of citation). Normal Op (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Normal Op:, A houseguest visited you and edited Wikipedia? You filed a UCE report?! Seriously, you seem to be making baseless accusations against people. This is my userpage^{and this is my talk page} 15:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album), Normal Op called for the article's deletion. I disagreed and recommended that Normal Op read some WP policies on inappropriate nominations and how to improve an article rather than delete it. You can see my comments for yourself. Normal Op construed this as a "personal attack", but then got far more personal with me, accusing me of: "all you have to contribute to AfD discussions is to insult nominators", "you weren't willing to do [the work] yourself", "you should consider staying away from AfD discussions lest you run off more editors", and "your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off." That looks much more like a personal attack toward me, and it also shows no knowledge of my body of work at WP. I'm an adult and can handle it, but truly wonder if someone who reacts to a minor disagreement in this fashion, and there is evidence that it happens a lot, can contribute constructively to a volunteer community. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 17:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, Normal Op can and does make positive contributions to the project. On the flip side they can and do assume bad faith in the contributions of others, particularly if they take an opposing position to Normal Op’s but, as shown in my second interaction with them linked above, sometimes where absolutely no opposition exists. Their casting of aspersions against Atsme, someone who openly reveals their true identity and even provides links their profiles on other platforms, is particularly egregious. I am unsure what would remedy this, they have received multiple warnings. Cavalryman (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
• The only interactions I've had with Normal Op that I recall have been on the List of fatal dog attacks in the United States article, where this editor is responsible for 60% of the text (authorship attribution), and I have made a total of just three edits (the third of which just corrected a technical error introduced by my second edit). Both of my two substantive edits were reverted by Normal Op (DIFF 1, DIFF2), who also felt the need to drop an edit-warring notice on my talk that was reverted by another editor sixteen minutes later (thanks, BilCat). The pot calling the kettle black? I was bold, Normal Op reverted me. Twice. My second edit was not the same as my first. So OK, discuss. There hasn't been an adequate response to the concern I raised on the talk page. See Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Fatal dog attacks "rare"? and the section below that. wbm1058 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • That 60% figure is only because someone just split the page and there's only one year left in it... 2020. So I'm responsible for adding 60% of the content for fatalities in 2020. Before the split, just two days ago, I was responsible for 42% of the content [257] (fatalities in 2010-2020), and before the first article-split (in early 2019), when ALL the fatalities were on one page and I had finished the bulk of my work adding dozens of fatalities, I had still only authored 8% of the page [258]. That list-article has been edited for over 11 years and 4,000 edits; having been started 9 years before I was even an editor here. I am NOT the predominant editor for the content (of four list-pages of fatalities). Normal Op (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not recall coming across Normal Op before a week or two ago, but the user certainly seems to have an axe to grind when it comes to coverage of animal welfare/animal rights on Wikipedia. They have some rather surprising interpretations of policy, and this leads to some less-than-stellar interactions with other editors. For example, consider their conduct a couple of days ago on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album) and the complete refusal to listen to others because they used the "esoteric mumbo-jumbo" (!) that is the normative/descriptive distinction. I was not impressed by Normal Op's choice to refer to vegans as "veggers" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination). At first, I thought they were evoking vigger, which is intended as a slur. They assured me, however, that this was "merely a word [they] coined", apparently to contrast "veggers" with "normal people". Josh Milburn (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I noticed NormalOp's unpleasant behavior in this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States and saw that they'd been warned to stop casting aspersions and making personal attacks. Unfortunately, it looks like they've continued on the same tack since then, and it appears that their incivility and aggression extend beyond the narrow topic of dog attacks and into the subjects of animal welfare and vegetarianism as well. I don't know if they're capable of being civil elsewhere on the site, but they've demonstrated that within those topics, they either can't stop or won't stop personalizing disputes and making unfounded accusations. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I participated in that AfD. Normal op was a bit bludgeony in there. And it went to DRV. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment - regarding the second paragraph above: At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off, there is no disrespect in a pissed-off man stating that he is pissed-off. Inelegant English perhaps, but nothing to be ashamed of. William Harris (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. What I objected to was not that Normal Op was pissed off (or said so), but the aspersions made about the editor who pissed them off. It seems, from this thread and the previous topic ban, that this casting of aspersions was far from a one-off. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Both Doomsdayer520's dig at me for nominating an AfD (without first doing some arbitrary standard of work that no one else had done in 14 years) and PearlSt82's nomination of this ANI (accusing me of some I-don't-know-what illicit motive behind my nomination for AfDs of articles) are both assuming bad faith and are casting aspersion on me. If you think that no editor can ever be pissed off, then I point you to your own anger which has carried over into this ANI. I am specifically referring to your post above about "vigger" versus "vegger". I'd never heard of "vigger" until your comment above, and "vegger" was pronounced akin to "veggie" which isn't anything close to "vigger". Let's get the facts straight for the audience, Milburn. I had responded with "Vegger is merely a word I coined to save me from having to type "vegetarian, vegan and/or pescetarian"." because we were discussing an AfD for the three articles List of vegetarians, List of vegans, and List of pescetarians and that was too much of a mouthful (or typing-ful). I never "compared" veggers to ordinary folks, either — that was your misinterpretation and you got pissed off, and regardless of how I tried to explain what I'd wrote you continued to push the button (as you did above) that somehow I "contrasted veggers to ordinary people". And perhaps you're contributing to this ANI because you're still pissed off about that, and that a week later I arrived in your wiki domain and opened some cans of worms (at Template:Discrimination) and some other editor has picked up that baton and is beating you in your own debates (at WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism) and you see that as a reason to pop one at me here. (BTW, I bowed out of those conversation because I couldn't keep up with the esoteric language and had no access to the sources being discussed, and that other editor was a master at all that and has been doing just fine without me.) Perhaps you should re-read WP:Casting aspersions which refers to accusing others "without reasonable cause". Normal Op (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been mentioned a few times here as someone who made Normal Op "pissed off". I don't have a dog in this hunt and simply advise that any interested party peruse the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album). Compare my brief and rather bland comment to the vociferous fury that it unleashed in Normal Op, which has continued here and caused a lot of work for everyone. Good luck. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 20:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• • • • If you want to "get the facts straight", let's clear up a few errors in your last post. I have not said that no editor can be pissed off; quite the opposite. And I do not know why you think I am angry. I am not. And I did not say that you compared "veggers" to "ordinary folk". I said that you contrasted "veggers" with "ordinary people", which you did, here -- there are "veggers", including those people who are "veggers" who "ordinary people" wouldn't believe didn't eat meat. You can accuse me of misinterpretation until you're blue in the face, but it's right there for all to see. I don't really have anything to say about your "beating you in your own debates" nonsense, but I think it's striking that the accusations of bad faith directed at anyone who disagrees with you is such second nature that I'm not even the first person you've targetted in this subsection. I've already said more than I want to; I do not want to be pulled into some pointless back and forth. I will not be posting here again. If anyone wants to talk to me, they are welcome to leave a message on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

      Normal Op, if you weren't contrasting 'veggers' to 'ordinary people', you must acknowledge that the way you worded your points could have given that impression to a reasonable observer. When I first read "If there were a few select people who were unbelievably veggers, such as current athletes (because ordinary people such as myself find it unbelievable that real athletes wouldn't eat meat...)", that's exactly what I thought you were doing. I appreciate that being discussed at ANI must be stressful, but your tone here is exceedingly combative; a more conciliatory approach might be more effective if your aim is to convince people that you can collaborate effectively when you disagree with people. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

      Doesn't matter what I write or how I phrase it; there will always be someone who will take it the wrong way. The only perfect solution is not to write at all. [259] Normal Op (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

      Normal Op, in my experience, that is not the case. Almost all of the editors I've interacted with here have been amenable to polite, reasoned discourse, if you take the time to explain your view carefully, make genuine efforts to avoid personalising disputes, and take the AGF maxim seriously. I say again - your attitude is exceedingly combative, it is going to get peoples' backs up and make people not want to interact with you. Introspection isn't easy, but I'd really encourage you to read through your comments in this thread and consider whether you could have acted in a more conciliatory way. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

      And the majority of my interactions with other editors have been just fine, but I'm sure it's especially important to focus on the minority that haven't. Stress? Introspection? Sorry, but I'm scheduled for surgery tomorrow and introspection isn't going to happen this week. Signing off now and un-watchlisting this page. If anyone needs to reach me, they can try the email function. Normal Op (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support indef t-ban - he has slid back into the same behavior that caused his t-ban a little over a year ago. He had a successful appeal July 6th, and within 2 months he was back at it, and received a warning from JzG on Sept 1st. A few weeks later, he received another warning by Nosebagbear. I think he is much too impassioned against bulldog types and a few of the larger breeds to edit collegially in that topic area. His responses in this discussion also speak to his WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Atsme 💬 📧 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support indef tban - despite warnings, the behaviour seems to have rapidly reoccurred. I'm willing to give the tban a chance before resorting to full on blocking. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support reinstating/expanding tban - WP:ROPE was given... Lev!vich 18:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support reinstating the t-ban. Normal Op clearly can't hold back here. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment was hoping Normal OP would take a break from this area. I realize the stress of being at ANI so I do not hold the frustrated comments against them. Hard for me to argue with the consensus. Lightburst (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Non-admin recommendation - no Tban but a block for one week. WP:TBAN is used to "forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive." Only one editor in this section has claimed that the edits made were disruptive, without elaborating how. Other editors have stated that good work has been performed at times. The issue is one of behaviour and not of disruption. WP:CIVILITY allows blocking in cases of major incivility, therefore in this case a block is more appropriate. The editor would be well-advised to spend this blocked time reviewing the Wikipedia policies on CIVILITY, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, and reference to RELIABLE SOURCES. Beyond this period, further incivility should result in a block for a longer period of time. William Harris (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support broadened TBan, to cover animals in general (including animal products such as meat). Normal Op's combative attitude in this thread, and at the discussions listed above, and their unwillingness to accept that their own approach may be responsible for the heat in these discussions, in spite of two warnings issued since their TBan was lifted in July, convince me that there is a problem that requires action. I've considered William Harris's suggestion of a short block, but don't see that having the desired effect, whereas last time a TBan was applied, it seems that Normal Op was able to moderate their approach sufficiently to convince people to lift it. I don't know whether issues around animal welfare, vegetarianism and so on raise particularly strong feelings in them, but the civility issues on display in those areas at the threads above do constitute disruption in my view, and justify a reinstatement and expansion of their original TBan; the fact that the issues have spread to discussions about other animal-related matters suggest that it should be broadened. I wish them a speedy recovery from their surgery, and hope that they return to editing in some of the other areas where they have apparently contributed constructively. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support broad T-Ban per Girth. This editor appears incapable of having a reasonable disagreement with other editors on the topic of animals or vegetarianism/veganism. The fact they felt the need to coin a new term for them versus "ordinary people" is telling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support broad T-Ban I have had private email exchanges with five other Wikipedia editors going back 4 months about NormalOp's aggressive editing on articles related to veganism or animal rights, some of these users are too scared to voice this in open space because of a potential future grudge against them from Normal OP but emails could be send to the foundation privately if need be. Many examples could be cited but this user has a history of bullying users who edit articles in relation to animal rights. You can get an example of this at the Regan Russell article. Normal Op submitted the article for deletion [260], the vote was keep and he was not happy about that so he reverted any edits to the article, this user definitely has a WP:OWN problem. Normal OP then went onto the talk-page writing screeds of text and making offensive comments such as Russell's death is not notable in and of itself, and probably happened in an incident just like this stupid stunt at Fearman's street corner. [261] Her stepson has since complained on the talk-page about Normal Ops aggressive editing [262]. I have seen many other incidents like this from this user, he cannot be trusted to edit articles in this field. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support T-Ban, the behavior here needs to stop.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I have only interacted with Normal Op on the AfD discussion page about the "List of dog attacks ..." page and on the related discussion on the noticeboard about the reliability of dogsbite.org. Abrasiveness is not the same as being a dick. ImTheIP (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Would it be possible for an uninvolved admin to close? It looks like discussion has run its course and consensus is near-unanimous. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support temporary sitewide ban. A non-involved editor here, but it seems clear that Normal Op is clearly not being civil. A new editor here, so my suggestion may seem inappropriate for the incident. This is my userpage^{and this is my talk page} 15:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support T-ban Mr. Heart ^(talk) 06:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Request for closure - This thread was autoarchived but looks like it needs formal closure, so I've put a DNAU at the top in the meantime. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition

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

---

——– The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –——

I'm sorry to have to bring the following incident to attention here, but 3RR and the absence of other editors in the discussion leaves me no other choice.

