Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1043

Additions of apparently unrelated lists to multiple 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.

---

[1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5], as well as several article drafts.

Are these 'See Also' listings necessary, let alone related to one another? I've asked the user for clarification, to no avail [6]. Perhaps a wiser editor than I can explain why this isn't serial WP:OR. Thanks, 73.186.215.222 (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• A really quick look through edit history of the last day or so raises questions about overloading multiple articles with See Also sections, as in [7], [8] and Mukam, Rajasthan. Are these relevant, or catchall lists for tangentially related topics? 73.186.215.222 (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear all, I have reviewed these allegation. Wow, I have been editing a while as an IP but my first time here. So lets see how it goes with this lawyerly stuff. Perhaps a good learning curve. Thanks all the readers for their selflless time, effort and patience here.

Short reply:
I refute his allegations. I counter allege he is "trigger happy", WP:STALKING and WP:LAWYER, and perhaps even a suspected WP:SOCK. I suggest to complainant to withdraw his allegation. If so, I too will then happily withdraw my response, matter will be closed/resolved. Peace is always better than jumping to litigation. He can continue talking to me on my talkpage if he wants to talk more and resolve that way, perhaps we will a happer ending and I will then have a new wiki friend who is good at lawyerly stuff.

Details:
Let me address allegations by another IP.

A. Scenario: I have added ""see also" list of 6 standardised items to 4 articles and a newly created draft. All of these did not have "see also" section and existing articles largely exist in poor state, i.e. poorly sourced, mostly threadbare articles. It was my attempt to be constructive. How it got to this stage? I started creating a draft article on Uzbekistani band popular in Indian subcontinent. I wanted to add a "see also" to that draft. I searched which singers/bands are similar to the draft article's topic/band/singers. Google search "foreign singers in bollywood" gave me sufficiently large 2,210,000 results. This made me believe this is a worthy/notable enough thing to add to "see also". First search page shows different sources but same/similar list as my "see also". First search result shows 10 Bollywood Films that Brought International Music Artists to India. Out of these 10, I picked combo of only 6 songs/artists which were instantaneously recognisable chartbuster hindi indian songs and the foreign singers are well known to all hindi/bollywood music listeners. Several sources on the first google search page (SCO) show same songs+singers combo repeated in different media reports in India. Many of those are notable sources. Since there is no wiki convention to add citations to the items in "see also", I did not add citations to "see also" section. I have no conflict of intrest, I am unrelated to all of these article's topic/people/singlers. I like some of the songs and some of their work, but not a hardcore fan, blind follower or promoter of any band/singer, I am not even Uzbek. In short, I "standardised" and "added" in "goofaith" a "notable list" to a set of 4 to 6 articles which previously were in "threadbare shape", with the intent to add "see also".

B. There is "Positive pattern of editing" which was my intention, which is different from systematic OR. Google search in previous items shows my "see also" is not OR. If related articles have each other in their "see also", but not all of them have each other, isn't it not a good practice to "standardise" the "see also" list. Only argument could be is if you are a "minimalist" vs "maximalist" editor, i.e. shorter or longer "see also" list. Wikipedia does not have "policy" on it. Wikipedia has some essays with pros and cons of "minimalist approach/list" and "maximalist approach/list" in writing articles. In the end if a minimalist editor disputes maximalist editor, then better to discuss with editor (each of these point by point) before knee-jerk jumping to ANI. Wikipedia is place to show more intent to collaborate compared to the intent to litigate.

C. If the "consensus" among editors here is that my "see also" should not be there in those articles or some of those articles, even though google search shows its notable enough, go ahead and pls review/remove.

D. "Knee jerk complaint:" complainant immediately reverted my edits, I immediately undid. After I undid his revert, I found he had left a message on my talkpage, and immediately after that he left second message with ANI nootice. Hence, these allegations are kneejerk. I find attitude of complainant trigger happy. Had he talked more on my talpage, or simply reverted my edits once again, I would have let it pass even if he reverted my edits twice, I was happy to let his version stay for sake of peace and not getting in his way. Seems he had other things on mind, just needed to pull trigger fast by jumping to ANI.

E. "Stalking me:" Not only he took knee jerk approach to jump to ANI, but also "started to stalk" my page as is evident from the part 2 of his allegation. Comes across like "not just satisfied being trigger happy" but also want ahead "to ensure a successful hit job at ANI" by "stalking". Please reprimand him for "stalking". Should stick to his first complaint he came across, rather that try to dig his and that. All of editors here have past edit history, including admins who likely have longer list of mistake than mine and complainant's because admins have contributed more significantly than both of us. If we start stalking each other with the intent to trigger happy hit each other this way, then no one will survive.

F. "Pattern of being excessively litigious and experienced editor who comes and goes in brusts:" Having spoken against "stalking", I just now looked at his edit history and talkpage so he realises this "stalking approach" is unhealthy? He has been on wikipedia since 2018. First appeared in October 2018 immediately started to behave as an expert editor, then in Dec 2018, then in Dec 2019, Feb 2020, April 2020, June/July 2020. He comes in short but excessive "trigger happy" brusts. Every time he comes to wikipedia, he is excessively litigious. His edits are mostly cutting others works, not adding much of is work, giving smiles to less editors and giving pain to more editors. His history comes across as an extremely experienced and overly WP:LAWYERly editor. He is no ordinary IP. Who is he really? What is his real wikipedia account? How many accounts and simultaneous IP addresses does he have? Please do a WP:SOCK on him. He has not declared his other accounts. He seems to be using this IP, only for reverting others or complaining against others, i.e. always in LITIGIOUS LAWYERLY MODE. What is really going on here? Run full checks on this IP please.

G. To the complainant, this is unfortunate we ended up here. Read my short reply. Perhaps you are having a bad day, if so then I understand. Wikipedia is a place to demonstrate "collaboration" not a mission to hone lawyer skills. I usually walk away from disputes. You left no choice by dragging me to ANI. Sad but thanks for the experiences. I still am willing to end it here, if you withdraw complaint. You initially took objection to my addition of "see also" to "bora bora" article, go ahead and remove my edits if it makes you happy and satisfied enough to withdraw the complaint, then matter resolved, saves times for all. Your choice. Please focus on collaboration, avoid litigations. Personal peace of mind is more important than litigating about "low traffic" "threadbare" wikipedia articles. Genuine heartfelt love, hugs and smiles, feel it buddy.

Thanks you. 23:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.176.169 (talk)

@73.186.215.222: Trying just reverting (aka deleting) them. Then the other user needs to get consensus for them (see WP:BRD). But that will be hard to do right now, because we don't like redlinks to nonexisting articles in See Also (see WP:NOTSEEALSO). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Redlinked see-also entries should be deleted out of hand per MOS:NOTSEEALSO: 'The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links)' (emphasis in the original). Narky Blert (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. 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 see a vandal just vandalizing random pages, putting "any body can get on wiki and type liesssssss Bye Barney b" and using an edit summary like "ndid VAODNSDALSDSKD (revision ID) by (username). I believe that user is using a open proxy. Any way to stop this vandal? User3749 (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

User3749 Vandalism may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: thanks User3749 (talk) 11:59, 26 July 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.

1292simon

1292simon is following me around on pages through my contributions and either restoring disruptive edits by users, removing my edits or badmouthing about me to users. Recent examples are here, here and here. Instance of the above mentioned badmouthing can be found here. The only reason I can see is of personal hatred and grevience against me. I attempted to discuss this with him over his talk page but he removed the discussions. I've had enough with this user's petty behaviour and therefore request the administration to take proper action against this user.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There may or may not be an issue with MOS:OL, however, I think one would be hard pressed to make a case of WP:HOUNDING as it appears most of these articles 1292simon was already at when U1 arrived, at least according to the interaction analyzer [9]. Chetsford (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Chetsford 1292simon never edited at any of the articles I mentioned according to the analyser and the only way he is going there as I suspect is through my contributions. It got worse at Toyota HiAce when he bad mouthed about me to the user whose edits I reverted.U¹ _quattro TALK 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Now the same thing happened at Lamborghini Centenario, 1292simon wasn't at this article in its entire history and he went there just to restore a disruptive edit made by an ipv6 IP and is continuously citing WP:BRD while he has not read it himself and continues to violate WP:HOUNDING. This behaviour needs to stop.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Content disputes of this nature are best handled on the Talk pages of the relevant articles, not in back and forth comments in edit summaries as you two seem to be doing. I think if there were some — any — attempt to discuss the difference you two have over specific edits at the article Talk pages we'd be able to conduct a more lucid evaluation of the merits of the claims. ANI really should be more of a last resort for editor disputes, not the first point of contact. In my opinion, a HOUNDING case would be better made if (a) there were more than three lifetime examples of the other editor coming to a page you'd edited, having no prior history at that page, specifically to undo your edits, and, (b) this was widely occurring on a number of articles you've recently edited rather than what appears to be a minority that could be explained by the singular interest you both seem to have in automotive related articles. Chetsford (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Chetsford this is definitely a hounding case. This user is following me around for unknown reasons and undoing my edits and it has been going on for a few days now. I just mentioned some articles but now it seems that everywhere I edit, this user is there to revert it so simply because he doesn't like my edits. He hasn't read the policies but continues to use them in his defence. In a more recent incident at Ferrari 360 this user specially came there to undo my edit because it was not vandalism in his opinion while the reality was opposite as this user didn't care to read the source, he preferred to just revert my edits and be done with it. In the pages I mentioned in my original post, this user has no editing history and the analyser shows that. I had attempted to discuss this matter at this user's talk page but he is more interested in removing my posts rather than responding. I edit here as a hobby, not be hounded by some user who seemingly hates me because I do not agree with him. Wiki could do better without this non sense. In accordance with WP:HOUNDING Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. this user is indeed causing me distress due to some personal vandetta he seems to have against me.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, this user badmouthing about me at Ominae's talk page is something beyond a content dispute.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no hounding here, and nothing else that merits administrator intervention, but just a common interest in cars, which seems to be one of those subject areas where editors are unable to discuss things like adult humans on the article talk pages. Just stop reverting each other and talk about what should be in the articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

How is there no hounding Phil Bridger? This user literally follows me around to specifically undo my edits on pages where he has never been before and saying bad things about me to users whose edits I revert. I don't think any wiki policy instructs users to follow each other on articles and cause disruption there which this user has been doing as of late. This definitely demands administrative action. I want this user off my tail so I can edit here peacefully.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Now this hounding continues and is going at an unbearable level. The constant silence from the admins is questionable. This user is clearly violating WP:HOUNDING and the case is being dismissed as a content dispute. There is a content dispute but it arises after this user follows me to an article where he has never been before. I request the admins to take action.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this about cars? Maybe you should go edit on some calmer subject matter, like professional wrestling. --JBL (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Or maybe this user should be sanctioned about his actions so I can edit with a peace of mind. About professional wrestling, lol. It is hardly a calmer subject matter. A discussion below about it will explain better.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

U1Quattro, have we not been here before with you and cars, and you inability to get along?Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven this is something I can't get along with. A user follows me around for no reason on pages while bad mouthing about me and you put all the blame on me over that.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

How was He following YOU if he was there first? Multiple edds have told you it was not following you. This is following the same pattern as the last few times you have either been reported or reported someone else. Always to do with cars.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention Slatersteven he is more interested in removing my posts on his talk page rather than responding to them.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Has he been on Lamborghini Aventador before? No. Lamborghini Centenario? No. Ferrari Portofino? No. See the edit pattern. He came on these pages just to undo my edits. Who bought him there? I can't see any other way than my contribs. He hasn't been on any of the pages I mentioned in my post. If you would look at the analyser, you'd find it out yourself Slatersteven.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

No I accept he has not, and that is three articles. I can see form his edit history a lot of edits to car articles, I can see from yours articles you have edited he has not (tellingly not in his area of interest). Its hard to see this as anything other then a user interested in cars fetching up at articles about cars.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There are others too, like Aston Martin Virage, Toyota Land Cruiser (J70) and a lot more. He is clearly not fetching up anything in the articles I mentioned other than undoing my edits. What would you call this here Slatersteven? Fetching up information? Editing articles of interest? Also, at Talk:Toyota Land Cruiser (J70), he demands me to apologise to an IP because he think that the IP was right. What is this about?U¹ _quattro TALK 19:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks, pretty obviously, like it's about thinking that the unregistered editor was right and you were wrong. I have no idea who was really right, because I have no interest in getting involved with content disputes about cars, but I do know that the fact that you have registered and the other editor has not doesn't make you automaticaly right. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger the unregistered editor added content without source, I reverted him. Then this user chimed in out of no where claiming that the edit was correct because it was factual without even adding a source. It was only at the talk page where a source was found and then the edit was restored. I don't think this makes the IP right either.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there is some lesson that can be drawn from the fact that no one is jumping in to agree with you? --JBL (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no lesson to be learnt. I'm here to report a user who is violating a policy and unwilling to discuss his actions. Which is the purpose of the ANI in the first place.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is going the same way every other damn ANI involving U1Quattro has gone. An utter refusal to listen and just not dropping the stick after they have been told nothing to see. Can we close this rather then go down another "I am right and everyone else is wrong" hole?Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If you have a concern with ANI's made by Quattro then do you want to consider proposing TBAN on him regarding this? I have User456541 in my mind as a precedent. SMB​99​thx Email! 09:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

What warrants a TBAN? I've been saying that the other user is in the wrong, not that I'm right. There has been an utter refusal to listen that he is in the wrong. If a user is violating a policy at wiki and not bothering to participate in a talk page discussion, which forum should I go to? This is extreme one sidedness towards the other user because he is being perceived like he has done nothing wrong.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hold on...Yes you are saying you are right, you are saying he did wrong and that you are right about that and we are all wrong. I think I said the last time you were here an ban would be need to stop this kind of time wasting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHATism. So yes, a result of some of the cheesiest wiklawyering I have yet seen, I think its now time for a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not said any of you were wrong. However, you were wrong in saying that I should coexist with some user who refuses to provide an explanation about his editing behaviour. I don't think such advice applies here.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And if a TBAN is all you've got as an answer to this situation, then I'd leave this site. Because I don't think this one sided ban is the right suggestion or treatment. I reported an incident which was causing me distress according to WP:HOUNDING and the other user still comes off clean like he has done nothing wrong?U¹ _quattro TALK 09:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And you were told (by more than one user) it was not hounding, and you refuse to accept that "verdict". That is what my issue is, wp:dropthestick.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way this [[10]] is what brought me here, and more users are telling you your behaviour leaves a lot to be desired.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I never said my behaviour was perfect, I'm pointing towards the other user's refusal to discuss things on his talk page about what he is doing when I'm being told to do that by the other users here. His edit at Lamborghini Aventador proved that he was wrong, yet he cited WP:BRD in his reference.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The only place you are supposed to discus article improvements is the articles talk page. He is not requited to discus anything at all on his talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

He is required to explain why is he following me on pages he has never been on and why is he leaving sympathy related notices on the IP talk pages or the user talk pages whose edits I revert because they are not constructive while bad mouthing about me in the process.U¹ _quattro TALK 10:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No he is not, as you have been told he is not following you. I am bowing out now, I think it is clear from this (and other ANI's) that you have a far too think a skin, and that you take everything far to personally. I think we will keep on having these disputes raised here regularly as you are not always going to get your way. You have a wp:battleground mentality that see's even minor content disputes as personal affronts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm suggesting that both U1Quattro and 1292simon should be interaction banned.

• Support. I came to this conclusion based on Quattro's (recent) ANI history are mostly about 1292simon. Most of Quattro's grievances are towards this person. I sympathize with the fact that Quattro is bothered, may quit Wikipedia if we TBAN Quattro and feels that we are at the one side all against Quattro. For that reason, i think IBAN will be for the good of U1Quattro. This will be the second time i made a proposal on ANI, and on the same day. SMB​99​thx Email! 10:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  @SMB99thx: The user is called 1292simon. --JBL (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thank you! SMB​99​thx Email! 12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support but it will be another IBAn for him. Nor do I agree his main anti issues have been with 1292simon, well until recently, after he was IBANed with another user.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support but also the behavior by U1Quattro is long-term and has involved multiple other editors, so I support additional sanctions as well to stop the disruption (see my comments in the next subsection for details). --JBL (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Given the continued issues with these two an IBAN should be implemented, It would stop the reverts, stop the hounding (if there is or was any) and it would most certainly stop these back and fourth threads. –Davey2010^Talk 14:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment from 1292simon - Sorry I’m late to this party, I didn’t realise there was another report here.
  I realise that I’m partly to blame here and apologise that sometimes my frustrations led me to cross the line into edit warring territory. If people can suggest another approaches for content disagreements involving U1Quattro, I am keen to follow Wiki policy.
  It is very frustrating to see my changes insta-reverted, as if U1Quattro is somehow the gatekeeper for all these articles. However I realise this is no excuse for my part in the edit warring and will be careful to avoid this in future. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional/alternative proposal

In light of the above, and this at RSN, and basically every other time U1Quattro has come to a noticeboard: U1Quattro is admonished for their combative approach to editing, and is banned from making any* noticeboard reports for a period of 3 months. (*: I am open to amendments for reasonable narrow exceptions if there's some reason a blanket ban is problematic.)

• Support because really. --JBL (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support As the forum shopping and general taking it personally is getting tiresome.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - U1 could have a valid concern (inregards to sock, legal threat, vandal etc etc) so on that basis I have to oppose, If after the IBAN U1 returns with reporting someone else for a bullshit reason then sure next step would be banning them from here but for the time being I see it as a premature action. –Davey2010^Talk 14:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

  @Davey2010: U1quattro has had i-bans with at least two other editors (1, 2), has now moved on to feuding with a third (in addition to the two I've linked above there's 1, 2, 3) and also has plenty of other garbage noticeboard reports (e.g. this). If you want to suggest a friendly amendment, please go ahead, but this is way past "premature". --JBL (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Actually it was a single editor and not two editors as you'd like to mention. Now if this IBAN goes to place it would be two and I have no problem with it. Atleast it would get the other user off my tail.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And was blocked at least once for violation of one of those.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Well hopefully he's finally learnt his lesson here and hopefully he won't make further ANI reports on people (unless it's vandalism, legal threats). Hopefully he understands his reports are getting him nowhere and that he'd be better off not filing reports here and instead going to WP:30 or WP:DRN if issues arise. Hopefully he'll prove everyone wrong, A lot of hoping here but people can and do change. –Davey2010^Talk 17:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Their continuing comments on this thread are QED as far as I am concerned; actually I am beginning to think a long block would be more appropriate. --JBL (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

To be fair he was pointin out you made an error (you did).Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually I'm beginning to think leaving would be more appropriate since you have done nothing but use peculiar language about me Joel B. Lewis and suggesting longer blocks for no reason.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You have been given a chance, but that chance requires you to shut up now and stop fighting your corner. You are making Joel_B._Lewis's point for him.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Note the latest IBAN violation above.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven so any IP claiming that they are Ybsone comes out here and you brand that as an IBAN violation? To be fair an admin can better asses if an edit is IBAN violation or not and that user was told on their talkpage by an admin that since they are not involved in editing anymore, it is not an IBAN violation.U¹ _quattro TALK 20:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Potentially yes, if they are who they claim to be you replied to them (an interaction), if they were not you still seemed to refer back to previous interactions with Ybsone (an interaction)/ Nor did you seem to challenge it was Ybsone.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Because they were referring back to a previous interaction Slatersteven and an admin has already given their input whether that instance was an IBAN violation or not. The IP is more likely a sock since the contributions are only to this thread.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

An IBAN means you do not get to talk about someone even if someone else does. But If have had may say, I think this is just another demonstration of how your battleground mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no battleground mentality here. An admin mentioned that instance was not an IBAN violation and that is enough assessment. But then, this report is not about that instance now is it?U¹ _quattro TALK 12:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There's also a new feud involving U1Quattro that seems to be relevant: see ANEW report (bottom of the section) and User Talk page. And U1Quattro has twice violated this warning about the Infobox wording for turbochargers: diff, diff. 1292simon (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually 1292simon that "feud" was resolved and it was mentioned by the admin that the user being reported was more at fault than any others. Show the latest version of that thread which can be found here, instead of your "preferred" version so that users are not misguided. You have violated the warning as well since you were told by the admin to get consensus about your preferred changes too.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm going to chime in here and say there was no "feud" and in fact that report is completely irrelevant here - The "reported" was ignoring BRD and edit warring again ... If you're going to complain about that report and U1 then you may aswell create a whole new section on us both as it involved us both, Mistakes were made and lessons were learnt, Like I said that report is irrelevant and should be ignored, No comment on the turbocharging stuff. –Davey2010^Talk 12:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010 don't know who gave him the authority to brand every unrelated matter as a feud. The fact that he linked an old revision of the report is a proof that he wants users to see only one side of the picture.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm collpasing this as it's not really relevant (and collapsing to save drama). –Davey2010^Talk 13:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Davey, please don't hide my comments, I believe they are relevant to JBL's concerns at the top of this section. U1Quattro, could you please post the diffs for your claims? 1292simon (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I posted the diff already. Don't waste everyone's time by posting things which only you think are violations. Two people have already told you that it wasn't what you think it was. I also did not post that noticeboard listing. As far as violating warning goes, you're also violating it by making edits like these.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Could you please leave my earlier comment visible, so that my opinions aren't excluded from the discussion. "Two people have already told you..." actually just means you and your buddy Davey2010 (who you go to for help getting people you disagree with kicked off Wikipedia- link).
  Lastly, I don't believe that my BMW Z3 edit (which you have already reverted anyway) is related to the warning we both received for turbochargers (a warning that you have twice broken, as per the diffs above). 1292simon (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Your comments are not relatable to this ANI dispute. This is a feud which Davey2010 was involved in. I participated as a third party. About the talk page link you posted, yes I went to him because the said user had also mentioned Davey on the talk page. The edit is related not to a warning about turbochargers but this summarising bug which you have and about which you were warned about.U¹ _quattro TALK 08:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support The frequent forum shopping has not really helped his case. He should really take some rest from reporting any further. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Not just for interaction ban, but also he needs to be admonished for his behavior. This time i'm serious - while i first would have opposed this proposal because i still cared about his concerns, i realized that U1Quattro's habit of getting into feuds (while i want to acknowledge that every user U1Quattro feuded may be in the wrong, the records suggest that U1Quattro failed to fend them off (or getting them blocked) each time) needs to be stopped. SMB​99​thx Email! 02:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have always taken the view that being here really ought to be an all or nothing proposal. Legitimate topic bans serve a useful purpose, but that's not what this proposal is, really. If a user cannot responsibly use a noticeboard, then the user simply cannot and should not edit Wikipedia. So block U1Quattro or not, but I oppose making various project pages into "topics" to be banned. Moreover, the circumstances here make this proposal even more silly. U1Quattro made a report here, it looks like it actually will result in some action (right now, there seems to be a plurality for an interaction ban), and yet we're simultaneously saying the report was frivolous and U1Quattro should be banned from future use of the noticeboard? Doesn't make any sense. --Bsherr (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  Comment: I'll count this !oppose as !support the block for U1Quattro. I agree that U1Quattro should be blocked. SMB​99​thx Email! 08:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• I know I'm jumping into this at the last second, but Weak Oppose from me. Whilst I understand U1 could maybe behave in a less wrathful manner, I don't think this is a very good solution. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Short block for edit warring

Applied to both users as they both appear to be engaged in slow edit wars reverting each other.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - If they're both edit warring then the correct venue would be WP:AN3. –Davey2010^Talk 14:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

True, but generally we do not have both ANI's and AN3's rather all behaviour is taken into account.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but I see it as being pointless !voting on something that is never tolerated full stop if that makes sense, I ofcourse support blocking either for edit warring but just feel it'd be better off handled at AN3 than here. –Davey2010^Talk 14:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Ever see The Defiant Ones with Tony Curtiss and Sidney Poitier? Maybe partial block them both till they reach an accommodation on the talk page. (though I doubt Curtiss or Poitier really looked like that poster) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
• Bowing out now, this is pointless, and will see you all in a month or so when the next flare up occurs.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• I support the block of U1Quattro, whose battleground behavior continues everywhere they go. --JBL (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'm leaning towards U1Quattro being blocked at least one month to three months. and his autopatrolled previleges revoked (in order to avoid more feuds with users, i'm afraid). I'm sorry, but this should be a right move for him to take a step back and see what he had done to himself. Once he returns, if he wants to report users for violating Wikipedia rules i'm hoping he could do it in a more appropriate way. I think this will be a right move for him to learn what he is doing if he wants to report uses for being wrong. Once he returns, i hope he's not showing battleground behavior leading to probably his first three-month block. SMB​99​thx Email! 03:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• @SMB99thx: Autopatrol privileges allow users to create articles and other pages that are automatically marked as "patrolled", so they do not appear on new pages patrol or undergo curation. Has nothing to do with WP:BATTLE. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• @CaradhrasAiguo: Oh, thank you so much! I did not know about that! SMB​99​thx Email! 03:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Any chance of closing this, it seems to have run its course.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Question - Is it acceptable for a User Page to insult other editors like this recent edit? It is pretty clear that "with his stupid attitude which I find extremely annoying" and "talks crap about the administration" are referring to me and Ybsone (the latter might be an IBAN violation?). 1292simon (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but this [[11]] was (as Floquenbeam acknowledges on his talk page), whilst claiming to be retired.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna chime in here and say that if the administration doesn't have a problem and does not consider that as a so called "IBAN violation" like you would like to claim, then you should not have a problem either.U¹ _quattro TALK 12:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

They said "While I'm here, also note that this was technically an i-ban violation, albeit I'm sure it was inadvertent", so yes it was an IBAN violation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

They were referring to the edit I made on Ferrari 458, not my user page as the other editor is branding that as an "IBAN violation". There was an IBAN violation in this thread as well and I'm glad the administration took note of it. If you'd like to assume things and twist the reply in your favour, you might step aside and bow out as you were doing before. I don't know why you keep coming back after saying you were bowing out.U¹ _quattro TALK 13:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You were replying to my post, in which I linked to an IBAN violation. If you wanted to talk about what someone else said you need to be clear who it is you are replying to. But you are right, I should bail out, as this is going nowhere and it is clear you are not taking anything anyone has said on board. So either something should be don or this should be closed with no action. So can we now close this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this should be closed now, with an action (applying all proposals or two) taken. SMB​99​thx Email! 01:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Hello, 82.40.174.53 (talk) keeps making the same edit to The Durrells, badly messing up the formatting in the process. For some reason, he believes that "North America" refers to Corfu's location. I explained several times that The Durrells in Corfu is the series name in North America, but it's been to no avail. It's the fourth time that he makes the same edit. Please do something about it. Buxareu (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It appears the problem has resolved itself. Also, please do not use the word vandalism to describe the editors behavior. Good faith mistakes, even repeated, are not vandalism. In this case, they were edit warring, but an edit war is not vandalism. The editor appears to have stopped, and the source of his confusion was corrected by another editor. At this point, a block doesn't appear to be likely to stop anything, so serves no purpose. --Jayron32 15:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, he was messing up the formatting of the page as well (this is why I called it vandalism), and he was not even listening to my explanations. Some people are very weird. Hopefully, he did stop. Buxareu (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

As I noted, mistakes made during an attempt to in the person's own mind is trying to improve Wikipedia are not vandalism. You should never call such actions vandalism. No matter how bad they mess up, no matter how rude they are while doing it, no matter how much they ignore your attempts to communicate, if it is clear the person in question is trying to making things better (even if they fail to do so) it isn't vandalism. Vandalism is restricted to bad faith edits to Wikipedia, those which are deliberately and with full intent meant to ruin Wikipedia or make it worse. --Jayron32 16:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. Will let you know if he starts all over again. Thanks. Buxareu (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Curious: why would you let anyone know here if he starts all over again? The special contributor only made their first edit 2 days ago. That's a pretty swift move to bring it here. Has any attempt been made to hash things out on the Talk Page? where it belongs? You said: "I explained several times ..." But I only see this: "That's the series name in North America"[12] in the History Summary. Then this: "Vandalism"[13]. Then this: "Please stop, I already explained that it's the series name in North America"[14]. That's really not "explaining several times". Also ... how do you know "they" are a "he"? Maineartists (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I explained it THREE (3) times: twice in the revision history: [1] "That's the series name in North America." and [2] "Please stop, I already explained that it's the series name in North America. You mess up the formatting, too.", and once on HIS/HER talk page: [3] "Please stop vandalizing [sic] the page, I already explained that this is how the series is called in North America. It doesn't claim that Corfu is in North America. You mess up the formatting, too. Thanks." I was becoming kind of desperate as the PERSON wasn't obviously listening to me. Buxareu (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, OK. Calm down. Desperate? We're only talking about 2 days here and 3 edits; that another editor quickly fixed by re-wording the confused text: "known in North America as ...". Bring it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring at the very least. Explaining with sources and telling someone they are vandalizing a page are 2 separating things. I only see the template: "I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Durrells have been undone because they did not appear constructive" which is not an explanation and "Please stop vandalizing the page, I already explained that this is how the series is called in North America. It doesn't claim that Corfu is in North America. You mess up the formatting, too." Still no clear explanation for an editor to understand. Writing "That's the series name in North America" is not an explanation, it's a statement. I was even confused by it. No need to respond. Leaving the thread. But I will say we agree on one thing: some people are weird. Maineartists (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

FOUR (4) edits. You seem to have trouble counting. And I'm calm. Not sure about you. Have a nice day. Buxareu (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Protip: all caps does not communicate calmness. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Nah, I just used the caps to emphasize important points. It's like using bold. Had the entire text been in caps, that would have been a different thing. Cheers. Buxareu (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No, really, how can one claim that this is not a clear explanation: "This is how the series is called in North America. It doesn't claim that Corfu is in North America"? What could be clearer than that? "Corfu is not in North America!", this is what the person had claimed, and the above was my answer. And how about this one: "You mess up the formatting, too"? Is this not clear enough either? The user still continued making exactly the same edit, messing up the formatting in exactly the same way. Is he/she blind or something? The only explanation would be that the user wasn't reading my comments. I'm trying to stay calm, but this is quite impossible with people like that, and with those who defend them. Shaking my head in disbelief. Sure, it was a mistake to bring this issue here, but other than that, I would dare to say, my actions were correct, and my explanations more than clear enough. How can one claim that I was wrong? Buxareu (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"Buxareu. There is a big orange notice above that says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.", something you forgot to do. Also never assume that an edit summary will be noticed by the intended recipient. Finally, the original wording in the article was not the best. Looks better now though. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, will inform the editors in the future. By the way, in addition to the edit summary, I explained his mistake on his talk page, in a very clear manner: "Please stop vandalizing [sic] the page, I already explained that this is how the series is called in North America. It doesn't claim that Corfu is in North America. You mess up the formatting, too. Thanks." But he obviously didn't notice this message either. Buxareu (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong-related editing pushing pro-government narrative

The following discussion is closed. 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 newly created account that seems (to me) to be experienced in Wikipedia editing, User:Thomaslam1990, appeared in May and has since been exclusively edited articles related to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests. His/her edits serve to amplify the pro-government, pro-Beijing narrative, often through blanking or by using obfuscating language. Examples include:

• Page for Junius Ho, a pro-Beijing politician
  • adding fluffy promotional content copied directly from the subject's own website (see subsection "Founder of the International Pro Bono Legal Services Association")
  • adding a WP:OR passage insinuating that Junius Ho's political rival, democrat Albert Ho, lost to Junius Ho as a result of his "browsing soft-pornography of young female models during a meeting at the Legislative Council". The premise that this incident played a meaningful role in Albert Ho's defeat is not substantiated by any of the citations.
  • doing a huge amount of whitewashing of controversial incidents related to Ho (example, note the largely blanked/obfuscated section on "candidate harassment", downplaying reaction to homophobic remarks)

• Adding passages to the pages of various pro-democratic lawmakers accusing them of various forms of misconduct
  • example – Dennis Kwok – writing that he is "accused of misconduct" without any substantiation. Filibustering is not misconduct.

• Adding passages creating an impression of great public support for the controversial National Security Law
  • Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 – the citations don't link to any public opinion polls, as you might expect. The references are a collection of opinion pieces in local newspapers (WP:SYNTH). In fact, the majority of the Hong Kong public oppose the law, but Thomaslam1990's edit gives the opposite impression.

• Highlighting, in excessive detail, vandalism committed by pro-democratic protesters (described as "black-clad radicals")
  • 2019–20 Hong Kong protests

• Repeatedly obfuscating the fact that the Yuen Long station assailants were government supporters
  • [15] – note that he removed the word "falsely", referring to a pro-government conspiracy theory regarding Lam Cheuk Ting's involvement with the July 21 attack, which is debunked in the RTHK article cited
  • Changing the phrase "attackers" to the meaningless and obtuse "white-shirters"

Just the tip of the iceberg. I and others have engaged with this user in relation to individual disputes, but this is an intractable behavioural issue. This user is seemingly here to push a political agenda, contrary to WP:NOT. Wikipedia needs to take action against pro-government, single-purpose accounts, which seriously threaten the neutrality of all China-related articles. Citobun (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

What can be the pathway forward? The Internet has gained sentience and I am its chosen representative (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

These problems occurs regularly enough, by both sides. For example, I've encountered similar efforts today. I think that a China-Taiwan-HK General sanctions may not be the worse idea. El_C 18:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I've seen far too much crap in this dispute. I would support an effort at implementing community-authorized sanctions. I'm afraid I don't have time to research and draft what the scope ought to be. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Glad we are of like minds, Vanamonde. As for the scope: we can do it wide (modern history) or narrow (contemporaneous) — I lean toward the former, myself. Not to prophesize, but I predict we may have further challenging days ahead: with Taiwan, with Hong Kong, with the South China Sea and beyond. It would be good to have additional instruction and enforcement resources at our disposal. El_C 20:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Right, I tend to agree with El C: a wide scope. Meanwhile, after studying Citobun's diffs, I'm considering whether to block Thomaslam1990 for a month for persistent tendentious editing, or indefinitely as NOTHERE. Any thoughts? (This is not a proposal for a community ban; I'm just asking for comments, if you have them.) Bishonen | tålk 20:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC).

Maybe something similar to the Arbcom ruling for The Troubles related issues. Anyone editing Hong Kong articles with a clear political bias intended to disrupt or POV push gets a NOTHERE ban, no questions asked. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think sometimes what is a "clear political bias" can become a blurry line. The Troubles is a pretty narrow scope, even American Politics is a narrow scope. "China-Taiwan-HK" is very broad. Does this mean any articles relating to China, Taiwan or HK, their leaders, people, history, etc, which could even extend to First Opium War? Or only articles which relate to an intersection between them, broadly construed (eg 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, Political status of Taiwan, etc.). A clear scope needs to be defined. (edit: looks like Caradhras has made this point below) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree their edits are quite disruptive (the use of a statement from facebook was particularly bad). I haven't had time to evaluate whether they've been given a chance to mend their ways, and if/how they've responded. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bishonen, looks like they've only had level 1 notices so far, mainly the COI notice. A personalised conversation or, at least, a warning template is a worthwhile step first imo. Maybe it won't do anything, but it's quick to dish out a warning, and has a large payoff (retaining an editor, who might become more constructive in the future). Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part, but it doesn't hurt to try. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Would need to define where "modern" ends: the First Opium War, the Xinhai Revolution and end of the Qing dynasty, the surrender of the Empire of Japan, or the establishment of the PRC? There are DS for post-1932 U.S. politics, presumably as that was the election year of the solidification of the Fifth Party System CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Cool, more like minds. I envision this as a PRC-ROC-HK GS which would resemble other ones (WP:GS/COVID19, for example) in the manner in which it is constructed. As for what counts as modern history, I would cap it at the 20th Century, myself. *** As for the present case: don't get me wrong, their agenda is suspect. But they haven't received many warnings and many of the problems highlighted are quite dated. True, the likelihood of a final warning doing the trick might be low. Should we go for through these motions for the sake of proper procedure...? Ultimately, I don't feel too strongly about that and am open to persuasion. El_C 20:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no experience in the topic area, but anything 1901-present relating to China, Taiwan or HK being subject to sanctions seems very broad. Is there such a big issue that it needs to be that broad right off the bat? And while I would bet money that you're probably right re more disruption in those areas in the future, given the trend of current events, preventative broad protection seems icky. I'm just concerned that a big red notice like {{COVID19 GS editnotice}} on a broad range of China articles and authorised sanctions isn't going to help with new editor participation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Perhaps "post-19xx politics or governmental relationships that are within, between, or involving one or more of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan"? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, the edit notices should be used sparingly, by need, so I'm not sure the scope being broad is much of a factor in that respect. I'm not calling to editnotice-bomb all related articles. That would be madness. Mdaniels5757, sure, that works for me. El_C 21:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

With the edit notice, I was trying to analogise the sanctions system. Including the talk notices. Personally, I suffer from banner blindness but I feel like some more constructive new/IP editors might find the notices discouraging (though I have no data to support this theory). On top of that, there's the great escalation in administrative power, as "discretion" indeed seems to live up to its name (ref that recent AN discussion). It's necessary in many cases, but I don't think it should be any broader in covered topics than is necessary. Just my 2c. Imo what Mdaniels wrote is a great starting point, and it can always be expanded if it proves insufficient? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, politician BLPs born in Greater China, such as Olivia Chow or Ted Lieu, would not count, and, in the case of someone such as Lieu, mere commenting on international mainland Chinese students would not, either. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thomaslam1990's response and indefinite block

Hello everyone, I suppose I am late to the party. It will take a while for me to diseminate the allegations made against me by @Citobun:. First and foremost, yes I'm new to wikipedia and I take it a pride of honour that Citobun consistendly thinks I'm a very experienced wikipedia editor. I suppose this demonstrates my ability to edit and also my prowess to learn. I'm not afriad to admit that the early edits when I first joined was a little bit supportive, since I didn't know much about the rules and I have learnt a lot through the talks I've had with Citobun and other independent referees Eumat114. See Talk:Junius Ho. Throughout the two encounters I've had with Citobun (first on the aforementioned talk page and also the abovementioned COI), he has consistently demonstrated that he has a strong disposition against Chinese views - even if I had the articles to prove, moreover he has a penchant of reluctance to edit out obviously wrong or areas of pages that is littered with Anti-Chinese/pro-protest doctrine biases. ( I will throw out examples of his conduct in equal measures when I have more time). I think this demonstrates that he doesn't care as much for WP:NPOV or WP:OR WHATNOT etc as he exclaims but rather, I suspect, he's merely interested in pushing his own agendas. @El C: Also mentioned of this problem, this is a common occurance on both sides. I suppose this is why it is imperative that Citobun talks its out with me first before haphazardly escalating to this - which he did not but I most certainly will welcome if he had approached me to talk about it on other pages he is concerned about - this is also as suggested by @ProcrastinatingReader:. I would also like other moderators or users to converse with me before resulting into any other deicision. I will come back with examples of Citobun doing the same thing he accuses of me, despite he being a veteran editor. I also find it curious how Citobun casually brushed off the other contributions I've made on various other wikipedia pages, I'm never the one to shy away from admiting that I am interested in the 2019 Hong Kong protests and that I want to contribute and reduce the sensationalisation of allegations made against each other. Think this is quite obvious in the talks I've had with him and my personal page?Thomaslam1990 (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason I accused you of having COI was that the Junius Ho article has a long history of being a COI puff piece and your initial edits were extremely similar to the editing patterns of previous single-purpose accounts focused on that page.

Please do not accuse me of being "anti-Chinese" without substantiating such claims. That is a baseless personal attack, which I strongly object to, and a red herring. I have reverted some of your large-scale blanking edits on some occasions, but those reverts do not constitute endorsement of every element of the original revision. After reverting I have tried to re-add some of your edits while leaving out the political agenda-pushing of the sort that I included in my original post. And contrary to what you have written, I have engaged with you on talk pages before posting to ANI.