Now that his request for deletion of the article Cheminformatics toolkits seems to be doomed to fail (4 keep votes, 1 delete vote), user The Banner first redlinked all the items on the list that is part of the article. Red links imply that the items are indeed notable, which is contrary to The Banner's reason for the deletion request, so he must have gotten new information in the mean time. (He later said that by redlinking he "was anticipating the keeping of the article and comply to the wishes" of other editors.)

Three days later, and this is my main concern here, he added the word "notable" to the definition of cheminformatics toolkits. In the edit summary he used the tag Reverted[!]. Now the article starts "Cheminformatics toolkits are notable software development kits". Because I thought that adding "notable" to the definition was not helpful, and indeed only confusing, I reverted the edit, but The Banner would not and still does not comply, even after my explanation on the article's talk page and on the deletion request page.

I believe that the addition of the word "notable" to the definition is undesirable and unwanted. If we would keep it in this article, we could add "notable" to every single definition in Wikipedia articles. The Banner's defence, and in fact the discussion as a whole, is not lengthy, so I ask interested sysops to read his argument, which I find unintelligible, to say the least. I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered. Please prepare for The Banner's accusation that this is all just a personal attack. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC).

The word "notable" is a selection criterion for the list to avoid spamming. The Banner talk 16:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

But I must say that I would appreciate a two-way interaction-ban. The Banner talk 23:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Eissink, I strongly suggest you retract your comments above. I'm inclined to block you for making personal attacks and generally casting aspersions, and I also can't make out exactly what your complaint is above. But instead of me going nuclear and blocking you now, since you're obviously frustrated, try to explain just what you think is problematic right now and don't carry nlwiki issues here; this is enwiki, not nlwiki. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I've been frustrated, and I wouldn't have mentioned nlwiki or even have interfered with The Banner if he had not, two months ago, felt the need to start goading me, intimidating me in the very first contact exactly with a reference to nlwiki. The latter I have already mentioned on this board, in a post that I didn't start, but that didn't trigger any sysop to give The Banner a warning to not import problems, nor was he sanctioned for haunting me here. The practical problem today, which seems solved by an editor that at least shared my conclusion, is described above and I don't think I can make it more clear than I already have. My involvement in that deletion request was the last residue of our encounters from the last few months: I had already decided not to interfere with The Banner's movements anymore, but this particular discussion hadn't come to an end yet and I refused to flee from it. I expect that The Banner will take action to his word and ends interacting with me, immediately – since I had already planned to do so, that would mean there is now effectively an interaction stop, and as far as I'm concerned there is no need for someone else to impose it. The case is then closed, as far as I'm concerned. I understand that my words were strong and for the sake of resolution I have removed them. I hope this has cleared things up and I thank you for your reply and your understanding. Eissink (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC).

Two AfD's started by me with input from Eissink. I have no clue why he showed up there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal. The Banner talk 13:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Because you chose to show up in discussions only because I was there first, as I have explained already several times. Now please stop forcing me to react on you again and do as you said: avoid further interaction. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC).

I prefer a two-way interaction ban. The Banner talk 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The behavior and bludgeoning at those two AFD conversations, in combination with similar behavior in this report, merits attention. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

non-involved non-administrator comment A/K/A sticking my nose where it probably doesn't belong. Eissink's previous block was for personal attacks and harassment and 16 months ago they pledged "... I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore" in the block appeal Huon accepted. Since then, I warned them about a personal attack this July and GizzyCatBella likewise warned them in August as did El C, which Barkeep49 further emphasized. EEng also felt it necessary to make a non-templated note about Eissink modifying another user's comments. This is all in addition to the apparent animosity between this user and The Banner. I think that their unblocking pledge from last May and their record of personalizing conflicts since then needs to be taken into account in evaluating this request. WP:ROPE is probably also relevant. I regret the necessity of digging into this history and bringing up old events but their habit of blanking their user talk page may obscure some of what should be included in this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't let this boomerang on me, please just give me a final warning now, Eggishorn and other moderators. I regret every single of my editorial behaviour that led to the warnings you mention, and it was not my intention to obscure those warnings (but it might have worked as obscuring for myself, I realize now). My relation with The Banner is complicated, since we have quite a history elsewhere, and it wasn't me who started stalking the other here. I fully accept a permanent (this is to severe in these matters - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20) block whenever some administrator in the future thinks I crossed a line again, and I will not hesitate then to inform them on the final warning, if I get one, but please give me the opportunity to continu working on my draft and future articles (already published, just in case - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20), and just give me a final warning now. Thank you, and I'm sorry for giving trouble. Eissink (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC).

Just now I see that Eggishorn is not an administrator. I was scared by the comment and misread the small print, as is obvious. Eissink (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC).

Ice

sink

Time

sink

Wow. You sure cower and cringe when you think you're in imminent danger of an admin pressing the button, but the rest of the time it's stuff like Eggishorn linked above, and this [263], and this [264], and this [265]. For someone with 2K edits you spend a surprising amount of time calling other editors out and then diving for cover. From your draft you linked you obviously have a lot to offer in underserved topic areas, but you need to cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening. EEng 04:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Since I was mentioned here, I'll drop my two cents. If I were a decision-maker, I would issue a clear and definitive final warning and administer an interaction ban as the counter person (The Banner) favoured. I believe that Eissink will eventually learn from this; My opinion is based on my prior discussion with Eissink in the past after I felt uncomfortable with his comments towards me. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

On the suggested topic ban for deletion requests

Since we're still here, maybe I should add some words and try to explain why I wrote "I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered", hoping it might improve my answer to The Blade of the Northern Lights' question also. I will use three examples, being The Banner's last three deletion requests.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits – This is the deletion request that lead me here. The request has failed, and I think I have shown that a sense of revenge edition might be detected in the subsequent redlinking and in what I find a bizar addition of the word "notable" to the subject's definition. Take a look at the reason for the request: "Advertising, a list of all most all non-notable toolkits (notable as defined as having its own article)". Isn't it a bit mind boggling that someone perceives a list of at least partly competitive products as advertising, not to mention about half of them are open source? And thereafter a personal definition of notability is introduced to serve as a second argument for deletion. What are we dealing with here?
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal – Requester's argument here is less exuberant, indeed more of the usual kind: "Fails WP:GNG". This is of course convenient for everyone who likes deliberations that consist of yes-or-no votes, but it leaves little room for a more nuanced exchange of positions. After I had expanded the nominated version to what the article looks like today [the pictures where added later, we wouldn't have had them if the request had been succesful], based on a multitude of sources, all The Banner could say was "Yes, you have indeed added more trivia. It still fails the notability guidelines." Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia?
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenomania production discography – This is a new request, still active. The reason given for deletion is: "Spam". I only want to mention here what preceded the request, I will not weigh in on the content of the article too much, especially since I don't feel like interacting with The Banner anymore, but I can say that I do value publishing overviews. Yesterday, an editor expanded the article by singling out "International singles and certifications" in a new paragraph. Today, The Banner wouldn't have it: "Revert spamming". The other editor shows up again and reverts the revert, saying it isn't spam. Not a dialogue follows, not on the article's Talk page nor on editor's Talk page, but The Banner decides to want the entire article removed now. I think the question arises whether he would have granted the article a further life when his revert had not been reversed. In any case, I believe the removal of such content requires more explanation than basically the suspicion that one of it's contributors is a spammer.

I repeat some of my questions: What are we dealing with here? Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia? What are his motives? You won't get an answer from The Banner, he will never give you more than a sneer or the accusation of a personal attack, never. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago. His only interest seems to be to create by destroying, which would be fine if there was a reasonable cause for such destructions, but there isn't, not counting accidental hits or perhaps those cases were other people just don't have the time, the means or the opportunity to stop him.

There is, in my opinion, a very troubling pattern in The Banner's editing, most notably in his deletion requests. It is hard to determine exactly why certain articles fall prey to him: the reasoning is poor, and there seems to be hardly any interest into the subjects and there is never an attempt to fix anything. Is it all just a play: sink the teeth into an article [or an editor?] and just don't give up and show no remorse till the verdict has passed?

Considerations like these made me suggest a ban on deletion requests for The Banner, and I believe it is warranted. Eissink (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

Dude. This is not helping you. There is nothing in the wall of text that is actionable against The Banner but you've given any passing admin more than enough evidence that you have absolutely no intention whatsoever of living up to your previous promises. Less than 24 hours ago you were claiming you regretted personalizing conflicts and your next post here is a massive personalization of a conflict? And this after acknowledging you deserved a final warning and possibly banning without discussion? What seems proportionate or reasonable about this response? A boomerang is definitely in order. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by anyone who claims my sincerely drawn argument is a "wall of text". I don't share any of your conclusions. Eissink (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

My advice to cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening didn't penetrate, I guess. EEng 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It was pretty entertaining the read the "I surrender! Please, be merciful! I promise I'll never--hey, wait a minute, you're not an officer! Give me back my sword! I surrender nothing! You will be vanquished!!" Lev!vich 05:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

From experience, I can assure it is not pleasant to be blocked for unsolid reason and it does leave some sort of trauma, an effect of which is what you have witnessed. And I agree, it looked pretty silly. But I ask everyone to read what I have just said about a troubling form of vandalism – there is no doubt in my mind that I am not wrong here, I know what I am talking about. I am not coming from nowhere. Eissink (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

I tend to call this harassing and creating of an unsafe working environment. And evidence that he is following me around. The Banner talk 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia. Eissink (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

Wow. Time for a boomerang. Eissink's time on enwiki has been marked by personal attacks and weird harassment of other users (the discussion linked to by EEng is pretty telling), despite the numerous warnings on his talkpage, and the behavior in this thread makes it clear that he's not particularly interested in adjusting to our norms. It's worth keeping in mind that Eissink's previous block for personal attacks was an indef, and it got so bad that TPA and e-mail were revoked; he had to be unblocked through a UTRS ticket. All of which means that he's been given plenty of rope and is fully aware that this behavior is unacceptable to the community. I support a reinstatement of the indefinite block. Grandpallama (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope there are administrators who are able to grasp my case. I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, and I also know that progress hurts, not only on a personal level but also on community level. Anyone who dismisses the case I brought up here, is not doing Wikipedia a favor. Unfortunately, so far not a single editor reflected on the content of what I have said in relation to the deletion requests, that is: to the editing behavior of The Banner that got us here – at least try to refute what is on the table, instead of only asking for my head. Eissink (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

I love the way you are creative with the truth. You deny me a safe working environment, while claiming one for yourself. You are screaming for my head, but others are not allowed to judge your actions. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago., what is a bit at odds with the 380 articles I have created and 86,615 edits I made (as of today). A lot of those edits spent on plain dull maintenance (fixing links to disambiguation pages). True, I have not created many article recently here. My last real article was Martin Talty, slightly longer then 3 lines and also not completely a Michelin chef but an acclaimed musician. You are constantly referring to our past on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I am not responsible for your indef block there. That had something to do with your behaviour there and some privacy breaches. And so on. The Banner talk 15:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not asking for your head, I am strongly proposing a ban on deletion requests. And you should stop falsely claiming that I was blocked for privacy breaches: it is not true, as anyone in their right mind can easily verify. And I'm not claiming anything for myself, and I am not "constantly referring to our past" either, nor was I the one who brought it up, as is also easily verifiable. You are making things up, which is a major part of your problematic conduct, as the examples above show. Eissink (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

We should not be importing disputes from another wiki into enwiki, but upon checking, Eissink was indeffed on nlwiki for violating privacy (it looks like outing, or outing-adjacent behavior) and for using unacceptable language against other editors. While the nlwiki Arbcom did not necessarily endorse any particular finding about privacy in this case, it was because they found it unnecessary to make a distinction between an actual privacy violation vs. behavior that feels so much like a privacy violation that it affects another editor; they declined Eissink's block appeal on those grounds. Given this specific history, Eissink's already ugly comment that another editor isn't entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia is even more egregious. Grandpallama (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, says an editor who has been indef'd on multiple projects. It is so rare for Grandpallama and I to agree on a matter of editor conduct, I think this is only the second time in as many years, but I agree with him here. I guess we can thank Eissink for increasing unity among the editor corps. Lev!vich 16:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure. Now let's wait for an administrator to seriously evaluate my proposal, and please stick together also when the outcome surprises you. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