We are talking about a relatively new account with an edit history overwhelmingly focused on pushing a pro-government narrative on contentious Hong Kong political articles. A ban as User:Bishonen suggested is appropriate. Citobun (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Uhm, mate. You alright? You are far more emotionally invested in this than I had initially anticipated. I also did not realise you were keeping tabs on me, I find it somewhat flattering, I am always happy to revert the changes or compromise on our editorial differences if you had talked to me first rather than engaging in 'UNDO/REVERT' wars that you always seem to start? #1. Junius Ho page has been hugely improved after my involvement, moderators and other users can attest to this when comparing versions of the page prior and then to the present stage, see also Talk:Junius Ho, where other referees have agreed with me and that its highly problematic. #2. Well, my apologies, if not anti-Chinese then pro-protests? Your hyper-awareness of the anti-Chinese/Government sentiments in those pages yet the reluctance to change them is testament to your ideology. But let's not dwell on this. #3. So in adding some of my edits, you agree that I am doing something right and it is worth mediating with me to produce a more well-rounded page? See, when we talk we get somewhere, I am delighted that we are finally having this conversation and I actually look forward to it, since you've taught me a lot. I genuinely appreciate this process. But I fail to understand why am I always the one to reach out to talk with you [like here] and you're always the one to aggresively deleting my stuff without reading the entirety of it or engaged with me? #4. Re: Dennis Kwok, yes fillibusing can be construed as misconduct - see [1]'Filibustering' barrister barred[Lawrence Ma, a barrister and chairman of the Hong Kong Legal Exchange Foundation, seems to agree too]. (Edit: here's the article I was citing, where the term 'accused' also used - more examples of Citobun not looking at the sources and where my edits come from.) #5. I remember linking an article that Article 23 had 2 million hand-written signatures in favour of it, which you have conveniently deleted on that page, I will look for it again. #6. "black-clad radicals" term is found in the articles I'm citing. [see] #7. Your accusation of obfuscation on changing between white-shirters and so forth is false. White-shirters is the most common nomenclature adopted in Hong Kong, second being 'white-clad' which you have used yourself. [here] #8. 'falsely' accusing is simply wrong. It assumes that Lam is clear of said accusations. If you believe this is correct than I am equally justified to adopt the term 'falsely accused of...' for other pages that you will inevitably accuse me of white washing.

I think your hypocrisy is starting to show, and that you are trying too hard to villify me. It's about time we start talking to each other privately without crying afoul whenever something does not go your way. I've also noticed that you've buddying up close with other pro-protest editors and have formed a group trying to, and very cleverly and subtly so, engineering pages to push your own agenda. That's not cool?Thomaslam1990 (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

More unsubstantiated accusations here. If you aren't banned for pushing a political agenda you should be banned for making baseless personal attacks. You are now accusing me of colluding with "pro-protest" editors – again with no substantiation for these claims. I have done no such thing. A few responses to your specific points above:

• None of those opinion pieces (all from Chinese state sources) accusing Kwok of "misconduct" were cited in your original edit. If you have the citations, add them, and specify in the article who is making such allegations. THAT would be a neutral edit. Instead, you word things in such a way that the source for these claims against pro-democracy figures is unclear.

• The claim in Chinese state media that 2.93 million Hong Kong residents signed a petition in support of the National Security Law is extremely dubious, as this would contradict scientific public polls taken on on the popularity of the legislation in Hong Kong, and the authenticity of the petition has been called into question by numerous public figures who claim that someone else signed their names. Your edits consistently present dubious claims from Chinese state media at face value.

• Yes, SCMP, a newspaper owned by a company with close ties to the China government that expressly aims to improve the portrayal of China internationally, sometimes describes Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters as "black-clad radicals". I don't think an encyclopedia that purports to be neutral is obliged to use such sensational language.

• "White-shirters" is not how people are described in English. It's a clumsy attempt to remove context with the aim of obfuscating the political motivation behind the Yuen Long attack.

• People can make those accusations against Lam Cheuk-ting, just as they can falsely argue that the earth is flat. The RTHK piece cited notes that CCTV footage shows the white-clad men attacking people on Fung Yau Street North before Lam even arrived in Yuen Long by train, so the conspiracy theory that the attack was precipitated by Lam "leading protesters to Yuen Long" is demonstrably false.

Again, please stop accusing me of being a hypocrite, being anti-China, colluding with "pro-protest" editors and so on. With no substantiation it's an obvious red herring. You haven't addressed the fact that nearly your entire edit history serves to amplify the government narrative. Citobun (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that I have indefinitely blocked Thomaslam1990 for disruptive and tendentious editing. El_C 04:35, 22 July 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.

General sanctions proposal

Should we continue to brainstorm about that? What do participants think? El_C 13:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Just my $0.02: in my opinion there is nothing wrong with supporting either side of a particular controversy, and undoubtedly this stance would affect editing. What a good editor needs, therefore, is the ability to balance out the sides and write as neutrally as possible. If neutral writing is difficult, then it is okay to insert a stance into an article — provided both stances are treated like a WP:FRINGE theory. The neutral side of things are preferred, but information supporting either side of an argument may be inserted as long as the amount is minimal — certainly not whitewashing like the previous user. Eumat114 (Message) 04:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't you mean whiteshirting? Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No pun intended. But in sections with bias expected (e.g. nomenclature), I believe that adding a statement that "SCMP calls the protesters 'black-clad radicals'" is not a problem, but "the black-clad radicals disrupt..." is not okay (NPOV). As per the stats issue, this state news claiming 3mil people signed a petition in support of the bill may be expressed as "state media Xinhua states that 3 million people signed...but this is disagreed by..." Thanks. Eumat114 (Message) 07:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd think yes, but only if a constant stream of these issues can be shown to occur in the topic area. A few users who can be dealt with at ANI isn't enough for sanctions imo, and preventative sanctions aren't appropriate. I'd be interested to hear what editors and admins active in the topic area think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

To summarise, I believe the main two ideas given above for the scope of a China-Taiwan-HK general sanctions were: we can do it wide (modern history) or narrow (contemporaneous) [...] As for what counts as modern history, I would cap it at the 20th Century, myself and a narrower post-19xx politics or governmental relationships that are within, between, or involving one or more of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be supportive of broad China-HK-Taiwan general sanctions. I am mainly active on Hong Kong-related articles and have observed a chronic problem of single-purpose accounts pushing political viewpoints throughout this topic area. With regard to Hong Kong, it gets especially bad whenever Hong Kong is in the news internationally (2014, 2019, 2020). I think a broader temporal scope would be more effective (20th/21st century). Citobun (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree to general sanctions as suggested by Citobun. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the problems of SPAs will not disappear at any rate. The skills I mentioned to neutralize a biased opinion just does not come without months (at least) of working neutrally, which is obviously not going to be seen in the politico-SPAs. But it is precisely these skill sets that makes an encyclopedic article on a political figure possible. I concur with Citobun on the scope of the sanctions. Eumat114 (Message) 11:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Discretionary sanctions are not really the best way to deal with SPAs, which can be taken care of without such a sweeping use a force, and are easily identifiable. They function better when dealing with established editors. I would be extremely wary of applying community DS to such a wide topic area. For instance, I spent a lot of time writing articles like Northern Expedition. These could easily construed by some people to be within the scope of the sanctions, by their relation to conflict between the KMT and the CPC, despite the fact that they have never been subject to disruption, and fall well outside whatever the area of conflict is here. Please be very careful. DS are not something meant to be imposed lightly...and they work best when they are applied to a very specific topic area. If Hong Kong is an issue, perhaps consider DS for the Hong Kong dispute...but China-Taiwan-HK? I don't think so. RGloucester — ☎ 13:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I envisioned this proposal as one for community-authorised discretionary sanctions, which is why I opposed it. I would be more open to the idea of something like the WP:GS/IPAK restriction, but only narrowly applied to disputes over the status of Hong Kong or Taiwan in a strictly contemporary (1990s–present) context. RGloucester — ☎ 14:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• This Reddit.com/r/sino thread from June 2019 recruiting editors is quite interesting: One way you can help China’s image is to make small edits to Wikipedia‘s China-related pages, which are full of outdated and negative information. The anti-China freaks take stats from the 1990s and make it sound like it’s true now. & DON’T FIGHT REVERTS. Instead, accept the revert and continue contributing and correcting bias. Even if they revert 50%, the other 50% remains, and you become seen as a positive pro-China contributor who’s easy to work with. --Pudeo (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  That further justifies a GS here. Eumat114 (Message) 15:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Not really...articles across Wikipedia are subject to similar forms of promotional editing on a daily basis, but they are not all subject to discretionary sanctions. One I can think of is the infamous Frankfurt School page. As I said above, it really is important to be careful about painting large portions of the encylopaedia with a broad brush, especially considering the very specific nature of the dispute there. A narrower, more specific restriction may well be warranted, but all China-related articles from 1900 to present is a bit too much...too much to even police, at that. RGloucester — ☎ 15:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment If we are applying a general sanctions proposal, we might as well add in Macau to the scope (so it becomes China-Taiwan-Hong Kong-Macau). Background history and situations are similar enough that these types of astroturfing will spill over to Macau pages if we don't include it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  OhanaUnited, the situation of Macau is so different from that of HK, and judging from the political point of view I can't see Macau being included as a target of whitewashing. Eumat114 (Message) 14:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Hounding

Since this report I filed in May, Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in increasing levels of hounding, disruptive and controversial page moves and capitalization changes, and other seemingly retaliatory behavior against myself and Qwirkle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This behavior has included:

• In just the last two days, he quickly followed my edits on Boston University Central station, edit-warred with Qwirkle and I there, made a personal attack, made the same disputed edits on Central station (MBTA) shortly after I made unrelated edits there, pinged me despite my explicit instructions not to, and followed me to an article he's never edited before just an hour after my edit. Despite me telling him Do not ever post on my talk page or ping me again unless you are explicitly required to - which I know he saw - he again posted on my user talk page a few days ago.
• This following behaior has gone on for months, with him making either capitalization changes that he's well aware I disagree with, or trivial changes to commas or dashes. Typical examples include Nubian station (not even two minutes after my edit), J Church, and Park Street station (three times, all lagging my edits by a few days). The majority of these are on articles related to the MBTA (and New England transportation generally) or Muni Metro. I have contributed heavily for years on both subjects, and on almost every of these articles I have made significant expansions prior to his involvement. He has made only style edits in these topic areas, with a notable increase within the past three months. I have warned him of both the following and the disruptive nature of his edits, so he is well aware that I believe he is following me.
• He commented multiple times at two ANI threads posted on my talk page (neither remotely related to him): to defend an editor who insulted me, and to offer advice to a sockpuppet angry that I brought them to SPI. He also followed Qwirkle to a completely unrelated ANEW report, and complained about both of us there.
• Immediately after I reverted his decapitalizations of "Central Subway", he created what I consider to be a blatant POV fork (completely duplicating existing information on the Green Line and Tremont Street subway articles) to legitimize his decapitalization. It's the only content addition whatsoever that he's done in MBTA-related articles.
• Less than 15 minutes after I converted that article into a redirect, he made undiscussed moves of Canal Street incline and Pleasant Street incline. (Making undiscussed controversial moves is a behavior that he has engaged in for years, despite multiple ANI threads about it.) This is part of a pattern of using moves as retaliation: he also opened an RM of an article I'd just created immediately after I filed that May ANI, and requested a technical move of MBTA bus hours after we clashed about capitalization on Green Line E branch and other articles. These disruptive moves are also based on his preferred lowercase style rather than actual research: he didn't do even a basic search before that RM, and his recent requested technical move of MBTA boat (which he claimed was based on sources) indicates that he didn't look at the sources, which overwhelmingly use "ferry" and not "boat".
• Twelve hours after I majorly expanded an article and nominated it for GA, he moved it. This article is completely outside my usual subject areas, an article that he'd never edited before, and the only such move (along with a second river of the same name) he made that day; I can't imagine him finding it other than by following my contributions.
• Two hours after I completed my initial version of Ipswich Street line and nominated it for GA, he made a cosmetic edit with an atypical edit summary. (He doesn't seem to have used "'n'" as a word separator in any other summaries). While he'd edited the article with a semi-automated tool while it was under construction, it seems a bit unlikely that he would have watchlisted it, and the unusual edit summary seems to imply 'I'm watching you'.
• On Commons, he casually mentioned checking the timestamps of my photos to see how close he was to encountering me in person.

I believe both a one-way I-ban and a topic ban from MBTA articles are necessary to stop this months-long pattern of harassment and disruptive editing, which has made me feel targeted and anxious, and constantly interferes with my editing. Given that his sole content addition in that topic area is a single stub article – every other one of hundreds of edits is a cosmetic tweak or disputed capitalization change – such a topic ban would not be interfering with actual content additions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Dunno one way or the other what the best remedy is, but the description of behavior seems fairly accurate. Qwirkle (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Do not ever post on my talk page or ping me again unless you are explicitly required to

Is banning users from your talk page a thing here? While I would agree that if it gets disruptive (which becomes far more likely if someone has been told they're not welcome), I don't think banning another user from a talk page is an option. (unless an IBAN has been issued) Though you can certainly tell anyone they're not welcome.

While he'd edited the article with a semi-automated tool while it was under construction, it seems a bit unlikely that he would have watchlisted it, and the unusual edit summary seems to imply 'I'm watching you'.

This seems maybe a bit far-fetched. I have accidentally watchlisted thousands of pages because of tools. I don't see "case'n'space'n'dash" as a threat. Maybe Dicklyon's semi-automated tool wasn't working well for the article so he made a less automated edit and entered a jolly edit summary. Be careful not to read threats in edits that really aren't threats.

He commented multiple times at two ANI threads posted on my talk page (neither remotely related to him): to defend an editor who insulted me, and to offer advice to a sockpuppet angry that I brought them to SPI. He also followed Qwirkle to a completely unrelated ANEW report, and complained about both of us there.

I see absolutely nothing objectionable in the content of the first two links and little more than some annoyance in the third, which isn't actionable unless it's 1984.

On Commons, he casually mentioned checking the timestamps of my photos to see how close he was to encountering me in person.

15 July 2020 Krd deleted page File talk:Berryessa station artwork LIFE!.jpg (Ophaned talk page)

Besides being on Commons which makes it utterly irrelevant here unless it's part of a pattern that involves enwiki, which I'm not convinced of: the comment in question can't even be read, so unless you or another Commons admin undeletes the page, we can do nothing but assume good faith.

Dicklyon is quite an active editor, so it's likely inevitable that you'll cross paths here and there. Besides, if one sees a familiar username pop up in Special:Recentchanges or their watchlist, they are more likely to get involved. As an example, I have this page watchlisted because I edit it sometimes. I saw BorkNein's edit on my watchlist with "New section: Guy Macon". I've heard of Guy Macon, so I took a look. And right above that report was this report, which is why I'm now here. - Alexis Jazz 05:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, per WP:NOBAN, If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected. The community has generally accepted that as the ability to ban users from your talkpage, and posting on someone's talkpage after such a request (in the absence of placing a required notification) is usually deemed disruptive and inappropriate. Grandpallama (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Thanks. Though the next line in that guideline is However, editors should not make such requests lightly, especially concerning their talk pages, as doing so can impede the ordinary communication which is important for the improvement and smooth running of the project. I think in general it is like I said: you can't ban anyone from your talk page, but if you signal that someone is not welcome, anything they do post on your user talk is much more likely to be considered disruptive. - Alexis Jazz 14:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There are editors who share your view about the wording of the policy, but in practice, the community has consistently endorsed an interpretation that you are allowed to ban someone from your talkpage. Doing so repeatedly to numerous editors, to avoid criticism or over basic reminders/warnings, though, has also consistently resulted in smacks on the nose. Grandpallama (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

When I posted this on Pi's talk page, I had forgotten about his request to never post there or ping him unless required to. I was thinking it would be better to talk than to try to argue it out in revert edit summaries, which is where he was. I'd say if he doesn't want to hear from me, he should not say nonsense to me that needs a response. Dicklyon (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've done my best to be civil with Pi and Qwirkle, over-capitalizers who like to revert my edits that conform with MOS:CAPS and other style items. I'm sorry Pi finds my style edits and moves to be trivial. On Stony Brook (Charles River tributary, Boston), he may not be aware that I have moved over 1000 river articles after working with Wikiproject Rivers on the river naming conventions. Nothing about him on that one. Most of the other articles were found by searches, and the MBTA articles were where most of the over-capitalizations of "subway" and "branch" and "tunnel" were found; others were at SF Muni, another set of articles he edits. And yes we happened to visit a new BART station on the same day, as I noticed when Pi replaced my photo with his and had another of my photos deleted. For our most recent disagreements, see the discussion I've got going at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations. I'm very surprised these guys want to talk about it at AN/I when they're so reluctant to talk at talk pages. I'm happy to have my edits and behavior examined, and will take feedback if found wanting. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I, for one, have no problem discussing something on an article’s talk page. Why Dicklyon instead prefers to put himself on a user’s talk page I will leave as an exercise for the reader. Qwirkle (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

On the downcasing of "incline" and "portal", I think I had zero pushback from anybody on those, before or after the 2 page moves he mentions. So why is that coming up now? If I do something that's wrong, tell me. But sources say these ones are not wrong. Same with MBTA bus; nobody has suggested that maybe it should be MBTA Bus, which if we used it would be a WP-created proper name never seen in sources. Changes that nobody pushes back on are not generally thought of as "controversial", so bringing them up as such at AN/I represents some kind of pent-up need for over-capitalization, I guess. What's controversial is Pi's capping of "Station" contrary to the convention of WP:USSTATION, via obscure template/module hacking, and then repeatedly reverting my attempts to fix that, backed up by Qwirkle. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

While on these things, I downcased "Tunnel" in State Route 99 tunnel. An editor objected and reverted, so we had an RM discussion; with no editors objecting there, it passed, and no problems remain. In MBTA articles, even after reaching consensus in RM discussions on "branch" and some other things, I continued to get a fight from Pi and Qwirkle in implementing the changes. I've also moved about a hundred other rail and station articles in the last month or so, mostly in India, Sweden, UK, and Vietnam, very few related to Pi, and with essentially zero pushback since the reasons for the moves are generally accepted and uncontroversial. It's what I do. That and rivers, and uploading and placing photos, where I also get mostly zero pushback. I think I've actually made a lot of great contributions recently; even a few new articles; only in the MBTA space am I running into strange pushback against implementing consensus style. Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally public works above a certain scale tend to be named, not merely desribed, with the name of the thing capitalized like any other proper-named thing. It isn’t Brooklyn bridge, or Pennsylvania station, not even on Wiki. Qwirkle (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally, that's not WP's approach, per MOS:CAPS. Yes, some tunnels have proper names; the State Route 99 tunnel is a big public work that does not; maybe some day they'll name it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Pi's a friend and I want to say something about hounding, having experienced it myself (not from Dicklyon). The issue here isn't the correctness of the edits, or where we all stand on NCCAPS as applied to bus stations. I think the point, and it's a reasonable one, is that every time Pi looks over his shoulder on this project (and Commons) he sees Dicklyon, and that makes him uncomfortable. He's been clear about that, and the point of WP:HOUNDING is that such behavior isn't okay, regardless of the edits themselves. Let's talk for a moment about Stony Brook (Charles River tributary, Boston). Dicklyon says he's worked on the naming convention for rivers, so no coincidence. Fine. That said, he was reverting a move that had occurred six months ago. Now, there's no deadline on Wikipedia, but reverting a six month old undiscussed move the same day Pi undertook a major expansion is the sort of thing that makes a user paranoid. It's possible to be making nothing but good-faith edits but still making another editor uncomfortable, and that's why we have a policy about hounding. The present dynamic here is unhealthy, it's affecting two good and productive editors, and something needs to change. Mackensen (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just reread WP:HOUNDING to see if anything I've been doing could be what it describes there. I don't see it. The only place my edits interfere with Pi or his enjoyment is where he's fighting for over-capitalization. The fact that I edited a few other articles that he edited should not have much affect on him, especially if they are edits that are unrelated to his, and that he has no objection to. If he's paranoid, it's not I who made him so. The dynamic that needs to be fixed is his sneaky way of working around case conventions by burying over-capitalization deep in template/module data, and running to AN/I instead of engaging sensibly in discussion about the disagreement. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I particularly seek more input at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations. It is my intention to continue to fix the overcapitalization of bus route descriptions from Pi's June 26 and 27 edits, across many MBTA station articles. If someone sees a reason to not fix those, speak up. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing Pi's opening complaint, I'm bewildered also about these claims:

• disruptive and controversial page moves and capitalization changes – where? which move might be considered disruptive? or controversial? what cap changes might be considered disruptive? or controversial even?
• other seemingly retaliatory behavior against myself and Qwirkle – what? I have nothing to retaliate for. I even had an extensive good collaboration with Qwirkle at Artillery wheel during this period. And I thought I had a friendly interaction with Pi when noticing the we both visited the new BART station on opening day to take pictures. I do wish they'd stop defending over-capitalization, but that's nothing that would provoke retaliation of any sort. Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ”O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us....” Qwirkle (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

On sins of omission, guilty as charged. Probably I should have noticed that MBTA ferry would be a better title than MBTA boat, instead of just fixing the over-capitalization there. Maybe I should have sought a better title for MBTA bus, too, instead of just the case fix. Dicklyon (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There in a nutshell is the crux of of the problem. Got a dispute that has gotten this far, but is unable to see any possibilities except that others are wrong. Qwirkle (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

And completely refuses to acknowledge, much less apologize for, the hounding that I described in my original post. That harassment is why we are here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You simply assume bad faith. As usual. - Alexis Jazz 11:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I ran some quick numbers, but without more reference points they are not very meaningful. 2% of the pages that Dicklyon has edited in the past three months have also been edited by Pi. 3% of the pages Mjdestroyerofworlds (otherwise unrelated, I was just trying out some users with possible overlapping interests) has edited have also been edited by Pi. So in conclusion Mjdestroyerofworlds is 50% more likely to be hounding Pi than Dicklyon. Lies, damned lies, and statistics of course, but maybe patterns will emerge if I try more users. Any suggestions for other users with similar interests? - Alexis Jazz 00:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Shockingly, users with common interests edit the same articles! The problem is not editing the same articles; Mj and I get along just fine, with our edits building off each others'. The problem is that Dicklyon follows my editing across multiple subjects in a manner that cannot be coincidental, moves articles as retaliation for disagreeing, makes repetitive edits that he's aware I consider unconstructive as the majority of his edits in my usual subject areas, and pretends to be unaware that all of this would bother any reasonable editor. That's harassment, and it's unacceptable, regardless of your previous grudge against me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The human brain is really good at seeing connections, even where there are none. With the edit volumes of the both of you, combined with common interests, you are bound to run into each other. Dicklyon's edit volume is considerably higher than yours, but your edits are, on the face of it, more substantial (I notice some copy pasting though, but that doesn't matter for the subject at hand) where Dicklyon does more small fixes. Neither is better or worse, but this guarantees that Dicklyon will often edit an article after you did. (or any other editor who adds substantial amounts of text) Because those substantial edits both cause the article to appear in searches for articles that could be improved as well as recent changes. The OP may just be a case of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, fallacy of the single cause and jumping to conclusions.

regardless of your previous grudge against me.

Is that where we are? You threatened me, falsely accused me of "treating anyone you disagree with as an adversary" and called Tuválkin, a respected editor, a "perpetual mess-maker". You said that I "antagonize anyone with a mop", so tell me, how come there are half a dozen admins (not to mention other users) who have been willing to make edits in my place without me even asking? Never mind your accusation that I "advocate for the worst blocked users" (which is false anyway), because some opinions must be suppressed, in particular those you don't agree with.

It is you who is holding a grudge. More than one, in fact. Which raises the question if Dicklyon could be one of them. - Alexis Jazz 11:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

non-admin comment To show hounding, try making a table, listing locations with a history link, sample timestamp of your edits, then time stamp of the claimed "following" by the other party. Also would help to have a fourth column showing all contribs of the other party at that location. Then anyone interested could quickly review the evidence for you complaint of hounding, without having to wade through the saga and do all that thinking and analysis for you. I did look at the diff for the claimed personal attack in the first bulleted point in the opening post, and that does seem excessively snarky at best and intentionally insulting at worst. If you can show (visually) the pattern of following by organizing the complain this way, you may have better luck generating an appropriate response.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

non-admin comment I commend NewsandEventsGuy for his suggestion on presentation—one likely to produce light rather than heat. I'd like to add a comment on crusading for Capitalization conformity. If a particular editor evinces strong disagreementwit your edit, there are thousands of Capitalized words on Wikipedia that may or my not require rectification. My suggestion to Dicklyon is to chose articles that Pi.1415926535 is not revising. This, to me, seems to have a great advantage for you, Dicklyon. Your work will more quickly advance and can win over editors who might agree with you. Engaging those who strongly disagree is perhaps not the best approach. When an editor begins to ready an article for GA review is not the best time for making minor changes which could best wait for the actual review. Being sensitive to other editors—e.g. discussion on article pages—oils the waters, so to speak, for very little effort. — Neonorange (Phil) 18:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I take them where I find them, and the rail space has long been a source of full employment for me. The MBTA corner of WP is a rich lode of over-capitalization, spaced hyphens, missing commas, and other common easy-to-fix non-controversial gnoming work to do. Pi doesn't object to most of my edits, it seems, but does love his caps in a few places. We've got "Bus" capped inappropriately in at least 100 articles still, so I'm working on that. He does not appear to object (how could he?). Should I avoid those just because MBTA is his turf? Dicklyon (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

My two cents...... in your heart of hearts, you know whether you're doing gnome work as it comes along, or whether you follow someone else to bugger them. If you're just doing good faith work as it comes along then carry on. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So, here you are, once again at ANI over something, and you are still convinced it’s “uncontroversial”. Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

If any of the edits under discussion were controversial, in your opinion, say which ones. Or revert and we can discuss, as I've been trying to do on the "Station" downcasing that you and Pi reverted in a few places, but you keep avoiding the discussions after you revert. Pretty much all of what Pi is complaining about here are uncontroversial edits, are they not? Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Any of those reverted are obviously controversial. Any made at a bot-like rate, where the possibility that any actual research was done behind it is low are controversial.

avoiding the discussions after you revert.Nonsense. The fact that people find you unwelcome on their talk pages doesn’t mean they are avoiding discussion, it means you are attempting it in the wrong place, twice over. Qwirkle (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion about recent reverts is still open at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations. The only thing you've said there is that you're not refusing to discuss. Pi has declined to respond to the ping there (and I recalled later he had asked me never to ping him, so he basically declined in advance to discuss). Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

So far the “discussion”, if it can be dignified as such, appears to be mere assertion.

That aside, the simple fact of disagreement makes something controversial, despite your belief -right, wrong, or debatable- that is should not be. Qwirkle (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Finding no reasonable objections, I'm going ahead and fixing case and dashes in the hundred or so articles that link to MBTA Bus. I'm trying JWB again, and finding it much more usable now that I have a big monitor instead of just a laptop. Please look and see if anything I'm doing there is controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it very uncomfortable to be expected to respond in numerous places to someone who I feel is harassing me. Do not take a lack of immediate response for assent, especially given that I have repeatedly objected to this and other capitalization changes that I believe are incorrect. You have not produced any evidence that the capitalized names are not the official names (ie proper names). But that is merely a distraction from the real issue of your behavior. Responding to an ANI thread about hounding and repeated disputed edits by substantially increasing the rate of those disputed edits (including making additional un-discussed controversial moves) is incredibly hostile and un-collaborative behavior. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that reporting someone based on your gut feeling, not responding to replies from multiple editors who suggest you should come up with something better and not withdrawing the request either, that's a textbook example of non-hostile and collaborative behavior? - Alexis Jazz 09:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Pi, the caps discussion is the one I've linked for you in a few places. Re "additional un-discussed controversial moves", there's no such thing. The only recent move I made in your space was Friday, lowercasing carhouse in North Cambridge carhouse since it's not capped in sources (your favorite specialist fan book by Bradley Clarke shows up there without a preview; looking at page 119 I find "North Cambridge caryard" and "a former carhouse"; that's all). Are you suggesting that this one constitutes "additional un-discussed controversial moves"? I can't see how it's controversial to lowercase things seldom capped in sources, but I acknowledge that you do often argue for that, even when there's no credible case for capping, as here. Dicklyon (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty clear case of hounding to me, based on the evidence Pi has presented. Whether or not the MBTA-related articles ought to be lowercased is a somewhat tangential discussion, and is probably one that ought to be discussed more formally than just between Dicklyon/Pi/Qwirkle. I would suggest Dicklyon avoid making these changes to MBTA articles until such a discussion concludes, and to stop following Pi's editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion is at the more general place WT:MOSCAPS – where still no input from Pi. And yes I did stop when someone reverted me, and I invited that other editor to that discussion. Previously, discussion there had stopped with nobody objecting, so I had restarted. And his is not related to following Pi around, though he was involved in some of that overcapping enforced by template back in June, as discussed there before his hounding accusation. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I'm undecided if this is hounding or a case of Pi.1415926535 making edits contrary to MOS, that Dicklyon is correcting. Nobody likes having their edits reverted and Iit can feel like harrassment sometimes. However a neutral venue like Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations, a thread which Dicklyon started and others are watching, is a good opportunity to reach consensus on capitalization. I encourage Pi.1415926535 to participate.—Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon and Bagumba: That's great that there's a discussion open, and I too would recommend Pi engage there, though I think the best outcome will be if third parties (outside of Dicklyon, Pi, Qwirkle, and anyone else who's been involved in these ongoing conflicts over MBTA-related de/capitalization) join that discussion so it is not primarily those who have clearly not agreed on the subject in the past. It is also clear from Pi's comments above that he would rather avoid a continued direct conflict with Dicklyon over this, and so third party mediators/commentators might help that. I am not active in maintaining the MoS or in public transit editing so I don't have much to suggest, but perhaps this discussion will help bring more eyes to it. A formal RfC or similar might also get more uninvolved parties to weigh in.

I would also encourage Dicklyon to avoid making changes to Pi's work (which does appear to be targeted specifically towards Pi—whether because Dicklyon believes he is merely reverting a serial MoS-violator or for other reasons) until discussion has resolved.

I would also encourage Dicklyon to be considerably more patient—I see over at WT:MOSCAPS he has suggested With Pi not responding to ping here, and Qwirkle declining to discuss, maybe we can just get back to following MOS:CAPS over their objections. after only 24 hours had elapsed in that discussion, a period during which Pi had not been actively editing. A similar statement was made above (Finding no reasonable objections, I'm going ahead and fixing case and dashes in the hundred or so articles that link to MBTA Bus.), after this conversation had only been open a few days. It would be best to allow these conversations to run their course and to allow outside parties to weigh in before continuing the changes that are clearly not agreed upon between Dicklyon and Pi, and clearly upsetting to Pi. Not everyone edits round-the-clock, or even daily, especially if they are feeling frustrated or anxious because of ongoing conflict. The wiki is not going to go up in flames even if pages are incorrectly capitalized for a little bit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm holding off pending comments on the discussion. I did about a hundred edits in other areas today. And yes, I do get impatient when an editor that needs to be discussing tells me not to talk to him or ping him. And with Qwirkle, who tends to make elliptic and cryptic comments instead of explaining his points in English. Dicklyon (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The idea that Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style is a neutral venue beggars description. Qwirkle (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, there many people against the MOS status quo there as well. WP:AGF. At any rate, feel free to offer better alternatives.—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That does not make it neutral ground, but, rather, a battleground. In fact, there as elsewhere, the loyal opposition sometimes throws one of their own under the juggernaut to gain points for later. Qwirkle (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Is there a place you think might be less of a battleground? An article talk page seems like a poor choice since this would affect multiple articles, but maybe some other discussion board that everyone could agree on? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope. But let’s not pretend it isn’t that.

Obviously, this is a wide-ranging problem, and fixing it page by page would be difficult, but a big part of it is a single person’s inability to see that their edits are contentious, that their “fixes” often create new, worse errors, and that they at least border on harassment. That part of it belongs right here, doesn't it? Qwirkle (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: Behavioral issues belong here, yes. But a major part of the hounding issue appears to me to be that there has yet to be a formal decision on how this group of articles should be cased, and until then the two sides each think they are editing articles to correct the other's errors. We could tell both parties not to interact, but that doesn't resolve the underlying issue of how to case the articles. If a consensus can be reached around how the articles should be cased, then ideally the articles could be adjusted once and for all, and the parties can get on with their respective editing interests without interacting. That's why I'm trying to find a venue that might be acceptable to everyone where this decision could be made -- Dicklyon has suggested VPP below, does that seem reasonable to you and Pi.1415926535? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: FYI, the MOS is under discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBATC, so if you follow proceures at WP:ACDS you could also seek enforcement at WP:AE as well as here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two issues up for debate that Dicklyon and I have clashed on: One, are the titles of MBTA bus routes considered proper nouns (and thus capitalized as they are on the MBTA website) or are they purely descriptive and thus sentence case?, which is a pretty simple yes/no. Two, are the names of some pieces of MBTA infrastructure considered proper nouns or purely descriptive? That question is much more based on a deep delve into what style sources use and which sources are considered authoritative. I also feel much more strongly about it because it affects article titles, and because I am using those sources daily. Dicklyon, I would be willing to concede the first iff you concede the second, which would allow this dispute to effectively end immediately. But if you would prefer to have the wider discussion, then VPP seems like a reasonable venue. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear to me which are the "pieces of MBTA infrastructure considered proper nouns" that you want me to concede. Can you clarify? Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I created a list here as a starting point. All are consistently capitalized by the MBTA and/or BSRA, and in a majority of modern independent reliable sources with substantial coverage. If you object to individual items (those with past RMs, for example, which I've separated out) I'm willing to punt them to a later discussion for the sake of a general agreement now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I could get into such a deal. Five of those are lowercase by consensus of RM discussions, so not up to me to concede. Most of the rest I haven't looked at. Generally, I can't think of BSRA, a rather specialist rail-fan org, as representing general sources. I can start looking into the others if you like, but it's a long list and seems unlikely. For example, you suggest "Red-Blue Connector", but I've already lowercased "connector" in lots of places, since sources seldom cap it; so why would we? Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

In any case, the place to discuss such things is the open discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Capping of bus stops at rail stations. Dicklyon (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. ANI is not a content-discussion venue, not even for discussions of the application of guidelines to article content, or discussion of the content of the guidelines themselves. Next, WP doesn't do quid pro quo deal-making. We write and title things [reasonably] consistently, following written-out guidelines and policies. WP is not a politics simulation game. There is no WP:winning to be had. And no one here WP:owns any page or is a WP:vested editor at it, so no one has any deal-making ability with regard to any article's content or title; any editor can ignore any bogus deal someone attempted to set up. Finally, in cases like these we do not in fact see that reliable sources consistently capitalize these terms. Rather we see that officialese, like signage, does so (and we all know that bureaucratese over-capitalizes rampantly, misusing capital letters to "signify" what the agency/ministry feels is important. And we also see that specialized sources by trainspotters and railfans and other people excessively devoted to transit/transport also tend to capitalize, a habit (also of subjective importance-signfication) found in virtually every specialist writing clique that there is. We have MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS for a reason. If we let every gaggle of specialists capitalize on Wikipedia what they like to capitalize in specialist-to-specialist writing, then nearly everything on WP would be capitalized; almost everything is the subject of some specialization or special interest somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:VPP is a good central place for getting a broad cross-section of people who care about policies and guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, offer a better venue. Please consider an WP:RFC or other dispute resolution channels.—Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Disclosure: I am a wikifriend of Dicklyon's. I believe Quirkle and one or two others here have been acting in bad faith. And just a small matter: at least one major railways wikiproject long ago insisted on downcasing "station". It's not radical, and it concurs with CMOS, Oxford, and our own style guide, which say to minimise unnecessary capping. Dicklyon is one of our most valuable editors. Tony (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Quirkle and one or two others here have been acting in bad faith. I was wondering if you’d care to back this somehow, or if it just muddying the waters for your friend. Qwirkle (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• And I forgot to say: Pi.1415926535, if you feel "targeted and anxious", there are WPians who are good listeners and consultants on difficult situations—I can recommend privately if you want. But on the critical side, really, are you serious in proposing that capping be turned into a tradeable commodity, so you might "swap" by allowing Dicklyon the downcasing of "station" in exchange for allowing you lots of caps? That would be to reduce WP to a loud horse-trading market place in the street. Fortunately it doesn't work like that. Tony (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Dicklyon's confrontational attitude - including making disputed moves despite policy explicitly requiring RMs in such cases, using a false rationale for a technical move request, edit-warring with half a dozen different editors, following me to unrelated articles, using a slur against myself and others over the amount of documentation of a template, and opening discussions about one issue in four separate locations - is disruptive regardless of which capitalization style is preferable. He has not acknowledged, apologized for, nor shown evidence of changing any of these behaviors. Regardless of your friendship or your style preference, how can you condone an editor acting in this manner? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm still really unclear on what you're accusing me of. Why can't we just discuss content issues instead? (And sorry you took offense at my inmates reference to a great book on software engineering issues). Dicklyon (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That seemed rather clear; you are doing mass-changes that should require individual discussion. Do you dispute this? What did ANI say last time? Qwirkle (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

And there's one relevant open content discussion, where you still haven't said anything: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Capping_of_bus_stops_at_rail_stations. If you post again here before there, you certainly deserve some kind of boomerang, imho. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is about your habit of messing with articles you have never shown an interest in before based on who is editing them. While a wider view of the whole Manual of Style ...debacle?...cabal?...”cabalcle”, maybe?... would be a good thing, that isn’t the central point of this ANI filing. Qwirkle (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Consistently doing the same kind of cleanup of over-capitalization that Dicklyon does and has been doing for a very long time, with a very high success rate at WP:RM, does not magically transmogrify into "hounding" just because it happens to coincide with pages that someone is habitually over-capitalizing in. If someone is not following the style guides and the naming conventions, then their departures from them should be undone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, S, but that's not exactly what he's complaining about in Hounding. Rather, it's that I made some edits, unrelated to his edits or to over-capitalization, but at articles that I probably noticed because he had just edited them. I shouldn't do that, and I did a couple of times; sorry. So that's the hounding complaint. The real dispute, however, is more like what you're talking about, and Pi so far refuses to discuss that except here at AN/I in his thread on Hounding. Like last time he wouldn't talk about our content dispute and brought an AN/I thread instead (not hounding, but a complaint about my long-past history). It's just a bizarre way to think that we can move forward. He "owns" the MBTA space (and has provided a ton of great content there!), and he and Qwirkle defend their caps fiercely, contrary to the general consensus of the rest of WP. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This would be what is generally called a lie. Compared to the bot-like, obviously near automatic editing DL has done, I have been involved in...what, three articles here?