I meant it when I said earlier that you have a lot to offer, so please think how you will comport yourself when the outcome of this thread surprises you, so that even the possibility of your ever editing again can remain open. As it is you'd already pretty much worn out the community's patience, and in the present situation. which you brought here, every single participant finds you 100% in the wrong. You've got to face that your idea of what constitutes appropriate behavior is completely backwards, and find a way to fix that pronto. WP:MENTORSHIP may be one option. EEng 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's quite conciliatory and generous of you. You're a better man than I, Gunga Din. Grandpallama (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't be too impressed. I was pretty sure he'd blow himself up with his suicide vest so I'd get all the Gunga Din credit without the headache of having to actually deal with him in the future, and my crystal ball did not fail me [266]. But it really is a shame, because he indeed has a lot to offer; about that I wasn't kidding. EEng 20:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for Boomerang site ban

It is now crystal clear that Eissink has taken a flying leap over the bar of WP:NOTHERE and is enthusiastically setting out for the outer rim territories of time-wasting tendentious editing. Their complaints that started this thread have little, if any merit. The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheminformatics_toolkits shows Eissink violated WP:NPA and continued those in both the AfD at hand and here. The addition of the other two AfD's shows nothing more than terseness in nominations on The Banner's part and the attempts above to raise them into evidence of incompetence is itself a PA. It is also a good demonstration of Eissink's tendency to both make mountains out of molehills and personalize every interaction. The Diffs linked above by both EEng (link) and myself (link) provide support for their lack of cooperative editing behavior and their resorting to PA's. Their further disruptive editing in this very thread, going from demands of action against another editor to pledges to reform and back to the same demands again, shows that their promises to reform are not meaningful. This clearly falls within the standards of WP:RECIDIVISM Their earlier indefinite site ban should be reinstated and lifting it should be contingent upon a much more convincing pledge to abide by community norms and refrain from personalizing disputes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Re-blocked. Good god, I'll never get back the time I spent slogging through the above. What a life. It's obvious that Eissink has not lived up to the promises that were the basis for their unblock in May 2019, where they for instance said "I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore. It's hard to express how the current block impacted me: it made me look at my way of interacting with people. I feel I have learned my lesson, and that's why I could issue the recent UTRS appeal."[267] The unblocking admin, Huon, warned them at the time: "Should the previous behaviour recur, you'll quickly find yourself blocked again, and getting unblocked again would be far more difficult". Yup. I have indeffed again, based on Eissink's personalising of disputes, as can be seen in this very ANI discussion as well as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, which Eissink, according to his own statement above, took part in purely in revenge against The Banner. Bishonen | tålk 17:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

  Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  +1 Grandpallama (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks Bish, you beat me to the punch. This was a timesink of the highest kind, and we don't need an editor like this here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support siteban. Thanks to Bish for stopping the immediate disruption. This is now Eissink's second indef on enwiki, plus they're indef'd on nlwiki; seems to meet the criteria for a site ban, and if disruption occurs again on some other project, a cban here will probably make a global lock easier. Lev!vich 17:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you all. Update: Eissink has used his talkpage access to abuse his opponent, so I've revoked it. He'll have to use UTRS if he wishes to appeal the block. Bishonen | tålk 19:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

Agreed (but of course I always agree with Bish). Is this still necessary? Indef-blocked with TPA revoked is essentially site-banned, is it not? Does a formal site ban serve any distinction at this point other than officially making him persona non grata? Joefromrandb (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb:, in the short term, no, there is no practical difference. That said, if Eissink can convince one administrator they've turned over a(nother) new leaf, that administrator can lift the block with no further rigamarole (although they would probably consult with Bishonen). If a community ban were enacted then they would need to appeal to the community in general and hope they gained a consensus for reinstatement. That is a far harder bar to clear. My own opinion is that the latter is unnecessary at this point but others may feel differently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As I'm the only hard-ass voting for a site ban :-D don't anyone let my vote stand in the way of closing this. It surely isn't worth spending more time on. Lev!vich 16:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for keeping this from riding slowly off into the sunset, but I'm afraid I too am for driving a stake through the heart here. Immediately after being blocked for personal attacks, his response was to lash out at another editor as a self satisfying, vandalistic asshole [268]. We've seen this pattern from him over and over and over. It's the way he is. He's harassed and abused people at multiple projects, and meta. No more second third fourth chances. Done. EEng 17:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: I don't think it counts unless you say it in bold. Lev!vich 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

it EEng 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support siteban though this editor is now blocked with TPA revoked, I think a siteban is still appropriate. The personal attack they made on their talk page after being blocked and the modification of another users comment as a "joke", when it modified the meaning of said sentence to imply the said user thinks their writing is unintelligible, on top of the other issues / personal attacks they have made, pushes me to support a site ban. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support siteban Eissink managed to get out of an indef block once before, so let's make it official this time. This comment, which is clueless on multiple levels, was enough to send me over the edge. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  I'd missed that, actually, and it's worth reproducing here explicitly:

  An editor: I tend to call this harassing and creating of an unsafe working environment. And evidence that he is following me around.

  Eissink: Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia.

  EEng 23:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

  It's even worse when you consider that Eissink was, as best I can gather, previously blocked for privacy violations on the Dutch Wikipedia. Not sure if The Banner was their target in that case or not. If so, we may be in global ban territory. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies, would it be asking too much to ask if you could make inquiries? EEng 06:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, I don't know if I have "channels" still, or if I ever had them. I usually do the lazy thing and ask Trijnstel, who has their finger on every Dutch pulse. If, of course, Trijnstel isn't out celebrating right now, properly distanced, because Kelderman just picked up the pink jersey... Drmies (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  Well if that finger is in a dike please don't have them remove it. We don't want to be responsible for any national catastrophes. EEng 15:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC) That's d-i-k-e. No tasteless jokes, please.

  @Drmies and EEng: Someone needs me? Trijnstel_talk 14:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, genie. Can you tell us the background to Eissink's block/ban at nlwp? EEng 15:02, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

  Genie? GENIE??? EEng 02:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  @EEng: Apologies. I was busy. But the reason was a string of personal attacks. The Dutch Arbcom decided a year ago not to lift the block. Trijnstel_talk 20:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

  Personal attacks? Plural??? NO! You amaze me! EEng 21:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support siteban Nope. That comment shows this isn't someone we want editing here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support siteban Just in case it wasn't clear. EEng 23:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC) [Adding 21:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC): It has now been learned that Eissink was indef blocked on nlwp for "a string of personal attacks" – see indented post just a little bit above here.]
• Support siteban to prevent another admin from unilaterally overturning the block, as unlikely as that may be. P-K3 (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support siteban This user had their second chance and blew it spectacularly. Going out with a parting insult just proves they are WP:NOTHERE and should not be a part of this community. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support siteban I'll have to roll with the fellows above. ~ HAL333([269]) 02:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose:
  

1/ He has been goaded by The banner several times, as I could witness myself on articles I wrote.
2/ He has contributed a lot, with interesting articles created, and has a lot to contribute, as noted by several contributors, and as opposed to "contributors" who only delete.
3/ Above all, would the community risk using different yardsticks when, on the one hand banning Eissink, and on the other hand let The Banner (who is the other party involved in this dispute) go free, without any sanction? whereas The Banner has, on top of his goading actions which have pushed Eissink beyond his limits, a long history of being blocked himself?
- See The Banner's block log here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=The+Banner&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=--
- The Banner has been blocked 12 times (!), among other grounds for: "Personal attacks or harassment", "Disruptive editing: continued battleground mentality; frivolous ANI thread)", "Disruptive editing: battleground mentality, edit-warring, absolute refusal to engage in discussion)",...
Emigré55 (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I would note that:

• The Banner has not been blocked since 2015 (nearly 5 years ago).
• They haven't been blocked 12 times. They have been blocked 9 times. The number of times someone has been blocked doesn't necessarily correspond to fault.
• Just because we are discussing the ban of one editor doesn't mean we need to sanction the other editor.
• Regardless of if someone has contributed constructively doesn't mean we should ignore their personal attacks against multiple editors.
• If you believe that The Banner needs to be sanctioned, propose it here. Partly opposing a ban because there isn't a discussion to sanction the other editor seems counterproductive to me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I am also interested about the goading by The Banner. Can you provide some diffs which show this? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: to answer your last question about the diffs on the goading by The Banner :

Eissink provided very precise examples on how he was chased by The Banner.

He described the process of this hunt by the Banner in this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=982999994#Wielding_the_Salmoninae?

And precisely in his contribution to this thread here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=982974533

• In the links he gave, he provided The Banner's first goading edit (who chose to interact with Eissink, not the contrary, while he knew they had a difficult past together), in a discussion The Banner was not part of, where he tried to publicly stigmatise Eissink in a reference to "elsewhere" (being Dutch Wikipedia) — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=974491790&diffmode=source
• His very next edit after that, was on Anna van Egmond, so it quite clear that he followed Eissink’s edits and once again thought it wise to interfere with Eissink’s editing — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anna_van_Egmont&diff=974495041&oldid=974438938&diffmode=source
  

These are the two main diffs. As Eissink stressed out, it was The Banner following him around that started the unfortunate and lengthy deliberations on Van Egmond and Pourbus.

The edits don't lie: The Banner was chasing Eissink, not the contrary. Basically, revenge from the past, something that he should never have done: he undeniably provoked the conflict that followed.

--Emigré55 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh huh. Now outline the provocation that forced Eissink to refer to another editor as a self satisfying, vandalistic asshole [270]. EEng 01:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary of the votes so far. Lev!vich 01:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@ EEng : I agree that these words are not acceptable. And I think Eissink acknowledged it.

However, my point is not to discuss here his bad words, or that he got carried away, beyond limits, and the fact that he was blocked for that.

My point here is to discuss the fact that in so doing the community would be using different yardsticks: if, on the one hand , the community is banning Eissink, and on the other hand leaves The Banner (who is the other party involved in this dispute) go free, without any sanction.

Whereas there is a huge discrepancy between the number or times when Eissink was blocked (one time in 2019) and when The Banner was blocked (9 times, as Dreamy Jazz rightly pointed out here above, and 1 times indef.!, among other grounds for: "Personal attacks or harassment", "Disruptive editing: continued battleground mentality; frivolous ANI thread", "Disruptive editing: battleground mentality, edit-warring, absolute refusal to engage in discussion",...), and for actions which now repeat ("what's bred in the bone will come out in the flesh") , and not only with Eissink.

The community, in that very case, would have been abused in its judgment. And in my opinion, clearly manipulated by The Banner playing the victim, whereas he was, and is, the hunter who provoked all this.

In my opinion, it would be very unfair to leave The Banner continue as if nothing had happened. A clear permit then given to him to continue his negative only actions, which others suffer too.

@ Drmies,Pawnkingthree,RickinBaltimore,Grandpallama,HandThatFeeds,Dreamy Jazz,Levivich,HAL333Lepricavark,Joefromrandb,Eggishorn,Bishonen,Huon,Joefromrandb : I appeal to the fairness of the community in that case, so that there is no “premium given” to persistent hunters, such as The Banner, who deserves in my opinion an indef block this time, if not a ban as he has successfully overturned a previous indef block in the past.--Emigré55 (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, as you are fishing for block information here. And that seems to be response on you sources being shot down as unreliable on the Reliable sources noticeboard. Something you still seems to reject. In fact, you are also creating an unsafe working environment. The Banner talk 10:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I've followed your links. They lead to wall of text after wall of text. You keep saying The Banner did something, but darned if I can tell what it is. If it's hounding or goading, a laconic -- LACONIC -- list of diffs is all that would be needed. EEng 12:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the lot of us was not exactly helpful. If you have a distinct proposal against The Banner, make a new subsection and put your evidence forward. Right now, though, what you've put forward is not going to result in any action against Banner. If that's all you've got, I suggest you drop the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. @Emigré55:, I said above that I did not feel that Eissink deserved any more of the community's time and I meant it. I am highly annoyed that you've dragged this out by mouth-piecing their accusations against The Banner. There was never any evidence provided by Eissink that The Banner was hounding them and your repeated insistence that there was is equally a personal attack. After reading through these jeremiads twice, I can only say that both Eissink's and your reasons for harassing The Banner remain opaque to me and that I should never have wasted the time trying to understand them. You have presented no grounds for action against the Banner other than some warped version of "fairness" but if you continue to pursue this line of attack you will certainly be presenting grounds for action against yourself. I really, really strongly advise dropping the bludgeoning instrument and backing away from the nag's cadaver. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Emigré55, attacking Banner is not doing your cause, of that of Eissink, any good. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

jer·e·mi·ad / jerəˈmīəd / noun / plural noun: jeremiads / a long, mournful complaint or lamentation; a list of woes / "the jeremiads of puritan preachers warning of moral decay" RandomGnome (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ouch! EEng 09:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

This has gone on for well over the required time and the consensus seems pretty clear. Can some kind administrator close this entire thing for the record and so the bots can archive? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

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

IP making PAs and polemicist statements

2A02:A442:581E:1:8477:BE02:9A28:C9DF (talk · contribs) has made this comment about me [[271]], their response has been less then sterling concluding with this [[272]], after being asked to stop the PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for disruption. Sadly I had to see if WP:BOFA existed. It doesn't. Let's just say it's related to "ligma". RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I hope this will show then that no they cannot "clearly can insult and belittle other users", but I doubt it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

And I was not wrong, clearly a troll.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Saw that on their talk page. More than likely the IP will switch and it won't be an issue in a bit. If it's in a range we can adjust to a range block if needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

And might be socking as a new IP has fetched up on their talk page to argue the same point.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a friendly recommendation, I'd disengage with them right now on their talk page. If they start on an article talk page, let me know. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

OK.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Vienna Terrorist Attack

Editor: TompaDompa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TompaDompa) Alias?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WWGB

First describes the only (initial) WP:RS which shows an actual video recording of the attack as "fairly useless." And removes it more than 10 times.