For now, since it isn’t the subject of the ANI, I will pass over the question of whether DL’s mass change of other’s work is “fixing” anything at all. Qwirkle (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Ranting bad faith accusations/forum discussion

Hi, myself and others have been the subject of this ranting personal attack and forum discussion. Editor Dvaderv2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not discuss any sources or suggest any changes, just rants about how we are biased leftists of this sort or the other. I've removed the rant, but I think this personal attack should be addressed in some manner by a third party...they do seem to be an otherwise constructive contributor, so maybe a warning?. I don't want to go there myself, as I assume I'll just cop another rant about being a bias lefty scumbag or some such. Bacondrum (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, aren't we all biased leftists? I mean, we insist that the encyclopedia relate to reality and not to ideological preconceptions, right? Isn't that socialism or liberalism or one of those evil "isms"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I reverted your removal. I won't claim I read every single word of it but I didn't find anything in violation of policy. You think something is in violation of policy please identify it specifically. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick It is a violation of both WP:PERSONALATTACKS and WP:FORUM. Doesn't discuss edits, just accuses others of bias, repeatedly - perhaps you should read it before reverting. I would have though this was blatantly uncivil and does not discuss edits at all. Repeatedly calling other editors biased? That's not a WP:AOBF violation? Bacondrum (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, Most editors have some bias. I do not support calling other editors biased, but reversion is not the appropriate step here. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

SphilbrickNo worries, I'll respond in kind. Thanks for explaining the low standard for civility. Bacondrum (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, You inferred incorrectly. I'm a big fan of civility. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, FTR, I was responding while you were editing your comment, so my response was to your earlier version. I did just check to see if you attempted to discuss this with the editor before reverting and coming here. Not ideal. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick "Not ideal", I agree and I tried to deal with it in a civil manner. I don't know what discussion you wanted me to have with someone that just launched a ranting attack of bad faith accusations. You set the standard mate. I thought civility was a pillar of Wikipedia, but apparently not. I would have thought removing a forum style rant that was full of assumptions of bad faith (ie personal attacks) would be the right way to go, but as I said, you set the standard. I'll say no more on the subject. Thanks. Bacondrum (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum,

And I could just as easily accuse you of lunatic fringe right-wing bias. You got any sources or edits to discuss? Yawn. This kind of utterly braindead rant makes civility all but impossible. Take this right wing ranting crap about bias for a walk. Bacondrum

Do I understand that you reverted the other editor for WP:PERSONALATTACKS? Seriously? S Philbrick(Talk) 22:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick Responded in kind, based on the standard you set. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

SphilbrickI removed it anyway, because I actually believe civility matters, rather than just saying so. You set a very low standard for civility letting all those bad faith accusation pass. No hard feeling, sorry for being WP:POINTy. Have a nice day. Bacondrum (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, DO NOT BLAME ME for YOUR edits. As I tell my 2 year-old grandson, Take a deep breath and count to four. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum, I recently posted something that someone else objected to. They politely let me know. While I'm not totally on board with their view, I understand their point, and struck through my comment. I think that's a good example of how things should happen. Had that editor simply decided to remove my comment because they believed it was an appropriate, the incident for the played out very differently. That how you chose to respond. Not my definition of "deal with it in a civil manner". S Philbrick(Talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick So if another editor writes a sprawling personal attack, I should go in for further discussion, and no doubt, more incivility. No worries, the standard is set, bad faith accusation are fine and no need to discuss edits/content, forum rants are fine also. I thought it was meant to work differently, but I was clearly mistaken, I'll move on. Have a nice day. Bacondrum (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith Dvaderv2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes numerous personal attacks. At no point in the rant do they really discuss proposed edits or anything that the talk page is designed for...simply a sprawling and ranting personal attack:

• "the constant suppression of any attempt to expand the "Call-outs and cancellation" subsection"

I haven't attempted to suppress anything, this is another bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK.

• "is its own POV editing and cannot be exactly viewed as "describ[ing] the subject of an encyclopedic topic in an encyclopedic manner". Biased editors "don't publish opinion", but they certainly allow it to have undue influence when making editing decisions."

Again, I am following reliable source guidelines, not my bias. This is another bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK

• "It's not like biased editors will undo your addition later on"

This is another bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK on another editor Robofish

• "isn't convenient to biased Wikipedia editors"

Another bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK directed at Robofish

• "the suppression of attempts...in line with leftist dogma...Unlike you however, I am willing to stand corrected"...etc

rambling bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK directed at IP 84.65.54.106

• "Well, talk about the mask slipping. Thank you for effectively admitting that there is suppression of anything that would amount to a proper discussion of 'cancel culture', that you and other biased editors are prepared to maintain this suppression"

This is another bad faith accusation which is a WP:PERSONALATTACK discussing me instead of content.

Forum They then go into a WP:FORUM style rant, whcih includes a few more personal attacks:

"The only thing that is mematic or buzzwordish about 'cancel culture' is the actual term, derived from op-eds etc. in recent years where leftist individuals have declared and/or demanded that various persons, companies, institutions etc. are 'cancelled' for being actively opposed to leftist dogma, not being strident enough in their promotion of and kowtowing to leftist dogma, or some other real or imagined transgression against leftist dogma. Beyond that, there is a phenomenon, ongoing for a number of years, where social media users, typically of a left-wing persuasion, brigade together and wrathfully wax lyrical whenever someone is deemed to have said or done something that is deemed to be in breach of a given political dogma or a taboo that is either deemed particularly heinous within a given political dogma or is only perceived as a taboo within a given political dogma. Quite regularly, this results in the person who committed the offending deed being fired, being sidelined or passed up in relation to work opportunities, or (in countries where there is no legal right to free speech and/or there are hate speech laws that are so poorly and/or widely defined that anything deemed to be even slightly offensive is fair game) facing criminal liability. Hence its popularity as a tactic; people who dare to commit a transgression against the dogma are seen to be punished (and often are indeed punished), while those "whose minds are fixed on pelf and place" see that to speak out against the dogma is to risk pelf and place and so offer no challenge to the dogma or indeed allow themselves to fall under the dogma. It might be bog-standard old-fashioned online shaming, albeit with a political twist. It might have taken on a sufficiently insidious and Salem-esque character in recent years that it deserves to be distinguished from regular online shaming, with 'cancel culture' being a suitable term owing to leftist social media brigading being the primary ongoing example of such online shaming and to the term's basis in actual leftist language as outlined above. Regardless, there needs to be an acknowledgement of this phenomenon. Engaging in WP:POV editing, while accusing those you censor or suppress of being WP:POV, is not acknowledgement of this phenomenon.

It is also interesting that there are no examples of online shaming in action in an article about online shaming. According to the edit logs and this talk page, WP:EXAMPLEFARM is cited as the reason, but even under that policy a few examples are allowed. Post-April revisions of this article have no examples at all, even though Bacondrum continuously (and ironically) cited the language of WP:EXAMPLEFARM when excising the examples. Not only is this censorship of something that has clearly become inconvenient ('can't be made to admit that politicised online shaming, regardless of how it is described, is a thing if I remove all examples of politicised online shaming'), but it leads to knowledge gaps and a reduction in Wikipedia's value as an encyclopedia. For example, if someone wanted to read about Justine Sacco, an early victim of what would now be called 'cancel culture', typing 'Justine Sacco' would lead to that someone being redirected to this article... which, as a result of the examples list being excised in its entirety, currently has no mention of Justine Sacco. Someone like me might think to simply trawl through the edit logs until the [revision] is found, but the average Wikipedia reader is unlikely to do so. Now, Justine's case and a few of the other cases that were previously included in the article were cited from sources that one would expect are considered reliable (at least in liberal and left-wing circles anyway) and are certainly deemed reliable for the purposes of editing Wikipedia articles, but leaving those examples up was clearly inconvenient to someone. WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:CRUFT cannons away, and for bonus irony points and additional obfuscation let's have the WP:POV cannon away too even though excising the examples in their entirety might be seen as WP:POV in its own right. So what if Barack Obama, that icon of modern liberalism, made critical commentary on 'cancel culture' online shaming and these comments were promptly reported in such reliable sources as the Business Insider and the BBC? So what if some NYT writer examines how virulent the cancellation of public figures is for some perceived transgression? It's inconvenient to biased editors, ergo let's shut down any attempt to include this and other commentary.

I humbly await being told how what I have written is complete hogwash, how noteworthy examples were not at all noteworthy and were not all purged from the article because it was inconvenient to keep them up, how reliable sources are not in fact reliable sources, how me not sharing biased editors' opinion on cancel culture being a buzzword and a nothingburger means that I'm a member of the "lunatic fringe" (I mean, I could talk about how I agree that federal agents in Portland riding around in unmarked vehicles and arresting people without giving a reason or even identifying themselves or their agency is wrong, or how the political right in Poland would be far better off if it stopped being the de facto political wing of the Catholic Church in Poland and stopped peddling Germanophobia and/or Russophobia whenever a serious political contender appears on the opposing side, but that'd just be ignored out of hand so why bother?), how biased editors are not biased despite me quoting their own statements where they demonstrate their bias, and various other things that, in all probability, will only prove that there is an editorial bias on this issue and that recent discussion around 'cancel culture' has these biased editors riled. I won't go so far as to suggest that these biased editors themselves engage in 'cancel culture', hence their reluctance to see it being acknowledged in any way, shape, or form on Wikipedia, but one does get the impression that a nerve has been touched."

Bacondrum (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick here's the details - I did not discuss it with Dvaderv2 as I did not expect a reasonable response after this long winded personal attack. I don't think it's reasonable to ask someone to interact with someone who is attacking them, surely that's why personal attacks and bad faith accusations are not permitted. Bacondrum (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm too involved to close this myself, but I think it is time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to support Bacondrum's removal of that section. It was a rant accusing editors of biased POV editing with no serious effort to back it up, continuous accusations of suppression, and calls to WP:SYNTH such as (emphasis mine): Also, why are you so intent on dismissing the 'cancel culture' term as a meme or buzzword instead of examining the behaviour covered by the term?

At the very least, an archive template would be appropriate to close the discussion per WP:FORUM. It's a rant, not an effort at improving an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm rather astonished that this screed was restored. This is the editing environment we expect productive good faith editors to have to deal with? We must think very little of them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds and Floquenbeam Thanks you so much, for not dismissing my concerns about this ranting personal attack. I'm glad to see civility and focusing on content does still matter. Bacondrum (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• FTR, I endorse Bacondrum's removal of what is a classic NOTAFORUM rant, something which is not at all unusual to find in this subject area. Any comment which blames the supposed biases of editors instead of discussing proposed changes to the article is, by definition, in NOTAFORM territory, and in this case firmly in NPA territory as well, even if specific editors aren't called out:

• Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
• Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. (Speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing.)
• Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.

The rant in question absolutely qualifies as a PA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks BMK, much appreciated. Bacondrum (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Bacondrum, I think your own comment on the talk page that included the line This page gets a lot of it, for some reason the lunatic fringe is obsessed with "call-out culture" and "cancel culture" at the moment was quite inflammatory too. While you did address the sourcing issue, I can easily see that these kind of high-octane remarks can fuel the forum-like commentary from others. Indeed, the rant discussed here was in part a response to that comment. --Pudeo (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bacondrum's behavior also needs examining

While there are problems with what the editor being discussed above said, in no way should Bacondrum get off scot-free. I have not edited the article Online shaming before, but I have popped over occasionally to look at the article, and noted that our coverage of it remained strangely thin-to-nonexistent; and I have now just looked in detail at the talk page and the article history. I can reach no conclusion other than that Bacondrum is tendentiously engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWNership, and POV pushing by systematically expunging from the article literally all sources that discuss cancel culture except for a dictionary definition. Examples will follow. And I'll point out the elephant in the room: Many people of a certain political POV - the same camp that is said to engage in cancel culture - deny that cancel culture exists. Having our article be nothing but a WP:DICDEF on that topic (thereby going along with that denial) is POV.

Relevant policy, emphasis added: WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

• [16] Reverting Politico (green at WP:RSP) Bacondrum claims Your opinion is not a reliable source. Jesus wept. And again: [17] Don't WP:EDITWAR, your edits have been challenged as uncited (you've added opinion as a references) and WP:UNDUE why have one random survey included? Take it to talk "Uncited" and "your opinion" are false. (Claims of "undue" will be addressed below.)

• [18] He states, Remove POV edits. We are here to describe encylopedic subjects, not add as many POV opinions about the subject as possible. Opinions are like...we all have one. Actually, as above, NPOV means representing significant views fairly, not expunging all views. I think former US president and figurehead of American liberalism Barack Obama's view is quite significant, and so is the Harper's Letter (which even has its own article!) signed by 153 famous writers and which RS have tied directly to cancel culture. [19][20] Edits relaying significant POVs are not "POV edits" as claimed by Bacondrum.

• [21] In April, over a 22 minute span, he tore out the vast majority of the article, citing WP:EXAMPLEFARM, an essay. While I am not endorsing all or even any of the content in that version, it deserves a mention as part of the pattern of behavior. He even removed an example that is indepedently notable and has its own article. Even EXAMPLEFARM says, One, or at most a few examples about the subject matter under discussion, should suffice. Well, we have zero currently.

• Okay, on to the talk page. [22] Here's some quotes from Bacondrum: it might be a hot term in right-wing op-eds, but it doesn't amount to much, just a buzzword. Boycotts and call-outs are nothing new. The main issue was thaty few reliable secondary articles discuss...in-fact I don't think any really solid sources discuss it. It's all just opinion pieces and op-eds. [23] Tarring one's opponents as just promoting a right wing POV is unacceptable.

• This page gets a lot of it, for some reason the lunatic fringe is obsessed with "call-out culture" and "cancel culture" at the moment. I think for them it's a real "gotcha" moment, but for anyone pushing that POV there's bad news, call-outs and boycotts are not new and exciting things, the terms are barely discussed in reliable secondary sources, they're just stupid buzzwords, and we aren't here to write a dictionary of inane terms used in op-eds and opinions pieces. [24] Again, framing opponents as the "lunatic fringe". Is Barack Obama the lunatic fringe? Pudeo above also noted an issue with this.

• There's nothing stopping the expansion of content based on reliable, secondary sources. [25] Except for Bacondrum himself, who reverts secondary sources like Politico.

You can see that Bacondrum repeatedly claims that the sources that exist on the topic are all op-eds. This is simply not true. [26][27][28][29][30] for just a few examples - seriously, please google it. There are a lot of op-eds too, of course, but that's true of all current events. Bacondrum's self-appointed sourcing standard for this topic is absurdly high. The sources he reverts, and the ones that discuss this topic that have not been used yet, are equivalent to the sources used in many other articles about current events, and our coverage of those is rich and detailed. It's quite odd that our coverage of this highly notable topic is reduced to one sentence from Merriam-Webster.

I think a topic ban on this matter is warranted for Bacondrum. And from what I know and have seen, looking into Bancondrum's behavior in other politicized culture topics may also be warranted. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In light of this analysis, I have partially blocked Bacondrum from the article and article talk page for 3 months. El_C 19:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There already was an earlier ANI thread (June 2019) about Bacondrum and the call-out culture article, where he would even have accepted an article ban, but at that time it was concluded that just a voluntary break is a better idea. --Pudeo (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You know it would be appropriate for someone to let me know this discussion was taking place. Lousy as. Bacondrum (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: You were not following an ANI thread you had filed? --Pudeo (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you should have told yourself about this thread when you started it. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, real funny mate. I had no idea that this new section discussing my behavior had been created. Last I saw the issue was resolved. I don't agree at all with this block and the reasoning behind it, but I accept the it. I leave the article alone, it'll end up being an incomprehensible mess, but so be it. Bacondrum (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ramifications of the Bacondrum partial block

• @El C: Do you think there's something of a danger here that the partial block of Bacondrum sends the message "Don't do anything about NOTAFORUM or NPA violating comments on article talk pages, because you might end up being blocked from editing"?
  I know that you're aware that that entire subject area is beset with drive-by rants, baseless complaints and accusations of bias on the part of Wikipedia or a group of editors, and that these comments rarely -- if ever -- actually deal with suggested improvements to the article in question. These comments should not be allowed to stand, because doing so would defeat the entire purpose of an article talk page. I would think that rather then discouraging editors from dealing with this onslaught of partisan messages, long-term editors familiar with Wikipedia policies should be encouraged to keep article talk pages focused on what they're intended for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Not this way, BMK. Not this way. El_C 00:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

What would the way be, then? Anything which doesn't challenge your authority or which doesn't, God forbid, suggest you might be wrong? --Calton | Talk 00:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I was not intimating that El C was necessarily wrong, simply pointing out a factor he may have overlooked, and might want to consider. I said it here and not privately because other admins might want to take it into account in similar circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to that innuendo, Calton, except to say that it reflects poorly on you. Anyway, if another admin feels the block was in error, they are welcome to unblock without consulting or notifying me in any way whatsoever. El_C 01:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to that innuendo, Calton, except to say that it reflects poorly on you I call them as I see them, and your deflection pretty much helps make my point. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• The ramifications are that an editor who engages in tendentious POV pushing will be blocked from the article they are POV pushing on, that them being inappropriately complained about by another editor after the fact does not somehow excuse them, and that one's own behavior is also under scrutiny at ANI. And last year's discussion which Pudeo pointed to above shows that the exact same bad behavior on this topic has been going on for a long time. While an admin may be free to unblock, in such a case I am also free to start a proposal for a community indefinite topic ban from articles about forms of online shaming. And if the tendentious behavior resumes at the end of the block - including casting WP:ASPERSIONS about one's opponents as lunatics or as right wingers, or stating falsehoods about or fighting to expunge (one might say "cancel") obviously reliable and relevant sources - I will be right back here proposing that ban. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

• The fact remains that article talk pages are under extreme pressure from drive-by commenters - IPs and brand-new accounts - who fling accusations of bias and don't engage in discussions about article improvement, and that the vast majority of these -- but not all of them -- come from the right. Editors should not look at what happened here as a reason to not follow TPO and NOTAFORUM and NPA and remove these inappropriate comments -- from whichever side of the political spectrum they come from. Doing so is necessary to insure that talk pages can perform the function they are intended for, and don't get clogged up with rants and spurious complaints. These are valid actions, and should be supported by the Wikipedia community, not met with inappropriate threats of future action based on nothing but AGF-violating speculation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again BMK, I really appreciate it. I'm just gonna leave that page alone, it can be a POV nightmare. It's pointless to try and stop it. Bacondrum (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Online_shaming&oldid=969228577 Nice own goal. If anyone can make sense of that mess? Great stuff? lol. Bacondrum (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Aside from one nitpick, it makes perfect sense to me. Certainly much better than when anything beyond a dicdef was being WP:CENSORed. El C, is it proper for Bacondrum to continue to complain about and try to influence a page he is blocked from? And right after he promised, I'm just gonna leave that page alone? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is not. El_C 05:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't read all of the above, but I want to add that I was concerned about Bacondrum's behaviour at Online shaming. He removed all the examples a few months ago, which effectively decimated the article. That was perhaps the right thing to do, but perhaps not; maybe the sections could have been shortened or something. He then continued not allowing the article to be developed. For example, he removed call-out culture and cancel culture from the lead; posted that analysis pieces were not RS; removed a link to shunning from the lead; and posted that cancel culture was "a hot term in right-wing op-eds, but it doesn't amount to much". I think a long break from the article is probably a good idea. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I won't be editing the article or commenting on it any further. Don't get to worked up about it. Bacondrum (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Bad behaviour

I report the IP 84.121.135.127 because is a crosswiki vandal (blocked in Spanish Wikipedia and Wikidata for harrasing), linked with Nicewels. The user blames some users with a bad English and various articles linked with assassins and assassinations. Taichi (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Broken-backed camel (the straw that ...)

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

---

@Porterjoh left a Level 4 warning on my talk page over a justified and appropriate (but fairly insignificant) edit I made regarding Republic of Karelia (see [31]). This did not merit a Level 4 warning -- it is a complete abuse of process, discretion, and of Wikipedia's warning protocols (see [32], [33]). As @Porterjoh, who does not deign to leave edit summaries or explanations, has refused to contact me regarding the above, I am leveling my complaint here. My talk page should not have become a multicoloured dartboard for missives from Wikipedian patrollers who clearly have trouble distinguishing between appropriate and inappropriate edits. Going now to leave {{subst:ANI-notice}} now on his or her talkpage. 2604: 2000: EFC0: 12: 7922: 1B66: 98F2: E6E1 (talk) 21: 12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Your removal of a redlink from a "see also" section is certainly not vandalism and does not merit a threat of blocking. I cannot speak for Porterjoh, but certainly it can become easy for editors using Huggle to see a user with recent warnings make a deletion with a nonspecific edit summary ("c/e") and assume the worst without checking the previous version. Usually when I delete a redlink like that, my edit summary is something like "page does not exist" or "redlink. " In the meantime, Porterjoh does owe an explanation for their warning. Ideally this could be sorted out on user talk pages, without admin involvement necessary. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21: 34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I made a huge mistake. Was my first time editing for a while. Apology posted on talk page. Porterjoh (talk) 11:48, 27 July 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 disruptive editing by User:Browniesandicecreamcake

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

This user has been repeatedly changing the infobox photos of prominent US politicians without seeking consensus over several months. They've been warned many times by several users, and have always had their edits reverted. They've been blocked twice by BD2412 for this. They've apologized for their actions on their talk page but have resumed identical disruptive editing regardless. I thought they'd finally stopped, but after a period of abstaining from this behavior, they changed Hillary Clinton's photo at both 2016 United States presidential election and Hillary Clinton today; they've been warned about those exact changes before, which is thoroughly documented on their talk page. Here's a list of diffs of their photo-changing edits: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 00:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• A minimum six-month prohibition on image changes is needed, with an automatic indef ban for any violation. The editor will remain free to make talk page proposals for image changes (within reason), but any consensus for a change must be carried out by someone else. BD2412 T 00:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note: They've very likely been editing logged-out, too, which includes photo changes. The IP apparently suspected by S0091 implicitly acknowledged this on their talk page. I don't think there's CU evidence, but the evidence around editing behavior, language, and timing of edits is about as solid as it gets. The IP was warned repeatedly about editing logged-out, and, at one point, was blocked by Ponyo for adding poorly-sourced content. I don't know if this is actionable without an SPI, but it seems relevant to the discussion. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 01:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• User:BD2412, I appreciate your attitude, which is much more gentle than mine. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd like to think that we can nudge people towards productivity, but I wouldn't be steadfastly opposed to a harder line, if the community feels one is warranted. BD2412 T 01:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and support a block limited to image changes. Another disruptive feature of their editing is their overuse of the minor edit feature, but perhaps that can be addressed separately. I get the impression that they are still acting in good faith and legitimately don't understand the problems with their editing; they appear to be trying to follow advice, albeit poorly. For example, they've started trying to sign posts, but are putting the tildes in their edit summaries. They've also started leaving comments on talk pages but are still making changes before those comments even receive replies. Recently, they've been putting "my apologies" at the beginning of their edit summaries, which I judge as a misguided attempt to exercise caution. Ultimately, disruption is disruption regardless of intent, though, and it's becoming quite burdensome to undo their changes. I hate to say it, but this editor might have a WP:CIR problem. I'd support any response stopping the disruption while allowing them to contribute constructively in some fashion. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 04:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking through their edit history again, I've decided to strike my above comment about them editing in good faith. They've been edit-warring heavily, using the minor edit feature for virtually all their edits and reverting anyone who removes their content, all without edit summaries. Particularly, they seem to be doing this a lot at pages related to The X Factor: [77]. It seems like most of this user's contributions are disruptive, and I think a block limited to image changes would not be adequate to prevent further disruption. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 07:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tartan357. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted, both under their registered account and IP, which was blocked by Ponyo for three months [78]. They have persistently reverted back to their preferred version without discussion as shown in the most recent edits [79], [80], [81], [82], even though they were provided guidance about gaining consensus by Tartan here and by BD2412 here along with being blocked twice but have yet to take guidance offered on board. The same is true for using edit summaries. I think they have already been provided enough rope but unfortunately have not shown they are willing to change their disruptive editing. S0091 (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This account was created on April 18. See all the past warnings at User talk:Browniesandicecreamcake. Their response to the warnings has been inadequate. The next step is probably an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412, Drmies, S0091, and EdJohnston: Why was this archived without any action being taken? — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 04:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea. I said my piece and stopped watching it. BD2412 T 05:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

What User:BD2412 said. But EdJohnston also agrees with a block. Here's the thing, User:Tartan357--they quit editing after Ed's comment, and blocking should not be punitive. So it's possible that they saw this and started rethinking their approach. I know, it's optimistic. But what we do have here is a report where three admins think a block might be warranted, so if they continue making such edits, there is no doubt we will block. In other words, keep an eye on it and we'll see... Drmies (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Coderdaddy1369 launching personal attacks

• Coderdaddy1369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some user may be familiar of Coderdaddy1369, as they have been blocked thrice for multiple reasons, including disruptive editing and personal attacks. Their talk is full of warnings for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Today, following a content dispute at East Bengal F.C., they went to User talk:ArnabSaha and left an extremely rude comment telling ArnabSaha: I understand you are mentally unstable, so leave the editing to us., which I have reverted. This editor clearly has nothing to contribute to the encyclopaedia and I suggest blocking them per WP:NOTHERE and WP:PA. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• I blocked them for a month, leaving this thread open to see if an indef might be more warranted, seems borderline WP:NOTHERE to me (am I going too soft... hmm...) --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. It was a very rude comment. They have been doing this since they joined as Berrely has pointed out along with disruptive editing with nothing else to contribute. Clearly there is no room for improvement. I suggest an indefinite block. Ainz Ooal Gown (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Went nearly 2 years between blocks, but this behavior is beyond the Pale. They need to understand that this is unacceptable and that an indefinite duration block is certainly justified now. They should regard this as a last chance. They edit so infrequently that they mightn't notice a 1 month block. I might lengthen it, but we have time to decide. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

  To be fair, all the warnings I see are from ArnabSaha over yesterday's edit warring. A bit of overkill on the warnings there. So probably not much more to do here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Request help with article consistently being vandalized

This SPA has been vandalizing the article Nahko and Medicine for the People. Requesting ban, or perhaps partial protection of the article due to the contentiousness of the allegations recently made against Nahko and his bandmates. Linking SPA contributions:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2604:6000:140F:802C:B10C:D9B5:2260:3E47 werewolf (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you really been editing since 2007? The IP user is removing too much content and proving a point, but the real focus of their complaint is the recently inserted unsourced allegations paragraph. Unproven allegations are one thing, which should always be treated with a great deal of caution, but unsourced allegations of this nature are simply always unacceptable. I've therefore removed the paragraph, and deleted it from the history, and taken no action against the other user. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, zzuuzz, that was a lot of sifting. Weel done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

You should see what I can achieve after I've had some morning coffee, and I'm not on a wikibreak. And if any of you are still not using WP:POPUPS, you might want to. So anyway, before anyone hastily closes this, at this time there remains on the talk page some commentary on the allegations. There's a lot of Facebooking going on, including by the subject, but I don't see a whole lot else... this is probably one of those situations where some experienced eyes will come in useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that section should be blanked. We are not FaceBook and FaceBook posturing is no substitute for for WP:RS. WP:BLP applies on talk pages as well as anywhere else. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

zzuuzz You could have said the same thing without resorting to ad hominems. There is never any call for being a jerk to other users simply for being unaware of something or making a mistake. Get off your high horse. werewolf (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling for a ban of someone with a possibly legitimate grievance is somewhat jerkish too, don't you think?--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. 1. Vandalizing an article shouldn't be a behaviour we condone. I'm surprised to see a complete lack of condemnation of this action here among administrators. 2. Is the grievance legitimate? The allegations have in fact been made, a cursory google search proves this. Whether or not the allegations are true is a separate matter, and the article never stated that they were. 3. Why would calling for the ban of an article vandalizer be jerkish? Mistaken or misinformed, sure, but jerkish? Perhaps you are using the wrong word. 4. According to your logic, it would seem that one "jerkish" action calls for a "jerkish" reaction. An eye for an eye, or perhaps stooping down to the level of another jerk. Is that really a position you wish to stand by? werewolf (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Please realise that real-world allegations of such conduct are more important than any local Wikipedia rules about vandalism. If such allegations are not supported by reliable sources as being correct then we shouldn't be repeating them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can refrain from jerk language. A lack of condemnation for doing the right thing (and you agree this is the right thing, right?) is not the same as condoning the way it was achieved. Secretly though, I admire their perseverance. It would have been better all round if they were able to successfully and tidily remove the paragraph in good faith and in accordance with policies, as they attempted to do, without being reverted as a common vandal.[83] Like it or not, whichever horse I'm sitting on, that reversion was plain wrong and not expected from an experienced editor. And bottom line, with this inappropriate paragraph gone, I'd expect no more editing from this IP: good, bad, or questionable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand the point being made. I perceived the user's actions as vandalism since the allegations have indeed been made and they were attempting to conceal this fact from the article. My mistake for not realizing that this shouldn't be included in the article if the allegations aren't strongly supported. I stand by what I said earlier, however, that your language wasn't necessary. You could have let me know that I had blundered without necessarily making me feel stupid or inexperienced. werewolf (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Appealing my topic ban

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Appealing my topic ban

 – — Newslinger talk 04:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Date changing IP Vandal

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

I have seen this behavior pattern before but don't remember where. LTA? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't know of any long term abuse, but another IPv6 made similar edits... albeit a bit different. Here are there contributions. Another Ipv4 made edits right before that. Granted, these were a year ago, but it might help in figuring out who it is. I'll look through some SPIs and LTAs and see what I find. Ghinga7 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The /21 is all bad: Special:Contributions/23.169.64.0/21. Eagle Mountain, Utah. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/23.169.64.0/21 for three months after seeing a bunch of arbitrary date changing. The IPv6 user was two edit on 6 April 2020 so I took no action there. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User is acting as a bully against genealogies of monarchies

The following discussion is closed. 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 have *NEVER* seen such a bias on Wikipedia. User:Agricolae is *single-handedly* deleting swaths of information and has already been reverted and given notices by other people several times for the same reasons.

The deletions in question involve a "questionable source" for which there is a special page dedicated to that debate, and where it is confirmed by consensus albeit admitting some "uncertainty" to be a still "valid" source: the talk page of Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley.

I am dismayed at all of the information that has been removed. Here are some examples:

• The entire recent contributions page of this user is basically deletion (big bytes in red font) on similar topics, usually again pertaining to the Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley source.
• Franks: [84]
• Medici family tree: [85]
• House of Plantagenet: [86]
• William the Conqueror's family tree: diff (major link removed, this is *definitely* not acceptable for an experienced Wikipedia editor)
• History of the English line of succession: diff (The edit summary that was given for this diff is to be honest, ridiculous.)
• Mercia (pre-English kingdom) family tree: file history

Proposal: Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley has been used as a source on Wikipedia for a long time and if there are objections it must be brought up on its talk page because the consensus has already been reached in the past and unless it is formally changed then these behaviors are unacceptable. The user should no longer engage in such disruptive editing at the consequence of a community topic ban on the genealogies of monarchies.

Altanner1991 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This is absurd. The "William the Conqueror's family tree" complaint relates to a diff from 2012, and removes a link which at the time pointed to Pope Callixtus II, who was a different person than mentioned on the family tree. If a correct, 8-year old diff is what the complainant feels is "*definitely* not acceptable" and worth our time at ANI, it is their judgment I question. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

After more examination, this seems to be a content dispute over whether Otto I is a descendant of Louis the Pious, which Altanner1991 is trying to win by arguing a behavior dispute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you show where consensus was reached that Medieval Lands was a reliable source and you have informed the editor about this? If not, it is a content dispute and should be discussed at RSN. I can't see anything at RSN where it is declared reliable and in fact I voted against it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley about 8 years ago. TFD (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed the noticeboard had concluded the source was unreliable but the Cawley talk page (from later in 2012) had ended with supporters. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:29, 27 July 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.

Ritchie92

• Ritchie92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Corriebertus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• European migrant crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor Ritchie92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Rt) to my idea is disturbing and poisoning a good, constructive, respectful working atmosphere on page European migrant crisis by incessant insults and personal attacks on me there. I've asked him on his talk page, on 14 June 2020 and 1 July, to stop with such insults and personal attacking, but so far he denies committing them, so I'd like a statement now from the Wikipedia moderators, telling him to stop such attacks.

1. Rt’s personal attacks on me started on Talk:European migrant crisis on 27 March 2020(14:30) where he accuses me of being “really dishonest” for removing certain reference sources from the article. But there’s nothing dishonest in that removing edit: it was openly, clearly and honestly presented and motivated in my edit summary 27March and I even repeated that removal motivation in my opening statement in the talk section (‘Requested move 27 March 2020’), to give colleagues full and fair opportunity to disagree and ofcourse to revert. Indeed, minutes before 27March14:30, Rt had reverted my edit in the article (though without refuting any of my given motivating arguments for it); but simply disagreeing with my stated opinion and motivated edit is no ground to call someone "dishonest", which therefore is an unacceptable personal attack.
2. The next incident occurred when I had placed a tag ‘citation needed’ on 4 June in the lead of ‘European migrant crisis’, including some thoughts about possible meanings of the word ‘crisis’. Instead of solving the problem the tag was signalling, Rt started this talk section, linking to my placed tag, apparently to attack me for expressing those thoughts about the word ‘crisis’. Rt stated that I “kept going with their argument” about the word crisis “not being defined as "a period (of time)"”, a denigrating (and distorted) representation of either my thoughts about the word crisis or my tag’s request for a citation. Rt thus suggested that I (annoyingly) restarted an ‘argument’ that had been discussed before, but why then didn’t he tell where that presumed earlier discussion took place? Nevertheless, he clearly also wanted to ‘prove’ that my (supposed) ‘argument’ or opinion was wrong (by citing dictionaries). So, his clear message in that posting altogether was: 'I, Rt, know meanings to the word ‘crisis’ that Cb apparently doesn’t know; this ignorance of Cb annoys me; and Cb should not hold arguments on Wikipedia that annoy Rt'. That, in its uncorroborated suggestion that Cb is abusing Wikipedia with improper (repeated) ‘arguments’, is a personal attack.
3. The next attack occurred on 13 June in an edit summary of Rt’s, (again) in article 'European migrant crisis', directly after three motivated edits of mine. Apparently, Rt objected against a new subsection header which I had motivatedly introduced in the course of further updates in the same section (which Rt apparently did not disapprove of). Such simple editing disagreements are everyday’s practice in Wikipedia articles, in fact such disagreements and further improving of each other's work on the basis of (respectful!) arguing and reasoning are the very basis and strength of the unique project that the Wikipedia (interactive encyclopedia) is or wants to be. So it's contradictory, at odds with Wikipedia philosophy, but above all unfounded, insulting and a respectless personal attack, for Rt to say in his edit summary 13 June that the colleague (Cb) who made the previous three edits has "no clue of what and how to write on Wikipedia", at the same time revert only part of those three ('clueless'!?) edits, for no more reason than a simple disagreement over one edit.
4. The comment “(…) and let's not even talk about the writing style”, on 4 June, on Rt's talk page against me, where I had politely tried to address him about what I felt as his insulting behaviour (which he denied having committed), is ofcourse yet another insult and personal attack on me. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is really hard to read, @Corriebertus: can you please gist this, and just point out the diffs where you believe you have been personally attacked (the first one is not a PA). Also, you might think Rt and Cb are proper short forms but it's just harder to keep track of, too short that it mixes with the wall of text that you posted. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
• The June 14 exchange was uncivil, the user was appropriately warned for it, and apologized. The July 1st exchange on the other hand is a bit of a tendentious incident coming from the OP. The user was bringing up an incident from nearly a month earlier, in which nothing problematic or uncivil was even said. There's not bringing up past mistakes, and then there's going out of your way to frivolously dig up some harmless incident and then label them as disruptive, even though they're not. Based on the report and links here, I see a problematic exchange which the user has already apologized for, and a bunch of irrelevant nonsense that do not support any of the accusations that have been made. From what I see, the underlying content dispute is that the OP doesn't think "migrant crisis" is appropriate terminology, while the reported user has explained that it is, based on the definitions of what a "crisis" is. This appears to be a bad faith attempt to eliminate an opponent without sufficient cause, based on petty behavioral objections. Not impressed right now. More likely to BOOMERANG the OP than to action the reported user. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would agree that if anything, this should be a boomerang. The addition of the cn tag on the "crisis" part of the title after an RM had resulted in the title being kept is verging on disruptive editing. Can fully understand why Ritchie would be frustrated in having to deal with this. It's also unclear why this has only been brought here now, given that Ritchie has not engaged with this topic for over three weeks. Number 57 22:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Hi, I share your feeling of confusion at the fact that the OP is still stuck on this matter. It looks like they got great offense by some of my (harsher) statements, also in edit summaries. It is true that some of them were the fruit of my frustration at constantly repairing and copy-editing the (in my opinion – dubious) content that the OP has been adding to the European migrant crisis article. However I apologized to the OP for my reaction already on my talk page, and I thought that was the end of it. Instead the OP kept replying once every one or two weeks, repeating over and over about my incivility, and I don't think that was going to bring anywhere, so I have not been engaging in this discussion and I don't think I should have. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

User:THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101

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

---

This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE: they have mostly made edits to their sandbox and userpage (both of which are currently tagged with U5 and may be deleted shortly) and to talk pages (disruptively) as at Talk:List of largest stars. Some example replies:

• "Whoa! WOH G64 is 2,100 solar radii??? and HV 888 only 1,300??? LOL! Sam Halls will be embarrassed seeing this ! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL Let's Discuss and mock him so he will be forced to Redo his article ! --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)"
• "Also mine.I already exceeded 300 + edits, and made a list of Users whom I surpassed in terms of Edit Numbers. I have something to tell, Reply To the comment about SpaceImplorerExplorer and an IP User who does not like extreme numbers and how they should appreciate the extremities of the universe In #RX Telescopii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)"
• "What star is that? is it RHI84 10-683 ??????? Oh My GOSH ! STEPHENSON 2-18 IS ABOUT TO LOOSE ITS TITLE AGAIN TO AN INACCURATE STAR ! I CAN'T HANDLE THIS ANYMORE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  I'm not angry.--THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)"

There's lots more on that talk page which could be helpful in this discussion. My conclusion is that this user is WP:NOTHERE and is misusing Wikipedia as a forum (at least to an extent). There are also WP:CIR issues here. JavaHurricane 04:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

What? Don't threaten Me... If yoyu do I will become toxic... Don't agitate me... I will become VERY mad. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe the above reply (which I consider a threat) perfectly demonstrates my point. See also [87] and [88] for more. JavaHurricane 04:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Im Going to delete Everything. BYE. --THE COLOSSAL GALAXY NAMED IC1101 (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Their replies here really tell me everything I need to know...but looking at their contribs its mostly garbage. I have NOTHERE'd them, they are welcome to format a reasonable unblock request, but I'm not holding out hope. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threats from 2020Editor

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

---

2020Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Legal threat and here. I dropped them a warning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

lblocked. I just don't think a warning is enough, in this case. If they categorically withdraw the legal threat, they may be unblocked. El_C 00:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Noting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dubai knowsitsall --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:14, 28 July 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.

Is InternetArchiveBot malfunctioning?

Special:Contributions/InternetArchiveBot. Seems to be placing non-existent or foreign language templates all over the place. Adam9007 (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Adam9007, I've temp blocked in meantime but this is far from my area of expertise so anyone please unblock if there's a better solution. In the meantime pinging @Cyberpower678: and @Kaldari: for feedback? Glen 03:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Glen, I've reverted all instances of {{Lidhje e thyer}} in articles I can find, but I haven't touched the foreign-language messages the bot left. Adam9007 (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Lidhje_e_thyer still has a half-dozen (other than this here discussion:) DMacks (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

DMacks, They should all be gone now. Thanks. I'd missed those. Adam9007 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I made a change to the Albanian wiki (sqwiki) configuration and it seems to have overwritten the enwiki cfg with the Albanian cfgs. Weird. Thanks for the halt and cleanup. -- GreenC 04:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle internetarchive bot.