I question him/her on why they are in favor of concealing WP:RS sources which show the (verified) terrorist attack. Surely this editor can't be on the side of terrorists? Why would you remove (the only WP:RS) video evidence of a terrorist attack so many times? (you never know).

He/She states that the NYTimes article is better because it "describes" the contents of the video rather than "showing" the video:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986805141 (Video of attackers executing citizens on the street)

I respond with:

"Your opinion is clear cut. Thank you so much.":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986805141

They then edited their own comment to: "Of course nobody here wants to protect the attackers."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986805256

I would not have replied to their revision of theirs as I did to their original so I too edited my response to.

"Then act like it": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986806258

Editor TompaDompa/WWGB then keeps changing the text of my own response back to "Your opinion is clear cut. Thank you so much.":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986806832

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986808900

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Vienna_attacks&oldid=986817246

I do not consider issues like this lightly. I have been fighting for 3 hours on Wikipedia to be able to show evidence to the world what these murderers did in Vienna only for it to be repeatedly taken down. Actions such as these may contravene international criminal statutes for willful subversion and endangerment of the local population. Gold333 (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• There appear to be a few things here. First is a completely evidence-less accusation of sockpuppetry which I don't feel any need to consider. Second, Gold33 appears to be claiming to be the same editor as IP 85.148.213.144, as they are upset they can't freely revise the IP editor's comments. Third, I have no idea what was removed "10 times"; it would be edit-warring if it did happen, but I don't see it. Gold333 needs to calm down, or risk a WP:BOOMERANG; making clumsy reverts such as [273] that remove unrelated comments is not encouraged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I'm fairly certain that TompaDompa and WWGB are separate editors. It seems that WWGB was upset when Gold333 removed both their and Ҥ's responses as a product of a manual revert (which isn't okay per WP:TPOC) and had nothing to do with the disagreement between Gold333 and TompaDompa. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• I am editor 85.148.213.144. If I removed any edits by WWGB and accused them it was inadvertently. I had been editing for hours. I disagree with the fact that I have to spend hours fighting to have a WP:RS video linked in an article that shows a terrorist attack, only for the video to be repeatedly taken down. And for the other editor to put words in my mouth that what they did was seemingly "the right thing". No sir. Gold333 (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  We only have your say-so that you're the IP, but if it's true then from now on only edit logged in, not as the IP. Stop accusing other editors of sockpuppetry, stop accusing them of protecting terrorists, stop making veiled legal threats that make you look bombastically stupid (Actions such as these may contravene international criminal statutes for willful subversion and endangerment of the local population) and stop huffing about instead of listening to other editors trying to educate you about why we have the rules we have. If you don't feel your time is being spent usefully here, maybe you should spend it somewhere else. Yes sir. EEng 05:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad I disagree with you. Gold333 (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gold333: Please read WP:LOUTSOCK. Thank you. Firestar464 (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Gold333/85.248.213.144 seems to have mistaken Abductive's comment (diff) for one of mine, since they believe I edited my own comment when I said Of course nobody here wants to protect the attackers. (diff). I didn't edit a comment I had already made, I made a completely new comment (I got edit conflicts with both Abductive and 85.148.213.144 when I did, hence the placement of my comment and the (edit conflict)x2 note). I reverted Gold333 editing a comment made by 85.248.213.144 twice per WP:TPOC (diff 1, diff 2), not knowing they were the same person. Really, this seems to be a simple misunderstanding and the escalation to WP:ANI completely unnecessary. TompaDompa (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've never seen a Wikipedia article include a video containing violence or a terrorist attack. Unverified video footage is not used in articles and there are typically copyright issues. Maybe you could submit it to the Commons and they might accept it. It's not appropriate to include in an article. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. This is also not an matter of "urgency" that needs to be decided tonight and I'm not sure why you brought it to ANI. Slow down. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz: The video was embedded in a WP:RS news article covering the event. It was not a standalone video link.

TompaDompa: Thanks for the clarification. Sorry for not being logged in and causing confusion. I'm also glad that even though we had a moment, you and I both refrained from resorting to petty insults unlike user: EEng above.

Have a nice day. Gold333 (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I use petty insults, you open time-wasting ANI threads and threaten people with "international criminal statutes". We each have our weapons of choice, EEng 06:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I prefer grand insults. Lev!vich 06:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I prefer to "disarm you with a smile"' --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Gold333, EEng, please calm down. Levivich, please don't feed the fire. Thank you.Firestar464 (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gold333: RE: " I have been fighting for 3 hours on Wikipedia to be able to show evidence to the world". Fighting? Wikipedia is not a battleground. It is not a place to "show evidence to the world". It is not a venue to right great wrongs. Please stop fighting and calmly discuss this content on the article talk page. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It also reads like a sort of legal threat.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

OP seems (understandably) het up. Perhaps a short WP:partial block to allow them time from this subject? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

At the very least.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say wait. They haven't edited for several hours. Blocking is meant to be preventive, not punitive. We'll see how they act if/when they start editing again, but there's no need to block them ahead of time. TompaDompa (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the OP should also be actually apologising for the accusation made against WWGB. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

1RR, consensus, and WP:SQS

Re this discussion, it appears objection to my reinsertion of material is being subject to WP:SQS. What is required of me to avoid 1RR sanction re reinserting the slightly modified version I proposed at the end of that discussion? Humanengr (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Since that page is under WP:ARBAPDS restrictions, namely,

• Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.

It will take a clear consensus being established on the talk page. You may need to wait for other people to weigh in. It's hard to imagine that a thread less than 7 hours old is "stonewalling". ST47 (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I see WP:SQS indicates Reverts of good faith edits without adequate explanation should not be tolerated, and the most effective way to accomplish this is by reverting such reverts as soon as possible. My edit was made in good faith; as I see it, neither the reversion edit summary nor subsequent explanations in response to my disproof of their assertions approaches an adequate explanation. WP:SQS seems pretty strong here with its should not be tolerated and doesn’t include a time allowance. Humanengr (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That's irrelevant when a consensus required sanction already applies - you need "consensus" for any change from the status quo, your edit was disputed so now it needs consensus, simple as that. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I see WP:CSP says For pages or editors currently under sanctions with the "consensus required provision", this restriction comes into effect when someone makes a policy-based revert of an edit which modifies content which is longstanding or has explicit consensus. My edit did not 'modify content'; it added content. Humanengr (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop wikilawyering, at least two administrators have explained the sanction to you, now it's up to you whatever you want to do. --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thx for the feedback. Much appreciated. 17:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I would further note that the section being linked to explicitly says "Since it's currently not accepted behavior on WP and likely to be seen as edit warring, it's probably best to advocate for it for now where appropriate, rather than actually revert such reverts." and is titled "Advocate for the reverting of unexplained reverts". So even in the general case, the supplement itself says you probably shouldn't actually be reverting yourself. I'm not interested in checking out or participating in that discussion, but if this sort of selective quotation and wikilawyering was also shown in that discussion, I'm not surprised if the other participants have been a bit short and reluctant to bother with detailed explanations. In other words, while I don't think any sanction is justified here, this thread is an almost boomerang in my book. Nil Einne (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Severe WP:CIR issues

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

---

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

This user's edit history consists almost entirely of consistently uploading copyrighted images without filling in the required fields ([274], [275], [276]), changing/adding copyrighted images to articles that don't need it ([277], [278], [279], [280]), complete lack of edit summaries, bizarre blanking of redirects ([281]), edits like this, and more. Overall, they are doing way more harm than good and most of their edits have been reverted by someone else. Darkknight2149 11:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. ‑Scottywong| [spout] || 05:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism at Koottukar (2010 film)

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

---

Sorry, but I'm dropping this here, too. The vandalism is relenetless, and there's been no response at the page protection noticeboard for the better part of a day. Someone please lock this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(nac) "Fixed typo" is remarkably often a misleading ES; and in my experience always is when it's -56 or suchlike. Narky Blert (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi'd for 3 wks. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User persistently creating hoax articles

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

---

Thatdollcalledriley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persistently been participating in a pattern of creating articles related to a musical artist that does not exist. The reason that the user provides for these creations, as stated in an edit summary, is that these articles are related to a fanfiction character named "Shabnam" who is "NOT REAL, JUST FANON." Here are some links to supposed songs created by this "Shabnam" character that were instantly flagged under A9 and/or G3: 1, 2, 3, and 4. In addition, the user has performed many disruptive edits related to categories. I see this as a textbook case of WP:CIR. EMachine03 (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked as not here. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears that all the articles are going to end up being speedy deleted. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Likely a sockpuppet of Ineedtostopforgetting reverting all my edits and reporting me to AIV, harassing me in the username

Hello, this account: GreenlawnNewYorker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has reverted all my edits and harassing me. It's probably because I made this edit to their LTA casepage. Their username is where my IP Geolocates to. 173.56.224.210 (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: IP is definitely connected to 72.80.58.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 100.37.166.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), IPs that were previously blocked for block evasion for Jijkljklasdfsadf, another sockpuppet itself. They also used another IP, 174.197.149.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), to spout personal attacks against NinjaRobotPirate and other users. All IPs lead back to Greenlawn, New York City. GreenlawnNewYorker (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the obvious Ineedtostopforgetting sock above, but I feel like I've waded into an unfamiliar soup of faux nez. Anyone (including CUs) familiar with these characters is welcome to step in further. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Repeated removal of speedy delete, vandalism and sockpuppetry by Hasib201937

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

---

Hi, everyone. Please any one have a look at Sheikh Inzamamuzzaman, a WP:PROMOTIONAL page that is eligible for WP:A7 with {{salt}}, where Hasib201937 is endlessly removing speedy delete notices and engaging in edit warring and a sock-puppet of Faisal.proyash. Any help is appreciated. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Loud quacks on that page.--Chuka Chief_talk 21:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Chuka Chief, Sheikh Inzamamuzzaman needs to be {{salt}} otherwise again the drama will start with a different account. ~ Amkgp 💬 21:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector why declined? ~ Amkgp 💬 21:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The article clearly makes a credible claim of significance. I'm definitely going to delete it anyway but there's a history merge necessary. Working on it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, Please also have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faisal.proyash. Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 21:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There is another sockpuppet investigation related to user Faisal.proyash: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tanni3523. NJD-DE (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Several accounts blocked, SPI updated. I have merged the copied article back into the draft, declined G11 deletion because "created for hire" is not a speedy criterion and the draft is not unambiguous advertising, restored the UPE and AFC notices that the socks removed, salted the article and move-protected the draft. If you still feel that the draft should be deleted please nominate it at MfD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Miggy72

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

---

• Miggy72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Miggy72 is showing a pattern of disruptive editing:

1. Creation of articles without references: Imperial Point, Fort Lauderdale and Cypress Creek, Florida
2. Moving Imperial Point, Fort Lauderdale back to mainspace (either by moving[282] or copy and paste[283] ) multiple times after draftification without adding citations.
3. When discussed with Miggy72, they indicated they would add references but made no effort to do so
4. Engaging in an edit war with Nathan2055 over {{History merge}} [284], [285], [286]

--John B123 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: Miggy72 has engaged with me on my talk page. The messages are...concerning, and seem to indicate an intention to continue move warring. They've again stated they intend to find sources for their articles, but haven't explained why they can't be kept in draftspace until they add them. They've also boasted that I can't find all of their drafts because they keep moving them (I...can, that's why we have contribs pages) and that they've created some 150 articles without any references (not true, they've written only 2-5 articles at most depending on whether you count unfinished drafts as an article, but the fact that they're bragging about that raises some serious concerns). And on top of all of that, all of the images they've uploaded to Commons for use in these article are blatant copyright violations. I'm willing to give Miggy one last chance to try and contribute constructively, but if they continue this behavior after these warnings, then a block for disruptive editing would be more than justified. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You know I'm reading this Miggy^talk

@Miggy72:: yesss, that was kind of the point of the notification on your talk page, so you would read -- and could respond -- here. --Calton | Talk 14:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

And curiously, doing the same moving of a draft of Cypress Creek, Florida to mainspace here immediately after the article had been draftified.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

This user does have some history of disruptive editing in the past (see talk page), including creating inappropriate pages in mainspace instead of userspace or draftspace. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the history of creating inappropriate mainspace articles, I have a thought that Miggy72 should be limited into creating articles in draftspace or userspace only, OR revoking their ability to create articles (due to lack of effort to even give citations to these drafts). However, I could endorse blocking Miggy72 for disruptive editing because of what they just said to Nathan2055 (which appears to be refusing to stop). SMB99thx my edits 01:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Miggy72 has now for the second time moved Cypress Creek, Florida in the middle of a deletion discussion, but this time from mainspace to Draft:Cypress Creek,Florida, via User:Cypress Creek, Florida. Could an admin please move it back, and protect the article? Admins should also consider a temporary block for disruption: editor clearly understands that this behaviour is disruptive. Thanks. Captain Calm (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

And now blanking [287] and moving the AFD for the Cypress Creek article to user space [288]. Clearly begging to be blocked. Captain Calm (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

And now a threat of violence at the AFD: [289] Ah, Florida. Captain Calm (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by User:MR73

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

---

The user MR73 is involved in disrupting and edit-warring at Lana Del Rey discography. The user has been asked to stop and discuss on the talk page of the article, yet he/she continued to revert claiming that he/she doesn't see a discussion page.--Harout72 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me how can i see the discussion page that you're talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MR73 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the page that you will need to discuss on. It's on the main page, you would choose the tab marked "Talk". RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

And here's a visual aid just in case. 78.28.55.139 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Ownership behavior at Silver Legion of America

From time to time I review and edit popular culture examples according to loose criteria like: "is the example from popular culture?" and "does it involve the underlying subject?" Lately most of these have gone without incident, but at Silver Legion of America I encountered two editors who have repeatedly reverted a change without explanation and demanded that I discuss the change while avoiding discussion themselves.

• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs): reverted, reverted, reverted multiple changes with a warning, commented on the talk page to threaten and not to address concerns, reverted (removing dispute tag and urging to "discuss"), reverted (removing dispute tag), reverted (restoring disputed content and more besides), contacted me telling me to "make my argument" but still did not return to the article talk page. BMK has in the past been put on notice that verifiable existence does not guarantee inclusion of pop culture examples even when they do involve the underlying subject.
• Vif12vf (talk · contribs): reverted, I contacted him to request explanation whereupon he reverted (removing dispute tag). I contacted him again, he reverted the contact with "stay off my talk-page. Discuss edits at the relevant talk-pages!" (I had already tried, but he hasn't.) I contacted him once more, he reverted the contact with "You don't get to re-add this." (I hadn't re-added anyting.) I then received an administrator warning for "pestering." Although Vif12vf has been less active in the article dispute, BMK has cited the original unexplained revert as consensus in his own favor, so Vif12vf's refusal to explain at all has significantly complicated the dispute.

Both editors should be admonished against ownership and stonewalling conduct, i.e. repeatedly reverting without explanation, circumventing discussion and communication, and suppressing content concerns. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a simple matter. There is a dispute over whether a piece of material should be in the article or not. 73.71 deleted it, Vif12vf} restored it, the IP deleted it again (with no discussion), I deleted it again and a discussion was started on the talk page. There is not consensus on the talk page to delete the material from the article, yet the IP continues to attempt to delete it, despite having to consensus to do so. That's it. Further discussion on the talk page is required before anything can be decided, but the IP has apparently decided that their judgment should prevail whether or not there is a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, the IP saying "From time to time I review popular culture examples" is not really an accurate statement, since edits to popcult sections make up a very large part of their contributions, and those edits are almost always deletions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, the IP was just warned by Bishonen for "pestering" Vif12vf on their talk page, by restoring comments that had been deleted, multiple times. [290]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the IP spins 13 edits over a 4 1/2 year period into "Ownership". [291] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion isn't a one-way street Ken, and indeed WP:VNOTSUFF places an onus on parties who want material included. As for "restoring comments," I did that exactly once, because I believed that the indentation had misled Vif12vf to think that I was addressing you rather than him. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

One only has to look at the talk page to see that you made no argument for your deletion at all, you simply wanted others to make their argument without providing one yourself. Per Vif12vf's talk page, you did it multiple times: [292] (oring), [293] (1), [294] (2), [295] (3))

Yes, let people look at the talk page to see whether I had presented any argument. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Kind of along the lines of this dispute I am not very impressed by Vif12vf's lack of engagement with this issue or much of anywhere it would seem. Nothing on talk, edit summaries, or user talk just reverts. Looking at their contribution history it looks like they have a history of inappropriate use of rollback as well.[296][297][298][299] PackMecEng (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

IP address spamming non English comments on talk page

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

---

An IP user is spamming non English comments on some talk pages. They also used personal attacks on me in this edit 2601:5C4:8100:92D:F0FA:50DE:87C3:F0EA (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:LTA/SBT, fyi. I don't think #redirecting the sandbox to Fart is helping though, tbh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

Hello, this is my first time diving into reporting a block evasion case, I have suspicions that User:StacyDebb and User:OglebayWheeling are the same person attempting to sock-puppet and evade their block. Little evidence can be made except the message StacyDebb's page left by OglebayWheeling and them both editing 1912 (Only 8 contributions have been made by OglebayWheeling). If there is a process for block evasion, please let me know! Happy editing Heart ^(talk) 12:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

HeartGlow30797, given that StaceyDebb (talk · contribs) is CU-blocked as a sockpuppet of Pcgmsrich (talk · contribs) and there is an active SPI case, I'd say SPI is probably the best venue. Best, Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Mohammad Yaromtaghloo

The article Mohammad yaromtaghloo has been previously created by Al6ireza (talk · contribs) and A7 speedily deleted twice, as it's promotional in nature and doesn't establish notability. It was recreated earlier today at Mohammad Yaromtaghloo by the same editor. I requested A7 again, but this was removed by 'another' editor, Al6ireza 2 (talk · contribs) with a declared COI in the subject. I realise that the two editors are technically not the same (possible sockpuppetry etc. notwithstanding), but I've nevertheless reinstated the speedy request on the basis that the second editor may be the same as the creator, in which case they shouldn't be removing speedies from their own articles. I'm unsure whether I was right to restore the request, and in any case don't know what to do with this next, so leaving the matter here for those in the know to deal with. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and salted it. It's blatantly a hoax, apparently he got a street performance permit aged 10, and won a Turkish talent show 2 years before it first aired. I think the accounts should be cleaned, likely a sock or meatpuppet of some sort. Canterbury Tail talk 15:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Competence issues and canvassing on Patricia Billings

Netherzone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making steady use of execrable sources -listicle glurge, essentially - on this article, and now appears to be canvassing. Some outside eyeballs would be appreciated. Qwirkle (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope. I've not been canvassed. I was already involved during the AfD and in post-AfD editing of the article. It's still on my watchlist. I'm working on the article and so is Netherzone. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This looks like an article content dispute.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A content dispute between two people who agree on one of their talk pages. Kewl.

The interested reader may want to observe their contributions on the article talk page Qwirkle (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: Do you have some kind of complaint to make, with diffs? See the top of this page, where it says "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". That does not seem to be the case.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We are permitted not only to talk but to agree on our user talk pages. That happening on mine is not problematic. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Two editors amicably discussing article content on a talk page? That's outrageous. Blackmane (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan f1 disruptive editing

• White Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User, who has a history of receiving disruptive editing warnings and other warnings in their talk page, deleted with an edit comment “unsupported statement” a sentence about demography cited to a 1991 article in the journal Demography, a 1986 article in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (which explicitly supports the statement with an entire section "Inconsistencies") and two other sources, and deleted with an edit comment “total nonsense” content cited to a 2000 article in Yale Law Journal by a law professor about U.S. naturalization cases, with a subsequent claim in the talk page that the latter was 'scholars' operating in the tradition of "whiteness studies". This would seem to add to an overall pattern of WP:DISRUPTive editing. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 17:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

First of all I don't have a "history of disruptive editing". This happened on one other occasion (probably a year ago) which involved me deleting a talk page section (not content in an article) which I started. I was simply unaware of a certain policy regarding talk page deletions. After I was explained the rules it never happened again.

Secondly, I explained all of my edits on the talk page. They were all simple deletions of content that was either not explicitly supported by the sources or supported by dated sources that have very little credibility in contemporary, mainstream scholarship.

Let's take each issue at a time.

First cite the specific passages in the references you're using to support this statement as it appears in the article:

"However, the English and British Americans' demography is considered a serious under-count as the stock tend to self-report and identify as simply "Americans" (7%), due to the length of time they have inhabited the United States, particularly if their family arrived prior to the American Revolution."

Where does it say this? The first reference is page 57 of Dominic Pulera's Sharing the American Dream. Perhaps you haven't read past page 57. That wouldn't surprise me. On page 58 Pulera writes,

"The number of American Americans surged dramatically between 1990 and 2000, suggesting that white Americans, particularly members of such groups as German Americans, Irish Americans, and English Americans, increasingly identify solely as American."

This is significant because both hyphenated Irish and German Americans outnumber hyphenated English Americans on recent censuses and ancestry surveys. You simply cherry-picked English/British Americans out of the source without paying attention to the context in which Pulera was writing. That is, Pulera started the discussion on English/British Americans (as the one of the oldest ancestry groups in the US) as a premise for his conclusion that "white Americans" (specifically English, German, Irish Americans) are under-counted on these surveys (not only English Americans).

Lieberson doesn't lend any explicit support for this statement either. And, as I mentioned on the talk, the majority of your sources are more than 20, 30 years old. Several censuses and surveys were conducted since the 80s, so you need to update your sources. The most recent source you're using is Pulera, and he doesn't support the content.

As far as this "whiteness" business goes -- you are simply unfamiliar with the literature regarding the academic debates that have taken place since the 90s. "Whiteness studies" was popular in the Academy 20 or 30 years ago, not just in history but also in sociology and even legal scholarship. Around the turn of the century, several prominent social historians such as Barbara J. Fields called a moratorium on historians' use of "whiteness" as an analytical tool in Euro-American ethnic studies, and historians have since abandoned this approach. So again you're using out of date sources (from the early 90s) to support controversial (and, I would say, pseudo-historical) content.

And finally I don't appreciate you sending me multiple hysterical messages and accusing me of disruptive editing. I made 3 edits, opened up talk page discussions on all three, and did not edit war, vandalize, or anything else that would constitute a disruption. Obviously, you are emotionally involved in this subject. I would suggest other editors get involved here and wrangle this bull before he pulverizes the whole china shop.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Having reviewed this editor's small number of mainspace edits, it is clear that the majority are tendentious. In a spirit of WP:AGF, and given their relative inexperience, I have enacted a partial block from mainspace, so that they can explore the changes they want to make through the consensus process on Talk. Jonathan f1, this is mainly designed to protect our articles from well-intentioned but poor edits; I have no doubt that with a little patience you'll get the hang of it and the partial block can be lifted. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Those violations were the result of an unfamiliarity with the rules, as I just explained. However, the edits I made to the article in question were completely warranted, as I also explained.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I think that is a bit much given the edits in question. I can see why the edits would be reversed but based on the evidence above a block from editing any name space article indefinitely looks punitive rather than preventative. Additionally, I don't see anything to help the editor understand what they did wrong and how to do better in the future. The edits in question here were reverted with no edit warring and a trip to the talk page. Anyway, this seems like a case for constructive criticism accompanied by perhaps an informal warning. Springee (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Springee: No I didn't edit war. I made a couple of deletions, opened talk page sections to discuss the issues, and then OP went into a craze.

Yes, explain to me what I did wrong because from my perspective I merely deleted material that wasn't adequately sourced. He is now claiming that the first statement in question is "explicitly supported with an entire section" in one of the references. Perhaps he can quote some of that because I apparently missed it.

In addition, he's citing a source from 1986 to support a statement regarding the opinion of contemporary demographers. The most recent reference he has supporting this statement doesn't actually support the statement.