The thing is posting...well, look for yourselves. Qwirkle (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, See above :). Adam9007 (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Merged into above. SQL^{Query me!} 04:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Riku maina and NOTHERE

Riku maina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user appears to be obsessed with various Manchester United F.C. players past and present, and continues to add content to the lead section of articles such as Ryan Giggs, Denis Law, Ruud van Nistelrooy and Michael Carrick despite the objections of other editors. I have attempted to contact the user on their talk page, but despite having edited on Wikipedia since January 2019, their only edit to a talk page in that time was to their own talk page, making a spurious claim about having a reliable source for their edits, which has never been the issue as far as I can see. Given that they are clearly WP:NOTHERE to collaborate on building an encyclopaedia, I think it's about time they were blocked from editing. – PeeJay 10:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the edits largely constitute FANCRUFT and whilst some content might be suitable elsewhere in those articles, not in the lede. Their refusal to use edit summaries or engage, and their repeated editing pattern, means that a block would be suitable. GiantSnowman 10:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Editor without willingness to learn

The editor The kan123 has repeatedly added endorsements of living people to the article List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. I have given then 2 warnings on their talk page and editor MelbourneStar gave them 3 warnings. The my continued to edit without responding except by saying “ you’re annoyingly” in response to my most recent warning where I had to revert two of their edits. I have encouraged them and given them links to the tea house, the endorsement page, as well as my talk page where I offered to help. It also appears that they misused their user page as it was deleted with a warning stating that they did not follow Wikipedia guidelines. While this editor seemed to make one or two genuine edits, they do not seem willing to learn/improve and their uncivility makes me believe they are not here to help the project of Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The user has just three edits outside of that article, and they border on bad-faith edits (see [89], [90]). I also believe this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. The kan123, I strongly recommend politely and patiently explaining your actions here, because refusing to talk to other editors except to call them annoying will not get you far. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit: @Lima Bean Farmer:, please amend your notification of the user. It says the discussion is at AN, not ANI. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely concur with Lima Bean Farmer and Jprg1966; editor seems unwilling to get the point and at the very least, read WP:ENDORSE which is crystal clear -- let alone describe their edits in an edit summary or to adequately respond to queries. Labeling a good faith editor as "annoying" is the icing on the cake. If The kan123 is unable/unwilling to adequately respond to this, I too, believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia - collaborative or otherwise. Regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I took a look at the deleted userpage. It turns out it was created and then edited (with childish nonsense) by the now blocked DaltoReborn on 13 July. According to Ponyo, a checkuser, DaltoReborn is a confirmed sock of DaltoUprising.[91] I conclude that The kan123 is one too, though I suppose there may be about 1% doubt about that. Not sure whether to block as a sock or per WP:NOTHERE. Ponyo, what do you say? Bishonen | tålk 16:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: technically it's  Inconclusive with large ranges and common UAs involved, so much so that I'd feel more comfortable a block coming based on their individual behaviour as opposed to tying them to the DaltoUprising group.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much, Ponyo. On second thoughts NOTHERE might be overly harsh. I have partially blocked the user for a week from List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements for persistent uncollaborativeness. Giving them "annoying" warnings or advice is obviously pointless. Bishonen | tålk 19:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

IS 7 foolery

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

---

someone messed with the IS 7 wikipedia article

making it say in action "It became a war tank in the 1809's from way back in the 1620 they had war that was included the is7"

iduno who did it or if i am even reporting this right i just wanted to make that little foolery known?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.27.237.11 (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Y Thanks for reporting this. It looks like it’s been sorted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:15, 28 July 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.

Snooganssnoogans

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

---

Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) has accused two editors of stalking their edits without proof and made personal attacks.

• I reverted his numerous changes to January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation made by Snooganssnoogans and had yet to be able to chime in at the talkpage when he showed up both on that article talk and at my userpage with: "Do not stalk me and indiscriminately revert me, as you did on January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation (a page you've never edited before). You restored a bunch of completely indefensible content, including recently added citations to deprecated sources (such as RT) and a crap op-ed in the lead that accuses progressives of being anti-Catholicism. Your behavior on that page is a disservice to the Wikipedia project."[92] Telling me my "behavior on that page is a disservice to the Wikipedia project" is ridiculous. I reviewed his changes, reverted myself and then examined each of his changes on the article talkpage, where he has yet to even bother to chime in since. I even agreed with some of his changes. He doesn't own pages, sorry.[93]
• Here he accuses another editor of stalking them [94]. As he is on a 1RR restriction he alerts others about a "stalker revert"[95], then refers to the same editor as engaging in "creepy harassment"[96].

I am tired of these kind of bad faith accusations. I initially did not agree with Snooganssanoogans changes, reverted them but then restored and analyzed them. I don't need to be accused of stalking and have my edits accused of being a "disservice to the Wikipedia project". That's bullshit and I am calling Snoogansnoogans on it.--MONGO (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of stalking (based on looking at the linked page and its talk page), nor do I see indiscriminate reversion (explanations were given in the edit summaries. Obviously, I'm not commenting where I stand content-wise). I agree that accusations of stalking should not be used lightly. Snooganssnoogans, if you have diffs that show that MONGO is stalking you, please provide them. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Shortly after I made a series of edits to the page, you indiscriminately reverted all of my edits (which included restoring deprecated sources and a ludicrous statement in the lead which accused progressives of being anti-Catholicism). You had never edited the page before nor commented on the talk page. The combination of no verifiable history on the page coupled with the ludicrous nature of the revert led me to accuse you of stalking me to the page. Since you say that you watchlisted the article[97] and given that others are vouching for you[98], you have my sincere apologies for the false accusation. As for Malerooster, that editor is 100% stalking me, as shown by the diffs here (which includes editing on very obscure pages)[99]. The behavior of Malerooster, coupled with numerous editors in the past who were 100% confirmed to hound me and warned by administrators for doing so (incl. Winkelvi, SashiRolls and James J. Lambden), sheds light on why I may have been too eager to accuse you of stalking. It is a reason, not an excuse. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You lost me at "ludicrous nature of the revert". This is Wikipedia and sorry but your edits are not all gold and unworthy being "edited mercilessly" Wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content and once you hit publish changes, they do not belong to you nor to me.--MONGO (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I did not realize this was a common thing. It recently happened with me when I reverted them at Tyson Foods.[100] PackMecEng (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• You did stalk me to that page. Two minutes after responding to me on the admin noticeboard[101], you followed me to the page (which you had never edited before), only to revert me in full and make sure that the lead of the article no longer summarized the body of the article[102]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Like Mongo that page was on my watchlist for a long time and never got around to editing it. In my past life I used to be in the food packaging industry, that is the Pack in my username. The timing is because that is when I got back to my computer and saw my watchlist. PackMecEng (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I think you should stop posting the 'please stop stalking and reverting me indiscriminately' accusation in general. There are many ways an editor you're familiar with from having opposing views might wind up editing the same page you do. Even following your edits doesn't necessarily make them stalkers. There are a couple of people whose edits I occasionally follow out of curiosity and it has occurred that I've changed or reverted their edits. That doesn't make me a stalker nor have any of the victims ever accused me of being one. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess one relevant distinction is whether you're being reverted in order to needle, provoke, intimidate, skunk you, or whether you're being reverted because the reverter believes it is the better version for an encyclopedia. Ultimately, only the reverters can answer this, but I don't sense any creepy stalking with MONGO or PackMecEng's edit(s). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The beauty of editing on American politics-related pages is that every single substantive addition of content can be reverted with the justification "WP:NPOV". In the past when I've been 100% confirmed to have been stalked, admins only acted when the stalkers went to non-politics-related pages to continue the harassment (e.g. Winkelvi[103], SashiRolls[104]). Was it not stalking before that point just because the editors could always plausibly argue "NPOV" every time that they reverted me in US politics-editing? This is not a defense of baseless accusations of stalking –I'm just pointing out that in practice, someone intent on stalking someone else in American politics-related editing could do so without ever falling afoul of the standard you set. If I were intent on nullifying someone else's editing in a controversial sphere of Wikipedia, I could follow them around (which you say is alright), act civilly and cite Wiki guidelines in all my reverts, and tie the other editor up on the talk page. It would serve the goal of nullifying the other editor's contributions, wasting their time and annoying them, but it would not cross any red line in terms of stalking (as you would define it). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean, yet I definitely don't equate MONGO and PackMecEng's behaviour with Winkelvi and SashiRoll's, not by a long shot. I don't think you're being followed around like that by MONGO and PackMecEng. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• MONGO, it sure looks like WP:OWN to me. The same with PackMecEng so he doubled down - with two different articles. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 01:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  No, it's not about WP:OWN. It's about the same groups of editors, allocated on two sides, battling each other over every conceivable instance where they stand opposed on whatever political spectrum you choose. It's tedious. It's tiring. It's unproductive. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• This bad faith reaction on Snoogan's part is a reoccurring problem. In addition to MONGO and PackMecEng, GlassBones[[105]], Malerooster[[106]], Calidum[[107]] and myself[[108]] have been accused of "stalking" in the last few months. Additional editors have been accused of stalking in the recent past; Toa Nidhiki05[[109]], Dy3o2[[110]], 84percent[[111]], KidAd[[112]]. The common theme is Snoogan's makes a lot of edits. Many of those edits are POINTy and not in frequently low quality. Not long ago Snoogan's was the subject of an ANI for edit warring when others objected to such edits [[113]]. Part of that sanction included a civility warning from Awilley. Note that the "additional editors" were accused prior to that Nov 2019 ANI. Ultimately Snoogan's feels they are righting great wrongs by patrolling many pages and preventing the POV edits from making it to articles[[114]]. All the while they are ignoring their own similar edits. Other editors take a look at something Snoogans has done, see the problematic nature of the edits and revert. That fails to meet WP:HOUND. However, accusing others of hounding rather than reflecting on the reoccurring problems with Snoogan's own edits is also a problem. Being a prolific editor isn't a benefit to Wikipedia if many of those edits result in lower quality or less neutral/impartial articles. If Snoogan's can recognize the problem with their own edits then perhaps they shouldn't be making those edits. Springee (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Only commenting because my name was invoked, and I'll try to keep it short. Springee's assessment above is (partly) correct. Snooganssoogans is a very prolific editor and mainly edits within the American politics (post-1932) subject area. I believe Snoogans is a fundamentally productive contributor, who is willing to "get down in the weeds" and edit the pages of conspiracy theorists, fringe thinkers, far-right provocateurs, and other abhorrent individuals. After spending significant time in that corner of American politics, it's only natural that one believes others may be targeting them. Snoogans has been the target of harrassement and hounding, off- and on-site. (See this google search) for a taste. Taking a glance at the interaction tool between Snooganssoogans and MONGO, it becomes clear that the two interacted on talk pages – discussing controversial subjects – prior to the alleged stalking. It is not difficult to notice a user pop up on talk pages or page histories a few too many times and think "is this more than a coincidence?" KidAd (💬💬) 02:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Odd because his name does pop up on many pages on my watchlist yet I rarely if ever bother to edit those pages or engage them in discussion. Over the past couple years I can think of 2 times we exchanged a conversation about content directly one on one. I go to those pages and make an edit and both times am attacked....accused of stalking him, told my edits are ludicrous, am told I am "edit warring" after I make ONE revert of his edit...[115].--MONGO (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

How is it that I, mostly an observer of articles on current American politics, am less astonished on this particular clash. I don't buy it. Please be more sincere, then we might actually achieve a step forward in this boring battle. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to roll out my Wiki-resume and edit history to show this editor and I have only had a tiny few exchanges but when they do always start off with him assuming the worst of me. Even the pages we may comment on we are not "talking" with each other. I just checked the talkpage for the Donald Trump article and I don't see us conversing directly...I could be mistaken of course. I go and revert him twice and am attacked...apparently this is a ongoing pattern of which I am but one person to have had this experience of him telling editors they are stalking him etc.--MONGO (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

They don't even bother to respond to me after I make a comment. In the two times I can think of us "discussing" anything, he posts his inflammatory tirade then I respond and he never comes back. Does he expect me to offer him a pink unicorn to cuddle by in my wording or just turn the other cheek. I'm not posturing for an admin run so why the hell would I put up with his bad faith accusations?--MONGO (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see my username invoked as I haven't been active on Wikipedia in a while. There are editors that I have had disagreements with; I've even learned from them and apologized, but Snoog is by far the most aggressively mean-spirited editor I have come across - Snoog is a bully. We need diverse people to contribute and balance each other out on these articles, but Snoog's continual lashing out at people make apparent that their biases are so large they don't believe they should be subjected to Wiki's checks and balance system. Snoog does not engage in good faith dialogue and is not afraid to quickly escalate any interaction to demoralize any new contributor they disagree with. I know some have commented on some of Snoog's merits, but frankly, editors like Snoog tarnish the brand and authority of Wikipedia. Dy3o2 (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• So we have some edits by snooganssnoogans, a revert by mongo, a hasty accusation by snoogans, a restoration of some of the edits (and discussion) by mongo, and here an apology by snoogans for the accusation. Then we have a whole bunch of other inevitable stuff complete with pings of many people who have been in disputes with snoogans in the past (I'm not saying those pings were inappropriate btw). There seems little doubt that snoogans has been stalked by multiple people in the past. There is also little doubt that snoogans is being too quick to assume as much. How about this for a close to avoid a potentially long, heated thread: "The issue that brought us here is resolved and discussed on the talk page. All editors are reminded that stalking other editors' edits is unacceptable, and snoogans is cautioned to be careful with accusations of stalking." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I fully reverted myself and have not restored anything. No, I think Snooganssnoogans needs a site ban but that will only come with a full arbcom case.--MONGO (talk) 04:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I fully reverted myself and have not restored anything - This is what I meant by "restoration of some of [snoogans'] edits". Perhaps I should've said all. I wasn't saying you did anything wrong at all FWIW. I do agree with one thing, though: a sprawling ANI thread with various people bringing up old issues is unlikely to accomplish anything, especially when the matter that prompted it is more or less resolved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I personally would not say mine is old. Also it demonstrates a long term issue that does not seem to be addressed. PackMecEng (talk) 04:45, 29 July 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.

Hmkwfrance

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

---

Hmkwfrance has been editing for a few months and has mostly focused on Dawoodi Bohras and related articles, particularly people involved with that group. They've got significant issues around using sources, understanding what is a reliable source, understanding notability and recently, copy-paste from sources. They've been previously blocked on Commons for copyright issues after uploading multiple images and claiming as "own work". Most of the articles they've created have been moved to draft space, but today started recreating them in article space Qasim Hakimuddin vs draft:Qasim Hakimuddin, Ammar Jamaluddin vs Draft:Ammar Jamaluddin. Every single article they've created has had significant issues, even the new ones having basic sourcing problems like dates of birth. They're turning into a major time-sink. I'd like some outside review on this. I'd like to see them allowed only to create new article via draft at a minimum. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. It's time for the user to assure us they are able to absorb WP:COPYVIO so as to self-correct. El_C 13:54, 29 July 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.

Overly-long title shortened

Original title: "Repeated Warnings on My Talk Page From Other Editors - For Reasons Which Seem Either Ambiguous or Petty/Innocuous (not fully explained) Please Block ME FROM EDITING or Let Them Know to be Civil and Polite"

I am getting scolded and reprimanded on my talk page, I've got two warnings now. I do not clearly see why, specifically what rules are to be followed (that I'm not following), I'm not being given any opportunity to make amends, or apologize, and I'm feeling like it's harassment. To be clear, these problems are coming from several other editors, making me doubt that it's them, I have to admit, it is probably me, but they won't take the time nor do they have the wherewithal to make it clear why it's wrong, what it is, how to correct it. From my perspective I do not as yet clearly see how I'm out of line. Please review my situation, either BLOCK ME ENTIRELY from Wikipedia - since I'm such a horrible editor and have used up so many other editors' precious time and patience, or please let the other editors know that I'm trying my best and to desist, I'm losing my composure. When I go to the Teahouse, one of the editors complains continually, and tells me my entries are too long, and I suppose they're too hard to read perhaps? I don't know. The editor advised me to stay away from the Teahouse and not spend time there. This editor keeps writing about losing his patience with me. Another editor writes in ambiguous aphorisms that I'm unable to clearly understand, and I'm really not that experienced at this (Wikipedia). I've been trying to clear some things through the talk pages, and the feedback is just getting derailed and hijacked by other editors, who fail to directly respond to my entreaties. Then, they are complaining that I'm spending all my editing time in the talk pages and not on an article - when the discussion on the talk pages have stultified, without conclusion. So instead of continuously warning me, please do this. Cut me off completely from Wikipedia. Or, please keep these people from treating me so coldly, if that's in any way possible. If you think the answer is to set certain pages off limits to me, I'm not comfortable with that, I'd rather be an equal editor (from my IP address) I don't feel comfortable "staying away" from pages, just because other editors are too tired to directly respond to me or read my entreaties and stay on track with me. That's not a good reason for me to "stay away" from a page's talk section. If I were personally attacking or editing out other people's topics or obviously vandalizing pages, then, that would make sense, but this is not what is going on at all. If possible would a disinterested party get into contact with me - and if it means more scolding then PLEASE just BLOCK my IP and have done with it. (I am not comfortable mentioning names yet, maybe this is just me over reacting, I did read the header that says I need to inform the other editors and provide links; if you aren't blocking me after reading this & if you think I need to get the links and inform the other editors, then let me know, I see no reason that I shouldn't, but I'm not experienced at Wikipedia and I don't even know if this is the right place for this message - AGAIN-I HAVE BEEN WARNED NOT TO USE THE TEAHOUSE ANYMORE). Thanks for reading this, if you've gotten this far. I hope you don't freeze out my IP, but if you do, then please continue to make Wikipedia a great website and keep up the good work. No hard feelings. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oy vey, בס״ד. You flood the article talk pages with multiple, lengthy comments —like the above, for example, with it's excessive one-paragraph wall of text and excessive section header— without acquainting yourself with the basics, still. Yes, there is a limit to our collective patience. And still, you have not been sanctioned, which is a testament to the project's welcoming nature. El_C 23:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

בס״ד is not their name, it's part of their signature. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware. And yet it helps me remember, because... words. El_C 23:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought that was a double entendre joke, "Oy vey, with the help of Heaven", and I laughed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It can be two things! El_C 11:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are you having fun at someone else's expense, El C and Levivich? Bus stop (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm friendly with בס״ד. They have not shown they take offense to the nickname so far throughout multiple encounters. It's not making fun of them, it's lightening up an unfortunate situation. El_C 14:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Great opportunity to use the {{FBDB}} template, El C!^{[Confused editor?]} EEng 05:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• If 172.250.237.36 wants to stop editing Wikipedia, then 172.250.237.36 should just stop editing Wikipedia. If 172.250.237.36, for reasons many of us will understand, can't stop themself from coming here, then a short block might be helpful in breaking the habit. Otherwise I see no need for administrative action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked for 72 hours for persistently wasting the time and patience of constructive editors, which is Wikipedia's most precious resource. I know I'm like a broken record with the "precious resource" thing. Bishonen | tålk 11:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC).

  A search of the phrase "most precious resource" shows that either (a) this is Wikipedia's most-plagiarized phrase or (b) you've got a lot of sockpuppets. EEng 05:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • In my opinion 172.250.237.36 was treated shabbily by very experienced editors long before they were blocked. Bus stop (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    • It's a pity then that you weren't there weeks ago to help them along, and that so many others wasted so much of their time--and getting it all wrong, apparently. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, the clubbiness of "regulars" leave little room for newcomers to fit in. Bus stop (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
        • @Bus stop: I looked at the IP talk page and saw a lot of FORUM stuff, but also saw they were having a tough time navigating the waters. Do you have any diffs where they were treated shabbily? I would like to assist this IP if it is worth it, although they do have a TLDR habit. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Bison X—my hope is that experienced editors will stop trying to frustrate the efforts of inexperienced editors. Wikipedia is not about winning. Bus stop (talk) 20:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
            • No, Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. How did the IP help to do that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
              • You are asking: how did they help to build the encyclopedia? One of many examples: User talk:Bus stop#Attempted Arrest Errors - Talk Item Updated. Constructive suggestions help to build the encyclopedia. In my opinion experienced editors lend a helping hand to inexperienced editors. They do so by taking the inexperienced editor's suggestions seriously and demonstrating the guidelines that apply to edits that are being contemplated. Bus stop (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• I sympathize with new users struggling to find their bearings, but aggressively asserting oneself in a variety of contentious articles and flooding talk pages with spammy forum-y or bludgeon-y or tldr posts is disrutpive, it wastes editors' time and inhibits constructive communication on the talk page. It's all the worse if you're a new user who doesn't know what they're doing. This IP may not have been treated the best but looking at their talk page many editors spent a significant amount of time trying to coach them and help set them on the right path. Really the effort people have been putting into this user is a bit absurd when there's no indication that any of it is getting through to them. Good block. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Impersonation of an admin to close an AfD

User:Fish end karete closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simply Nailogical after only one vote! and after only 5 days. Clicking on their user name redirects to User: Fish and karate who is an admin. This is clearly a deliberate impersonation of an admin in order to protect a page where the user has some interest in preserving. The account claims to be a doppleganger account of the genuine admin but there is no evidence on the admin user page or talk page of any such account. The knowledge of AfD processes, use of doppleganger accounts etc suggests a sock. All edits from this account have been today.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It would have been easy to rollback these changes if MusikBot II's FixPP task hadn't been abused to prevent rollback. I have disabled the task in Special:Diff/969944700 and informed MusikAnimal about the issue now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ach, so! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

All the blocking, deleting, reverting and protecting looks done now. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro Developers is clearly the focus of this sock drawer's attention. Cabayi (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree, thank you. I noticed this the other day, how this ahole exploited that little loophole. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

And they're back. Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Code page 875 Hog Farm _Bacon 11:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Well, under a different name at least. Must be a sock or two left in the drawer. Might be worth having a checkuser determine if it's all the same IP and if it can be account creation blocked without collateral damage. Hog Farm _Bacon 11:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It is Kingshowman, and also the new one today has already been dealt with very efficiently. --T*U (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

User Visioncurve / Anthony J. Tata entry

The following discussion is closed. 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 can find no way to contact Visioncurve. I went to his page and there is no way to contact him.