As far as the Yale Law Review goes -- a law professor is not a social historian. We wouldn't expect a law professor to know how to do social history any more than we'd expect a social historian to know how to be a lawyer. Historians stopped using "race" as an analytical tool in white ethnic studies shortly after this lawyer published his paper. So again we have a case where this editor is using out of date material, only this time he's supporting a rather controversial statement.Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition to mentioning tendentious editing, our Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline has a subsection WP:NOTGETTINGIT, which says among other things

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time-wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

Instead of, for example, at all acknowledging that there's no rational way to construe a sentence about the varying status of different European nationalities in early America, cited to the Yale Law Journal, as “total nonsense”, you continue to make what appear to me to be completely specious arguments justifying your edit; having responded to the first editor who challenged you on the talk page by saying they were Trawling through research in a controversial field such as "whiteness studies" (Or possibly you were talking about a past editor of the article? It's hard to tell, even now, looking at it.) and characterizing my refusal to accept said arguments as “hysterical” and a “craze”. That's an extreme obstacle to be operating with, to be unable to tell the difference between “total nonsense” and a topical sentence cited to a law journal or discuss the issue without expressing bilious generalized contempt for a fellow editor who does not think it's nonsense.

I'd actually be worried that expecting such an issue to be resolved in a only a years' worth of infrequent collaborative talk-page edit requests would not be long enough, but I've seen in the past that Guy has more experience than I in witnessing clemency lead to a turn-around in editing behavior. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 13:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

User:*ss continued deletion of Korean military coordinates

User:*ss is deleting coordinates of South Korean military sites, claiming national security e.g. [[300]], warnings given here: User talk:*ss#Stop deleting coordinates Mztourist (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

For e.g. Command Post Tango, what was the source for the coordinates? If they aren't freely available, we probably shouldn't provide them either. Fram (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Google Earth, you can take a look yourself.Mztourist (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Google Earth is not a reliable source. Fram (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There's the issue that Google's coordinates often appear to have come from WP. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Having made a complaint at AIV where the edits were declared to be "not vandalism". The same complaint is now brought here hoping to get the desired result. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Not forum shopping IP user. I regard it as vandalism, it was decided it wasn't, so I came here as I see no reason for deletion of these coordinates, certainly not on the grounds claimed by *ss of South Korean national security concerns. Mztourist (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Off tangent slightly, but I've fixed many a co-ordinate for park or playing field that was off by hundreds of metres before with Google Maps - which I assume has the same data as Google Earth - and always matches other sources, such ad OpenMap, etc. I've never seen any co-ordinates referenced to something. Are you suggesting User:Fram that we should start deleting all the co-ordinates in Wikipedia that are unreferenced? I've never seen controversy - or even a counter-edit, before. I don't see Google Earth/Maps listed as unreliable somewhere - perhaps I'm not looking in the right place? Nfitz (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"Are you suggesting User:Fram that we should start deleting all the co-ordinates in Wikipedia that are unreferenced?" No, just like I don't claim that all information in general which is unsourced should be deleted. But when information is challenged by an editor, it should be reliably sourced. If there is a reliable source for this information, then it can stay. Fram (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(non admin comment) I can only think of one experience. An editor pointed out to me that the coordinates I'd taken when translating from Dutch WP were wrong, by a couple of hundred metres (and the other side of a canal). They were right - dank u wel.

If clicking on a coords link doesn't land you on a map at or very near the right place, what use is it? Narky Blert (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(further non admin comment) Google Maps etc. can be seriously dodgy as to saying where borders are, in some parts of the world - the answer you get may depend on where you claim to be from. Nevertheless, as an innocent, I do not know of any case where they have fiddled the coordinates of a named place. Narky Blert (talk)

Borders perhaps ... it's normally pretty clear between North and South Korea! Looking at an diff of one of these changes, User:*ss deleted the co-ordinates of the Busan naval base because it's "not published". Yet you can clearly see lots of large naval vessels in Google Maps here. This example though seems just a content dispute ... changed, and then changed back. And I don't see a lot of edits. What User:Mztourist can't be dealt with on the Talk page? The only one I see recently is Command Post Tango ... and it's 3 edits - one in August, one in October, and one in November? Nfitz (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nfitz the issue is that *ss is persistently deleting the coordinates despite the Talk Page warning on the basis of their view that coordinates shouldn't be given to comply with South Korean national security laws. Would you prefer that we edit war in the expectation that someone will trip 3RR? Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "the issue is that *ss is persistently deleting the coordinates despite the Talk Page warning" is not an ANI issue at all, it's a content dispute. There is no reason for them to follow your "warning" any more than the reverse would be true if they had warned you. Ask for a 3rd opinion, go to the reliable sources noticeboard, if necessary start an RfC: but don't treat it like anything but a content dispute. Fram (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The location information of military bases is where civilians are not allowed to enter, so it is not accurate if you go to check it yourself with permission. Because what is displayed on Google Maps(or Earth) may not be the correct information. In Wikipedia, it is not a policy or obligation to indicate the detailed location or coordinates of a military base, and it is sufficient to indicate the approximate location. That doesn't mean that erase all coordinates. And the display of such sensitive information can be a target of spies or North Korean Army. South Korea is very sensitive militarily because of North Korea. *ss (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute. That being said, I highly doubt that North Korean spies are using Wikipedia to get information on military targets that are publically and freely available. If you think they don't know the exact location of every single military installation on the peninsula, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. But at the end of the day we only publish what can be reliably sourced. Canterbury Tail talk 16:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

As is clear from *ss's comments above "the display of such sensitive information can be a target of spies or North Korean Army" and my original complaint, this is not a content dispute or a WP:V issue. *ss is deleting valid information based on his/her perception of the applicability of South Korean security laws to Wikipedia. What is the position on this? Mztourist (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think *ss's reason for deletion is wrong, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's not a valid reason for removal. However the removal itself is technically correct, for different reasons, namely the lack of a reliable source for those co-ordinates. Canterbury Tail talk 13:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Persistent sourcing issues with Weareme234

Weareme234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Weareme234 is a good-faith new contributor focused on Indian geographical articles. However, they have severe issues regarding sourcing of their contributions. Despite multiple warnings and draft-ifications of unsourced articles, they continue creating new articles without proper sourcing; Cooperative Colony only having a Google Maps link to a bank in the area, and Sector 12 (Bokaro) having an article about an airport that doesn't support the claim that the airport is in that sector. I don't know how to engage the editor further, a block until they acknowledge the sourcing issues may be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - they are still continuing to make large, unsourced, additions, despite a final warning - a report to WP:AIV was ignored - Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Stephen Yagman

Stephen Yagman article has been the subject of relentless hagiographic re-editing and abusive endless circular reverts over a long period of time. Either Yagman or one or more of his groupies or admirers has/have been relentless in their sanitization and encomia. Article editing should be limited to established users. I reverted back to last edit by User:Donner60 and tweaked. I tagged notices to the most recent IP addresses which have been active in the above misbehavior but I cannot tag them all. 2604:2000:1540:54F9:1C45:EF18:1232:E22E (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead a bit to be a little less hagiographic, but that aside, looking at the article history, it does seem that the article could benefit from some page protection. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an infrequently edited article and I don't think protection would have much effect. Prior to your edits today, the article had only been edited 9 times in 2020. Protection is more suitable if there was vandalism occurring or an edit war or if it was being actively edited. I think if you and others add it to your Watchlist, you could keep tabs on it. 21:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Noted, and will do. I just generally think page protection is an effective remedy for short-term disruption, and should be applied more often than it is, I suppose. Honestly, while the subject is notable, there's very little biographical material to expand the article, so it's difficult to say what should be included in the biography. I even questioned my re-write, as I don't think the last sentence(s) was/were particularly due. Also, there's something up with your signature. It seems to be missing, aside from the time/date stamp. Just FYI. I'm not really sure who I'm replying to. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have used 3 or 5 tildes instead of 4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Alex.nezz

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

---

• Alex.nezz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was brought to my attention via an edit-war happening on Caracalla. Initially, I was going to request intervention at AN/EW but having looked through the user's edits, the problem is wider than just the one article. The problem with this user's conduct can be illustrated in one sentence: It is either the arab wanting to bring their dirty arabizing program here or racist ignorant people. They've also been engaging in edit-warring at History of Algeria, in what appears to me to be blatant POV pushing. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what's gone wrong, but my notice to Alex.nezz has not shown up on their talk page. It's there in the source code, but not on their page. Any help appreciated. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

When someone subst'd a template on their page, the code included the <!-- --> markup. A subsequent edit removed the closing --> thereby hiding everything after the <!--, which included your ANI notice. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

They removed everything from their talk page. Them and their friends think we can't view edit history. One of them claimed to write an edit including sources that was removed and is now "scared" to edit but we could see they never edited the page in the first place. This user in question is editing like no one can see the history of any page. It's alarming. They come from a group on facebook that encourages this sort of thing and they also have an alarming misunderstanding of what wikipedia is and how it works. They are currently petitioning to send a representative to Jimmy Wales in order to push their views. I'm going on a tangent but the point is this person doesn't understand what wikipedia is and doesn't want to learn. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Literally all of Alex.nezz's edits are attempts to remove Arabs from the history of North Africa = NOT HERE. Also malicious attempts to vandalize ANI itself. My own warnings also did not display. GPinkerton (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Impersonation

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

---

Ph awesome has insulted a nationality and impersonated another user's signature in a dispute [301] - Bri.public (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The remark itself is uncivil, but insulting a nationality is more in bad taste than an intrinsically blockable offense. However, the impersonation of another user is unacceptable, and the user should be sanctioned based on that alone, as it's definitely disruptive behaviour. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I've posted a warning to their talk page. It was offensive and you're right, it is unacceptable to misrepresent yourself on a talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Liz, while you were commenting, I was blocking, didn't mean to step on your toes. I cannot imagine this person becoming a productive editor, but if they do, it's going to be the result of a convincing unblock request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Floquenbeam, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

RE:" insulting a nationality". I disagree. RAcist comments of that nature are intolerable Surprised and saddened that that sat, unchallenged, for four days. Revdel'd. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I didn't mean to say that it wasn't serious and couldn't be sanctionable, or deserving of a rev'del. I was just saying it's not usually something that calls for a block on sight. The user's generally disruptiveness, and impersonating another user, is. Their childish bashing of a nationality is more straw on that proverbial camel's back. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

And absolutely endorse indefinite block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Door. Ass. Don't let it hit them on the way out. Absolutely no place for that here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Sutton12

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

---

• Sutton12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across Sutton12 at the Sutton-in-Ashfield article and saw he was making problematic edits. He has made 350+ edits to the article, but dozens of them were among the 149 deleted by User:Justlettersandnumbers as RD1:Violations of copyright policy.

Some of his uploads to Commons, (related to Sutton-in-Ashfield) have been challenged at Commons Deletion Requests, and in one recent glaring case he changed the file name of an image being considered for deletion to the file name of a completely different image. No reason given, per normal. Yeah I know, we're not Commons, but I mention it as an example of his editing.

He has twice recently removed a More Citations Needed tag from the article. Although he is adding new citations, the efficacy of many is largely unknowable because they are not accessible, do not give page numbers, or quotes, and it is difficult to determine how many of his edits to Wikipedia need rectification. Much of his refs formatting is poor to say the least.

He rarely gives an edit summary, will not indent talk page comments as requested, and does not sign his posts as requested. Some of his responses to editors are meaningless. He lacks writing ability and his misinterpretation of sources introduces errors to the project — example, a paragraph I deleted. I have rectified a few of his edits, which makes me involved, so that’s why I am here. Many of his contributions are truly disruptive, he largely ignores advice and seems to not want to make a collegial effort. I think he needs a block for a little while to think things over, with a warning that it can be indefinite if on return he continues his troublesome editing. Moriori (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

There's an apparent WP:CIR issue here. I will give him a warning for disruptive editing and follow up on it. Deb (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Deb, that seems to be the right way forward. The whole article should probably now by overhauled/rewritten by editors with a better understanding of encyclopaedic style and content. It's been on my watchlist since I removed copyvio there. I've sporadically spot-checked some of his edits and found no further copyvio problems; if anyone sees or feels that I've missed anything, please ping me, there or here. Thank you for the ping, Moriori! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, another option would be to make all changes to the article subject to review. That might make checking the individual edits a bit easier. Deb (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Interaction Ban violation

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

---

It looks me like @Mathsci: and @Francis Schonken: are mutually violating their interaction ban, which was set here [302], with the additional aggravating factor that Mathsci appears to be repeatedly posting on FS's talk page [303] and when FS deletes it without comment, Mathsci persistently reverts it [304]. Isn't this the kind of thing Mathsci was banned for previously? ♟♙ (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, you're using present tense, but past tense is more appropriate. Suboptimal behavior, but this ended 2.5 days ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if this is tl;dr. I think the problems started 3 weeks ago on the talk page of BWV 543. There was a report on ANI by User:Headbomb, with a complaint about FS, where I was not involved. Subsequently there was a report on WP:ORN#Musical score by FS on 2 November 2020.

I have made a large number of edits to Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543, previously a stub. Those edits are ongoing, mostly concerning "Bach reception" and parts of the section on "Musical structure," involving period manuscripts and some musical quotations.

FS initiated a report on WP:ORN#Musical scores; as a consequence, because I had already written musical quotations for the Prelude in A minor, BWV 543/1, I found that I was involuntarily involved in identifying and checking sources for BWV 543 concerning "In popular culture" (Le Clan des Siciliens and themes of Morricone inspired by Bach). As a result, I discovered Bach-Morricone content related to BWV 565. As explained on WP:ORN#Follow up on BWV 543 and BWV 565, for the Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 and the Dollars trilogy, I added completely new content and 3 new sources related to Bach-Morricone. Today I also added 3 new sources re Bach-Stokowski-Disney and Fantasia, adding completely new content and an educational image accordingly.

Headbomb's recent report on ANI concerning FS & Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 and the report on WP:ORN#Musical score are not anything that I have precipitated. On the lighter side, it has been a relief to listen to Morricone a little on YouTube or Spotify. I am quite surprised how many instantly recognizable hits he had, without knowing he wrote them. Mathsci (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Just today Mathsci pinged Francis Schonken in an edit summary. Isn't that a clear-cut violation? 2605:8D80:621:519:613F:A45A:A4E1:164F (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Please register an account on wikipedia to comment on this noticeboard. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not restricted to registered editors. Grandpallama (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• As FB says, the problems happened 2.5 days ago as a result of edits on WP:ORN#Musical score. It started with FS editing with no signature. I added his username, because it was directly above my previous edits and so completely confusing.[305] Then he added his signature but changed my punctuation.[306] He then looked at the edit history to record the time.[307] I requested that FS correct his errors without moving my material.[308] He then moved his content so that it completely changed where I had placed it.[309] I restored the place intended.[310] He then worked out how to solve the errors he had made without interferring with my edits.[311] Finally he removed the "dummy" buffer passage on WP:ORN, previously used to move my edits.[312] Moving things around in that way was disruptive. but resolved fairly easily. Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You have an interaction ban. You may explicitly not edit their comments, revert them, or harass them by edit warring on their user talk page. You are an extremely experienced editor who knows how interaction bans work, and that you had one with FS which prohibits you interacting with him in any way. The wall of bullshit above does not change the fact you did something you know perfectly well you have been forbidden to do. What does it take to get you to stop fucking with people? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• I am struggling to understand the issue here. With incidences continuing today and looking at the talk page fiasco this looks fairly clear cut. Even if 2.5 days ago, whatever that has to do with anything. PackMecEng (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • When you write "fiasco," I'm not sure which talk page you're referring to. There's WP:ORN#Musical score, where Binksternet and Austronesier have both commented once. Then Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 where I have made 14 edits, 6 of them minor. Headbomb has made 21 edits, all marked major; and FS has made 20 edits with 4 marked minor. There Headbomb and FS have had unresolved discussions about film music (see Headbomb's previous ANI report). On Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565, I have made 9 edits, 4 marked minor: these were related to additions of 4 new sources and new material; plus minor problems concerning two sentences in the lead. It appears that editing on BWV 565 is resuming in the middle of the night as I write. (Outstanding issues with the 2016 GAR are being addressed.) Mathsci (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

    I mean the user talk page of Francis Schonken where you were in an edit war with them.[313] PackMecEng (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly as Floquenbeam wrote, that happened 3 days ago and the diffs have been described step-by-step above (23:27, 5 November 2020). Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

How many days is not relevant. It means nothing at all to this discussion or interaction bans in general. I do not know why it was brought up in the first place, since again, it is meaningless. PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

What's the point of an interaction ban if it suddenly doesn't matter two days later? Heck, we can just can ArbCom since 99% of the cases involve things that happened two days before they deliberate. We're talking about repeated offenses from an individual with a long history both with the other person involved and with 16 blocks on their record and has had multiple interaction bans. Forget about Bach, how many entries would there be at this point in the Mathsci- Verstoß-Verzeichnis? Chopin would have long been clipped by this number. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Well there is a recent WP:AN3 report here[314] and a recent report WP:ANI here[315]. I was not involved, but the ANI report by Headbomb concerned arguments on Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 about film scores. Sourced content was supplied; however, when I added a score for the "Musical structure" in the article that precipitated a report on WP:ORN#Musical score connected to the score. That was vaguely related to the film music but had very little connection with the current article. As for blocks, FS has been blocked 6 weeks in 2018 and then for a year slightly afterwards. The only substantial block that I had was an WP:ARBR&I ban in October 2013, subject to review after 6 months (most arbs preferred one year). Only in April 2016 did I request a review. Otherwise your analysis of blocks doesn't seem accurate. There was a 1 hour block in 2008 + a 1 day block in 2008 (Elonka related?); a 1 day block in 2010 (Pmanderson related?); then a 2 hour block in 2013; then the long arbcom ban related to WP:ARBR&I; some changes in the ban settings in 2014; then a 5 day block for the 2016 Nice truck attack; and then a 1 week block in February 2018 (post-stroke in a cardiology ward). As for edits, you've made about 350 in your WP career, so less than my recent edits to Planar Riemann surface, Riemann mapping theorem, etc. Mathsci (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• These are quite obviously violations of the sanction, regardless of how much time has passed. Yet the two sanctioned editors appear to have resolved the situation amicably, and neither seems to be agitating for enforcement here; this is a third-party report and I don't see any evidence that these interactions have been disruptive to anyone else. Shouldn't we just move on? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• To respond to a couple of questions above, it does matter if it is reported 2.5 days after it stops, because the purpose of an i-ban is not to punish or get vengeance on one's enemies, but to prevent disruption. If there had been a limited-time violation of the i-ban by both people, but it had resolved, then bringing it here would have been unnecessary. Since there appears to be ongoing interaction, then bringing it here is justified. From a brief review, it looks to me like there's been low-grade violations on both sides. I'll leave that to other people to review in more detail; my instinct is a firm reminder to both not to move each others' comments, not to fix each others' signatures, not to revert each other, etc. might be sufficient, but it will take more time than I have to see if someone is much more to blame than the other. But MathSci's behavior on FS's talk page is kind of obviously over-the-top unacceptable. While discussion is ongoing on the other stuff, I've indefinitely partially blocked MathSci from FS's talk page as a preliminary measure. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• The partial block of MathSci from FS's talk page looks like a good idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  That seems reasonable, yeah. I don't think it matters at all that it was two days in the past, the users are either banned from interacting or they are not. That said, we don't impose sanctions just for the sake of punishment, and if this interaction was resolved without incident and the only thing worth complaint about it is that it technically violated a restriction, then at best a reminder is all we should do here. But it seems to me more like the incident is ongoing, and so the block is appropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam I understand why you have imposed this ban. Given my record on that user talk page,[316] I would prefer a voluntary ban. In any case, I will not edit that user talk page. Since 2012, I have carefully observed all IBANs from WP:ARBR&I (User:Mikemikev excluded). With a permanent red bar on my edit contributions, however, it is quite likely that I would stop editing wikipedia. Floquenbeam or other administrators can advise me on removing the red bar (i.e. undoing the partial block subject to stringent assurances agreed with an administrator).

The edits to Talk:Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 and WP:ORN#Musical score by the other editor do not seem to have been written to benefit wikipedia. See Headbomb's previous report.[317] In December 2017, that applied similarly for BWV 142, a cantata not by Bach. On WP:RSN, the other editor argued that standard reliable sources could not be used.[318] The discussion there later involved an administrator, who suggested various tbans or ibans (my edits ended abruptly there, because of stroke). The whole scenario, with improper use of primary sources and failure to use reliable secondary sources, has been a persistent problem. Like BWV 142, the article Liebster Gott, wann werd ich sterben below, mostly created by the other editor, has the same sourcing problems: primary sources from the 18th and mid-19th century, including direct use of raw data from the Bach Archive, etc; relevant recent content from journals such as Early Music has been ignored. Mathsci (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mathsci:, I'm not looking to chase anyone off Wikipedia by being a stickler for rules, and I'd normally be happy to replace an actual partial block with your promise not to post there. But... you already have an interaction ban, and you broke that agreement. In fact, it sure feels like you are currently breaking it right above, complaining about FS's editing. You can't do that when there's an interaction ban. I like the partial block because it prevents you from forgetting in the heat of the moment. But if you really still want me to, I'll replace the partial block with a warning that if you do post to their talk page again, you'll actually be blocked site-wide. Is that what you want? If so, let me know. And please stop complaining about FS's editing, or someone is going to block you site-wide with or without my unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Gerda already mentioned me on your user talk page. Yes, I realise that I should approach things with a measured cool head, never in the heat of the moment. Instead of an indefinite partial block, I would prefer your suggestion of a severe warning that, if I post to the user talk page, I will automatically be blocked site-wide. If that is possible to arrange, that would be kind. Thanks for helping me with your advice. Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Be careful, and don't forget please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So the first thing after reaffirming the interaction ban is to go to an article Francis Schonken recently created and start major revisions?[319] PackMecEng (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems they are still going at it on the Daniel Vetter article. The mass revert with no edit summary was a good touch as well.[320] PackMecEng (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
    • So much for Plan A? Someone should propose a Plan B. Lev!vich 17:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Normally I would think a block or some such. Though looking at this no one seems to care. PackMecEng (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Blocked for a week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks NRP. Lev!vich 00:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

    I wish I thought a week would change something. Arkon (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Liebster Gott

I wrote the first version of the "Liebster Gott, wann werd ich sterben" article between 27 June and 2 July – from that point on nearly any modification of the article content, apart from a clear-cut addition, has a high risk of undoing something I added to the page in an earlier stage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• BWV 8, cantata no. 8 of Johann Sebastian Bach, composed in 1724, is stable content. New sources have been added, from William G. Whittaker's book on Bach cantatas and from Arnold Schering's Eulenberg study score, containing a lengthy preface. On WP. there is a series of articles on Lutheran hymns linked to cantatas and chorale preludes. The article above is about a Lutheran hymn written by Caspar Neumann with music by Daniel Vetter, based on a chorale written in 1713. For the cantata, there is general agreement amongst editors on how the article should be written. (Gerda Arendt has said, that for the article above, it is the Lutheran hymn that is important, not the cantata.) No commentators doubt that the closing chorale of Vetter was borrowed with some modifications for Bach's setting 11 years later. No recent substantial academic discussion challenging that can be found. However, FS has decided that the whole article on the Lutheran hymn should investigate the authenticity of Vetter's chorale as used by Bach. 12 musical images and several primary texts from the 18th and mid-19th century are provided as "proof" that the chorale is spurious. Thus, instead of writing an article on a Lutheran hymn, a large part of the article has been used to write an alternative view of Cantata No. 8, Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben? BWV 8, with content which seemingly contradicts the article on the cantata. The Bach Archive links directly to the stable wikipedia article on BWV 8. That is a good thing.

Similarly the editor above has tried to "prove" statements about Ennio Morricone which probably can never be decided. As far as I can understand, there has been an attempt to claim that a musical score is equivalent to an English text. I have not been able to follow the argument. I have discovered that, according to Morricone, it took 20 days for him to figure out how to write the theme for Le Clan des Siciliens. He has not given complete details about that, but hinted that he combined BWV 543/1 and a hidden B-A-C-H theme. So again, things that cannot be proved. Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Opening

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

---

Opening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.153 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

103.23.133.153, do you have an incident that needs to be addressed by an administrator? (Non-administrator comment) Heart ^(talk) 04:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

User:ProcrastinatingReader

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

---

Earlier today, ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) put two infoboxes into AnomieBOT's TemplateSubster queue, despite there being ongoing discussion (and no consensus) for the first one and very little discussion for the second. In the ongoing discussion, mostly at Template talk:Infobox station#UK stations merge but also elsewhere, ProcrastinatingReader was informed several times of outstanding problems. There were also a number of questions put by myself which have either not been answered satisfactorily, or not been answered at all. ProcrastinatingReader was informed by several people that whilst converting Template:Infobox GB station into a wrapper might, ultimately, be acceptable, carrying out a subst: would not be. At 00:58, 22 October 2020, Thryduulf (talk · contribs) warned ProcrastinatingReader that they should wait for consensus that there are no remaining issues before proceeding with rolling out anything. ... If you continue to insist on arbitrary deadlines then you will very likely find yourself enjoying a trip to ANI. ProcrastinatingReader has now carried out their threat, so here we are. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is an egregious misrepresentation of the issue. Perhaps one is not meant to list their own faults at ANI but still, this is a shocking summary. I'll type up an actual response at some point today, but it's too cold currently and I somewhat lack the energy for this mess. It is a shame it has to come here, but since the dispute is wholly conduct issues (and not content) - ones I would argue are not really my own (at least not mostly) - it was probably destined to end up here at some point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  As I say, I don't think the above summary is a fair summary of what has happened here.

  1. This begins back in July with this TfD. It found a consensus to merge, including input from highly experienced template editors. The infoboxes were pretty much duplicates. Similar has been done with many templates before, eg Template:Infobox Japan station & Template:Infobox China station. So I began to work on implementing the TfD outcome, and started a discussion to hash remaining details out with editors here.
  2. Immediately after the TfD is closed as merge, Thryduulf and Redrose64 engage in Special:Diff/970866879/970964966. They reject that the consensus is valid because it wasn't full of UK WikiProject participants. To save myself possibly wasting time, I ask both in User_talk:Redrose64/unclassified_27#DRV if they indeed plan to go to DRV, as threatened. No response or DRV to date.
  3. But these 'invalid consensus' claims, and attempts to relitigate the TfD, continued persistently for 4 months. Not just to me, but others too. Pretty much WP:BADGER to tire editors out. eg Special:Diff/972339764/972398735 (line 116 part), Special:Diff/976525263, Special:Diff/980679426. Attempts to overturn the consensus, cancel the merge altogether, or turn it into a wrapper (rejected in the discussion) were constantly made. But no new points raised (other than attempts to relitigate the same points in the TfD) as to why that should be done.
  4. Once we hashed the points, I asked on 21 September if any concerns were remaining/unaddressed. No response for a week, so on 28 September I synced the wrapper. Redrose finally replies: Special:Diff/980783351.
  5. All editors in the TfD were pinged to give their thoughts. On top of Redrose and Tyruduulf there were 3 other opposers. Here are their responses, when asked if the completed wrapper addresses their issues and if it's ready to be merged:
     1. Special:Diff/981317412: in essence, I cannot see the major difference between the two, so no objections. I do thank you for your efforts and taking everyone's opinions and thoughts with policy into account can't be easy.
     2. Special:Diff/981076378/981093355: I see that you've done a good job with the three test cases. There seem to be more similarities across country borders than I expected.
     3. Special:Diff/981214226 & Special:Diff/981680471/982256670. This regards Module:Adjacent stations (as answered by Jonesey) (Special:Diff/982226496), which is a fair concern but is not related to the merge. They had no objections to the merge itself.
  6. So, a review: We have a large consensus of respected editors at TfD to merge, with a specification on how to merge. After a discussion, all the oppose voters, except the two who already made up their mind of an "invalid consensus", decided the merge was good when shown the finished product. Redrose and Thryduulf; good editors, experienced, perhaps they have a point somewhere?
     1. Thryduulf, after Special:Diff/984775936, began to raise his concerns in a constructive manner; conduct was rectified, and so discussion became more productive with him.
     2. Redrose, well, nobody knows what her concerns are. Several editors (at a skim, @Cards84664, @Pi.1415926535, @Jonesey95*) have failed to get them out of her. eg diffs Special:Diff/984372740, Special:Diff/984522585, Special:Diff/984325686. I dunno the "unanswered questions" she refers to (refuses to clarify), but based on context eg Special:Diff/985247241, perhaps: Special:Diff/981373011, Special:Diff/981680471 and Special:Diff/969960200. These are a continuation of IDHT, and the legitimacy of these questions was rejected, explicitly by @Izno and @Mackensen in the TfD, and by @Pigsonthewing in the 2012 TfD: The question, while no doubt asked with good faith, is contrary to key Wikipedia policies, and to how TfD works, and is unhelpful.
  7. Incivility: Then comes: Special:Diff/985247241. After pressed to find an issue, she responds with Special:Diff/987093220. The TLDR, if anyone needs one, may as well be this diff. I mean, The infobox worked just fine until you stuck your claws in. Now take them out, put things right back to the way they were, and everybody will be happy (except yourself). And I don't see why your happiness should matter at all, because (a) you clearly care nothing for my happiness, and (b) you still have not told me when you have actually used Template:Infobox GB station. I don't think that you have. Ever.. The replies to this: Special:Diff/987108079 (key: though I think at last we are all speaking plainly to one another), and mine: Special:Diff/987115547/987129798. By her own admittance, There, I've written it now, and am angry again; so block me for NPA.
  8. 4 months of extensive post-TfD discussion later, the merge is complete, tested and editors seem overall in agreement, with no outstanding points (by my judgement). I believe we have consensus and approval, and even RR has raised no unresolved, specific complaints. The substitutions from Anomie show all the data being carried over: Special:Diff/987452456.

  Sure, I get that having something you've worked on for ~10 years merged may be difficult. I tried my best to show restraint for these reasons. But it's an improvement for the encyclopaedia – for editors and readers – and we do it all the time in templates. That's why I nominated it, and why there was a consensus to merge. I think it's a boon to station articles, and it seems most others feel the same way. That's why I (and others) spent a lot of time on it.

  I'd appreciate input from an uninvolved admin on this rather unfortunate situation. I'd like to know how I could've handled it better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• I endorse the comments by Redrose64. The discussion about this issue is ongoing, and despite repeated requests to slow down, to listen to others and to actually answer questions, ProcrastinatingReader has done none of those things. Even if you take the TfD as representing consensus for a wrapper (this is borderline given that many of the assumptions of simplicity and similarity used to justify it have been shown to be as incorrect as those in opposition, notably including nearly everyone who actually uses the templates, argued), it cannot be used to say there is consensus that all the necessary work required before a merge has been completed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• It pains me to say this, but I don't think there's any level of cooperation that Thryduulf and Redrose64 would consider sufficient on this issue. I do not think they accept the original TfD as legitimate, inasmuch as that TfD requires meaningful changes. It's a well-recognized principle that infobox consolidation is a good thing, and should be encouraged where reasonable. Redrose64 says her questions are never answered. Well, mine never was either: why did Great Britain need a half-dozen different station infoboxes when the rest of the world managed with two? The answer, as can be seen above, boils down "because we have them, and who are you to suggest that we change?" Respectfully, that's a poor attitude for a collaborative project and not one I'd expect to see from senior participants. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• It's a well-recognized principle that infobox consolidation is a good thing, and should be encouraged where reasonable. this is the crux of the dispute - it might be well recognised among TfD participants, but there is a long history of those who use the infoboxes under consideration disagreeing, and especially disagreeing with what is reasonable. Consolidation is not a reasonable goal in and of itself, the onlt goal that matters is improving the encyclopaedia for readers. Despite months of work, we are not yet at the stage where the merged infobox is of the same quality as the old one, let alone an improvement. Whether other countries get by with fewer infoboxes than the UK is irrelevant, but one reason is that the structural organisation of rail transport in the UK currently and historically is qualitatively different and in many respects more complicated than it is in the rest of the world. The difference in approach between those of us who are approaching this from the point of view of people who edit articles about rail transport in the UK and those who are approaching it as an abstract template coding project is significant. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  You're taking the position that decisions about content, structure, and style are reserved to specific groups of editors and that the views of "outsiders", whomever they might be, are unwelcome. That's not the way this project should work. You know this, and I'm surprised to see you advancing such worn-out arguments, especially when there are editors who do edit UK rail articles who have supported consolidation. Perhaps they just don't edit them enough, I don't know. Is there a list one can consult of those people who are permitted to have an opinion on this question?

  As to the idea that British rail history is sufficiently different and complex as to require different station infoboxes, I find it unconvincing and so have many others. You're not the only country to experience nationalization and re-privatization. Your ownership complexities are no worse than those found in the United States, Germany, Switzerland, or South Korea. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Nice strawmen. Nowhere here or elsewhere have I argued that only those who use the infoboxes should be allowed to express an opinion. I have said though that when those people do have objections they should not be handwaved away, as is happening in this very discussion, by those who do not. When you have one opinion held by the majority of those commenting who use the template, and a different opinion held nearly exclusively by those who do not, it needs to be looked into whether that truly represents consensus (for or against) regardless of the numbers. I didn't say that the history and ownership complexities justify a separate infobox, I said they are one of the reasons why the UK infoboxes that are doing things differently - the reality they are reflecting is qualitatively different to the complexities in other countries. Not necessarily more or less complicated, but different and so any infobox needs to handle that difference rather than, as keeps being attempted, force square pegs into existing round holes. It is the complexity required to handle the differences from every different nation (and note that it has to date proven to hard to get right, despite months of effort) that is why the argument that consolodation = simplicity for editors and maintainers just does not hold water. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  But that's not really true though, is it? The source. Or Testcase #3. It's an A -> B parameter map. The ownership params have the same names and labels before and after the merge. It's passed right through untouched. This argument didn't hold water in the TfD either because it's not true. As can be seen more clearly in any of the Anomie diffs too (like Special:Diff/987452456). If it didn't truly represent consensus, why does a DRV still not exist? We did get it right, everyone else seems to think so too. The alternate explanation for this opposition is across all the diffs above and on display at the TfDs; a view that {{Infobox station}} is somehow {{Infobox USA station}}. If you say something, shouldn't I take you at your word? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Also... if that isn't what you're arguing, then what else is this? Every editor can say "yes, this is an improvement" at the centralised venue for these discussions, the opposers can even change their mind, but we still cannot proceed until you two "sign off on it" (a quote, diffed above)? Respectfully, you don't see any problems with this reasoning? It's effectively blockading a consensus-backed merge. Compare this to the first two paragraphs of WP:IDHT, esp: Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with ProcrastinatingReader in their response, especially regarding the blatant obstruction and rampant WP:OWN being carried by Redrose64 over the last few months. The issues of incivility as pointed out in #6 and #7, in my opinion are enough for a Boomerang. I sincerely hope that Redrose64 can respect the broad consensus as it currently stands. Cards84664 02:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Fully agreed with Mackensen, PR, and Cards here. This is nothing but an attempt to punish PR for properly implementing the consensus of a TfD. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Reading through Template talk:Infobox station, I see a group of editors working towards implementing a TfD result, and two editors working towards proving that it was the wrong result, e.g.:
  • Thryduulf
    • 3 Aug: More parameters leading to inappropriate use, misuse and added confusion was exactly why many of us argued against this merge.
    • 29 Sep: I'm still not seeing any consensus among those who actually have a stake in the template (i.e. the users of the template - article writers and maintainers) that the merge is a benefit (let alone a net benefit).
    • 2 Oct: It is telling that after months of development we still have something that is inferior to the existing template and has not demonstrated any of the advantages claimed a merge would bring - indeed the "simplicity" and "ease of maintenance" claims could have been written on the side of a bus for all they relate to the real world.
    • 19 Oct: Wikipedia is not a democracy, what the majority do or do not think is not relevant when there is clearly no consensus among editors actively engaged with the issue. This was also the problem with the TfD close - it completely failed to distinguish between the arguments made by those with active experience of using the template and the arguments made by those looking at it as an abstract concept, even though almost all the latter arguments are now demonstrably incorrect.
    • 20 Oct: Expending a lot of effort over 3+ months to make things harder for editors and producing an inferior output for readers is exactly why those involved with these templates recommended not merging.
    • 22 Oct: You should wait for consensus that there are no remaining issues before proceeding with rolling out anything. Indeed if, when I get time to do a review, I find there are still major issues then I will likely be reverting to the pre-wrapper template (i.e. the one that has consensus). If you continue to insist on arbitrary deadlines then you will very likely find yourself enjoying a trip to ANI.
  • Redrose64
    • 1 Oct: I cannot agree to any "full merge" outcome, it would be far too disruptive. If the process cannot be aborted, a wrapper is the only feasible way of allowing a smooth transition.
    • 18 Oct: No. It's still not been signed off by the people who actually use {{Infobox GB station}}
    • 4 Nov: So, clearly my views count for nothing, even though I am (or, if you have your way, was) one of the most active users of Template:Infobox GB station. The way it behaved before was absolutely not a "bug", it was designed that way, and nobody at WT:UKRAIL ever complained about any modification that I made. The infobox worked just fine until you stuck your claws in. Now take them out, put things right back to the way they were, and everybody will be happy (except yourself). And I don't see why your happiness should matter at all, because (a) you clearly care nothing for my happiness, and (b) you still have not told me when you have actually used Template:Infobox GB station. I don't think that you have. Ever. So who counts here - the people who actually use the infobox, or the people who don't. I would say the former. Can you deny that?

I think there are only three valid options: (1) help implement the TfD result, (2) appeal the TfD result, or (3) walk away. Lev!vich 05:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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