In discussing Tata's school board service, the article used "democratic majority" instead of "Democratic majority." The majority was from the Democratic Party, not those holding democratic beliefs. I edited pitalized Democratic.

The school board dismissed him because of concerns over his leadership style. The article put quotation marks around "leadership style," a common way of negating a term used by an adversary. This is inappropriate and prejudicial for a Wikipedia article.

User Visioncurve undid my edit, saying it "was not constructive," and re-edited democratic with a small "d" and replaced the quotation marks.

This user Visioncurve should be investigated to determine that he is really who he says he is, and not a Russian troll sewing dissent in the U.S., and he should be removed from his position at Wikipedia for his prejudicial conduct, and sent back to from wherever his immigrant ancestors came (figuratively speaking). This kind of behavior taints the respectability of Wikipedia.

John King, age 77, Denver, Colorado USA, a Savage from Virginia, the oldest immigrant family in America, and descendant of Wahunsenacawh, Mamanatowik of the Powhatan Nation (Chief Powhatan), and descendant of Rollo, first Duke of Normandy, who established the Rule of Law in the West. I love my country and the Rule of Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.208.30.69 (talk)

IP editor, if you wish to contact Visioncurve, leave a message on his talk page and start a new section with one of the buttons at the top of the page. Please assume good faith of other editors until there is sufficient evidence otherwise. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Mr King, first of all, let me put your mind at ease and assure you that my revert has nothing to do with the Russians (I feel sad that this phrase passed its peak of popularity...). The sole intention of my revert was to remove the question: (who was his second wife?) you had posted at the bottom of the "Personal life" section of the article, which was indeed not constructive (next time, please use article's talk page if you have any questions regarding an article). As for that "Democratic majority" phrase, to tell the truth, I still don't quite understand how my revert actually had an impact on that as well, as I clearly remember that I saw only the above-mentioned edit in the "Personal life" section. I think that should be put down to the fact that there was almost no time between your first and second edit, and unfortunately, my revert accidentally nullified them both. Keep well and stay safe! Thanks! Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 10:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

sent back to from wherever his immigrant ancestors came

I think this rather racist comment from the IP has been overlooked in the above rant. That alone deserves a WP:BOOMERANG. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

IP: this isn't a serious complaint, it's a rant, larded with a weird xenophobic insult and concluding with a very odd claim of...what? patriotism? Who gives a damn who the hell you descended from? No one will claim to be descended from the garçon de pis, and yet... Anyway, I don't know why you weren't able to edit User talk:Visioncurve. Try clicking "edit". Then, all this Russian troll stuff, just drop it. It looks silly. Anyway, you were right about the D and wrong about the quotation marks--quotation marks are also used to, ahem, indicate that something is a quotation. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies:, @HandThatFeeds:, guys, please don't bother, just leave him alone. He is 77 years old, and that should tell you the whole story... --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 10:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

And what is the purpose of that bigoted remark? A perwson's age is no indication of their intelligence, and a stupid remark could just as easily be made by a 27-year-old as a 77-year-old. This agism is no more acceptable than the apparent racism in the original comment. RolandR (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Descendent of Rollo, First Duke of Normandy. Since that was over 1,000 years ago, 40 generations ago, statistically 1/4 of the planet is a descendent of Rollo. Canterbury Tail talk 12:26, 29 July 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.

95.145.94.68

An IP alerted me to another possible IP Vandal and potential disrespectful/rude behaviour towards the administrators (who for the record has not recieved four warnings) at my talk page:

"Hello Good sir PTO. Here’s the issue I’m talking about. User Special:Contributions/95.145.94.68 is continuously vandalises the pages of coronation street characters list and the Emmerdale characters list. Can somebody please ban him? He’s also swearing at June Gloom and bullying him and other administrators if they’ve delete his vandalism, using threatening behaviour, can you get somebody to take care of him please? Check out what he’s doing 2A02:C7F:5063:FA00:10CF:E997:1DA:DBDF(talk) 21:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)"

Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC).

Note that this IP was reported to WP:AIV here [116], but due to a backlog, it was removed by a bot for being stale. As one of the editors who has been targeted by them, some action would be most welcome. - JuneGloom07 Talk 17:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This editor has now switched to two other IPs [117], and this one just tried impersonating myself and another editor [118] & [119]. - JuneGloom07 Talk 15:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ivan Humphrey

I am concerned with the behaviour of user:Ivan Humphrey – edit warring and uncommunicativeness. They came to my attention when they marked Analogical models as American spelling. I reverted this as it was not an exclusively American subject and some British spellings are found on the page. I then noted that the user had been on a bit of a spree with this and reverted a few more (admittedly, some of them might have been more justifiable – one generated a discussion at Talk:Analog computer#ENGVAR). I stopped reverting at that point and requested the user explain the criteria they were using [120]. There has been no response to this request, other than the user edit warring the notices back in to some articles [121][122][123]. This was done with Twinkle rollback without using an edit summary, contrary to both WP:Rollback and WP:Twinkle. I suggest the user is banned from using Twinkle for rollback as they are clearly misusing it and not acknowledging that. SpinningSpark 12:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Come on, pal. I just add AmE template in articles/titles strongly use AmE spelling, such as 'analog', color, etc. Ivan Humphrey (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not about whether you were right or wrong in assigning those articles to American English. It is about your edit warring and misuse of rollback. SpinningSpark 16:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ivan Humphrey: Hmmm. I'm afraid your response does not engender confidence. Could you please elaborate on your use of TWINKLE/rollback? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Well Television has been tagged a American English on the talk page for over 4 years now, so the reversion of the tag being added to the main article was unwarranted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to de-rollback Ivan Humphrey. Lack of accountability. (That does not just apply to ADMINS when admin-type pow er tools are misused.) Is there a mechanism to de-TWINKLE as well, or just ban its use. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It used to be possible to forcibly remove it in the days when it was added as code to the user's js page, but not sure that that can be done now its a gadget. Possibly something clever in js can be done on the user's Twinkle preferences page, but probably not worth the effort. SpinningSpark 23:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

An instance of racial harassment / attack?

This is my first posting to an admin noticeboard so please be patient if this is in any way a violation of protocol.

Recently I was targeted as "a black wikipedian, of course" by an IP user here: [124] Is this an instance of racial harassment or attack warranting further action beyond the warning for derogatory language which I left on the IP's talk page? Further, should I take it upon myself to delete it or should I wait for an admin to scrub it completely from the page history? I wouldn't want to overreact but I am also concerned that a message like this, full of shouting and unfounded accusations of "black hate", be allowed to remain and possibly alienate editors of color. Note that I had engaged with this IP range on that talk page in the past, but this latest screed represents a marked escalation. (Please note too that I left a similar question at User_talk:Ian.thomson yesterday. I am not trying to forum shop here, just trying to be proactive about addressing the issue ASAP.)

Many thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Generalrelative:, you should be commended for your restraint, and your choice to open an ANI discussion seems perfectly proper to me. It would be for an admin to decide, but the talk page comment added by the IP could qualify for "revision deletion," or scrubbing. There is no uniform policy on removing personal attacks, but out of boldness I have done so in this case. Anyone who feels strongly against that action is free to revert. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Bloody Hell! Revdel'd-- hate speech. Anon blocked one week- hate speech. Zero tolerance. @Generalrelative: If such recurs, feel free to contact me directly and post here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Generalrelative (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

And if Deepfriedokra is not around, feel free to ask me for help - racist attacks like that are intolerable. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Any further action possible? Leaving a strong warning to the IP owner? Blocking this IP from doing any edits for, say, the coming month? Jnyssen (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, Boing! said Zebedee You might want to look at a range block? The specific IP that DFO blocked only edited once, it seems clear from the talk page conversation above that the same person was editing from a range of IPs. The /64 might do it? I'm on mobile, so can't easily investigate, and am a bit of an amateur at IP ranges, but it would be worth looking at. GirthSummit _(blether) 04:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The /56 has some incivil trollish edits --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

which also show up in the /64. IMA makea rangeblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC) 2 weeks to avoid collateral damage. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

31.208.20.48

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

I first noticed this IP's suspicious behavior after they made their first edits to The Fandom over an hour after I had created it. After looking through their contributions, this appears to be a long-term problem, with various disruptive violations of WP:ELNO and WP:REDNOT. User has refused to discuss. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

23.120.104.213

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor using the IP 23.120.104.213 removed description (here of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an antisemitic forgery with an edit summary opinion language. This is an encyclopedia not a jewish propaganda site on the article Nesta Helen Webster. The user also vandalised Whiteness studies to change the lead sentence here to begin Whiteness studies is the racist study of the imaginary structures that produce white privilege to make excuses for the poor performance and inherent intellectual abilities of minorities. The rest of the IP's edits consist of quickly-reverted unsourced additions to BLPs identifying their families as Jewish.

It feels pretty clear that the editor is single-purpose, tendentious, racist and antisemitic. (Apologies if I've reported this on the wrong board!) Ralbegen (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:21, 30 July 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.

Removing sources from multiple articles with bogus edit summaries

RHuns97 (talk · contribs); needs administrative attention. Looks like WP:NOTHERE. Requesting a block and reversion of their edits. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

BLocked until the give a decent explanation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I've reverted a few dozen, and would appreciate someone with better tools taking care of the remainder. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I also rolled back all of the edits that were still live. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, thank you again. I saw that after I posted here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

SantiagoRamosPhysio

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

---

• SantiagoRamosPhysio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 146.199.83.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• McKenzie method (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SPA who started engaging in personal attacks from his first edit.

As a self-described "Physiotherapist with 18 years of experience... trained in the McKenzie Method"[125] there is an obvious COI.

COI edits:[126][127]

Personal attacks:

• "Oh, so you decide which research articles are worth summarising properly and which ones aren’t? I’m so glad you’re here to protect the rest of us plebs from information you don’t agree with! You and your pals are clearly enjoying your power trip. Personally, I’ve greatly enjoyed putting you down, but I have better things to do with my life, so I'll try to think of other ways to make this right (mostly out of principle) and perhaps come back one day. Or not. Entitled trolls like you are what give Wikipedia a bad name. Enjoy the afterglow! You are the winningest of all the winners and not at all pathetic! (And PLEASE correct me once more because I wouldn’t want to deprive you of another orgasm."[128]
• "You and your friends are coming across as more interested in proving your point than in cooling things down, and you seem to have absolutely no interest in actually updating and improving the article. As it stands, this Wikipedia page is incredibly misleading. I feel bad for the people who were trying to update it, it looks like you’ve bullied them into submission and punished them by making the article even worse than when they started trying to update it. I had no idea Wikipedia worked this way, it really makes me question all the other Wikipedia articles out there… "[129]
• "Any neutral observer (which you absolutely aren’t, having been edit-warring this article for months)... if you’ve become the self-appointed guardian of this article, and you’re letting your pride cloud your judgment... the three of four editors that appear to be your friends who have been tag-teaming here for months... your comments make it clear that you have a HUGE interest in proving to others that you’re right, and that you know more than they do. It really does look like you’re letting your personal feelings affect your judgment, and you’re not being objective..."[130]
• "a deliberate attempt to misinterpret the conclusions of a study, and I believe it clearly shows bias, and potentially a conflict of interest or some sort of personal agenda. Some of these editors have been edit-warring for months, which leads me to believe that they're letting their personal animosity towards the people trying to update the article cloud their judgement. The fact that someone with power is letting his personal feelings affect the information presented in a Wikipedia article on a scientific matter is troubling."[131][132]

Clearly here to promote the McKenzie method and not here to build an encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 31 July 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 personal attacks and aspersions

ThymeCypher (talk · contribs) has been attacking me and casting aspersions about myself non-stop at Talk:2020 United States presidential election and other places for the whole day, and has continued to do so despite being asked to stop.

• Our first interaction was this edit where he accused me of "owning" the page because of reverting a non-consensuated edit of theirs (this revertion, btw, was in violation of the discretionary sanctions currently in force in post-1932 US election articles—namely, 1RR and the requirement to seek consensus before reinstating any edit that has been challenged—as it followed a previous revert of theirs to another user on the same content). Note that there is an ongoing RfC on the issue, so it's all but obvious that no one can make these kind of edits until a consensus arises and the RfC is closed (this was pointed out to them by other users as well [133]), and it's literally stated everywhere that you can even get blocked for doing so.
• I pointed this to them in their talk page, which was replied with a full-blown attack barrage both at their talk page (first by accusing me of "insulting" other users without any evidence to back it up [134]) as well as in the referred article's talk page (launching generic accusations of "voter suppression" and "media manipulation" before directly dubbing me a bully [135]; it's also implied that this comment of theirs, where they say one specific user is responsible for an absolute s**tshow of attacks, was in reference to me as well).
• I took it to their talk page where I demanded them to source where my alleged "insults" were and pointing out to them about the notices on the discretionary sanctions ([136]), but I was replied with further unproven aspersions (such as that I was continuing to boast about [my] long and bountiful contributions to the site [137], and further unproven claims that I was "insulting" and "threatening" others [138]).

• I repeteadly warned and asked this user to either stop these claims or bring them with proper evidence here to ANI, to no avail ([139] [140] [141]). I also pointed out the concerning fact that this account had been dormant for five years, then suddenly reactivated today just to POV-push their particular view of the world and how unfair it is in the ongoing RfC at Talk:2020 United States presidential election as well as to attack me everywhere as if they had a personal grudge on me, with my interactions with them being mostly-limited to having to defend myself from their attacks.
• Their latest actions have been to somehow justify themselves because of being a "newcomer" (despite the account having been created in 2006) and blanking the discussion at their talk page in its entirety ([142]). There was also this egregious comment, once again accusing me of "bullying" (and again without any evidence to back up their accusations) but where they also made the (again, without evidence) accusation that I was accusing others of "foul play" ([143]).

It should be noted that this came mere hours after I spotted an off-wiki canvassing attempt on the RfC, attempting to advocate for a particular candidate and use Wikipedia as a soapbox for their political positions (which I noted in the RfC), which in turn came after another user had to add the Notavote template because of ongoing suspicions on widespread off-canvassing ([144]). I removed the links from the page for the sake of avoiding possible negative feedbacking, since there are many new accounts being created for the sole purpose of participating in the RfC in favour of a singular candidate (though I've collected evidence as screenshots and print shots in the case it needed to be denounced at an higher stance).

While there have been many emotions and not-too-fair tactics involved throughout the RfC's progress (even seeing an attempted on-wiki canvassing which was, nonetheless, dealt with without major consequences) this barrage of personal attacks is just too much, and the fact that ThymeCypher has taken it so personally on me despite no previous interaction between the two of us, coupled with the fact that they were a sleeper account from September 2015 to today, also hints at some possible WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT issue involved; in any case, clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Impru20^talk 15:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

First off Wikipedia isn't a daycare with workers trying to resolve toybox arguments. You taking some of my broad comments personally is on you, full stop. Second off this he-said-she-said nonsense is ridiculous - you took what I said offensively but what I said was that YOU were offending others. Two wrongs do not make a right. Third, seriously, stop with the blind accusations. This is my only account. I made edits that I believe feel are important to the core mission of Wikipedia. They were made in good faith and in alignment with the current policy. This should be dropped on the basis of your blind accusations alone. ThymeCypher 16:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, you were asked to stop - so why must I? Are you the lord of Wikipedia? Seriously - this behavior is unacceptable for Wikipedia or any professional setting period. ThymeCypher 16:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

These two comments above are two perfect examples of the persistent WP:PA & WP:ASPERSION behaviour on myself that I have denounced and sourced in my opening statement. Impru20^talk 16:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Pointing out another’s personal attacks is not a personal attack. Just stop already. ThymeCypher 16:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it is, specially when such "personal attacks" are false and without evidence. Impru20^talk 16:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact I did not explicitly provide evidence is not a lack of evidence. ThymeCypher 16:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Impru20: - In the future, please don't hesitate to formally notify users of discretionary sanctions using the {{Alert}} template. Handwritten messages are not valid, no matter how detailed. As it stands now, you've reported numerous clear-cut violations for which I would not hesitate to topic ban the user, but I can't really do much because they were never templated. Oh well. I'll go ahead and alert them now, with a formal warning that they will be banned from a relevant topic area if they continue making personal attacks, casting aspersions, or committing any other violation. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Ok, understood. Thank you for your response; hopefully the behaviour will stop now that the RfC has been closed (I filled this ANI thread when it was still ongoing, not knowing it was about to come to a close), but I'll take note in case of any further such incidents in the future. Impru20^talk 17:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: The user requested to delete their whole user and talk pages (not before replying to your warning). Seems to confirm suspicions of it being a WP:SPA which has lost its purpose after the RfC's closure. I guess this thread can be closed accordingly, since the behaviour will probably not be continuing considering the aforementioned circumstances. Impru20^talk 18:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Since @ThymeCypher: has accused Impru20 of personal attacks in this thread, but without evidence, I believe there is unfinished business in this thread, and ThymeCypher should be required to produce some evidence or be sanctioned right now for the NPA vio done right here, under regular policy if not DS. If there are no diffs available, also applicable is WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (not answering simple questions). Ordinarily, I might be tempted to let the drama die out here and proceed under the DS alert that has now been given, but the user's attempt to delete their user and talk page makes me believe we would just be kicking the can down the road when it should be dealt with now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This editor's behaviour seems to have been designed to be disruptive, and the decision to delete their page and vanish is also troubling. It should be particularly troubling given their sudden appearance yesterday after nearly five years of inactivity to edit and comment exclusively on articles concerning the US presidential election.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Move dispute on Death of Luo Changqing / Killing of Luo Changqing

Yesterday User:Cold Season moved Death of Luo Changqing to Killing of Luo Changqing, claiming that the current page title resulted from a "bogus" page move back in February.[145] User:Horse Eye Jack and I disagreed (see Talk:Killing of Luo Changqing, so I moved the page back to its previous title at Death of Luo Changqing. Cold Season further disagreed and moved the page again to his preferred title and stated that he was acting per WP:BRD and Horse Eye Jack or I must open a WP:RM.

I'm aware that, regardless of whether one considers the February move part of today's "revert chain", Cold Season's latest page move would be the second time he moved the page within 24 hours despite opposition from two other editors. Since there is a possible edit warring situation, and that the WP:RM process only opens up a local discussion and thus unlikely to generate a local consensus, I'm escalating to ANI. There are two questions for which we would like outside opinion:

• Did Cold Season (or I, or any other involved editor) violate WP:BRD or any other relevant policy?
• Which page title is better? Deryck C. 17:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion this does not belong here and can be sorted out on the talk page. Perhaps the edit warring over page name needs to be addressed but I don’t think this is the forum to answer "Which page title is better?." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You should have opened a RM yourself, instead of implementing without consensus or discussion a move from the original "killing of..." title. You decided not to do so. --Cold Season (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Why edit war though? I told you before that two wrongs don’t make a right and now I’m telling you that four wrongs don’t make a right... You don’t appear to be getting the point. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Refactoring another's user talk page, and edit-warring to do so

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

---

JorgeLaArdilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on User talk:CommanderWaterford.

CW archived a discussion they had been having with JLA. JLA then reverts this (three times, in fact]).

I left JLA a semi-personalized message reminding them of WP:BLANKING. To which their response was to copy/paste my own warning back to me. And carried on edit-warring on CW's talk.

I think someone should have a word with User:JorgeLaArdilla reminding them of WP:TPO gnerally and WP:BLANKING specifically, with, perhaps, more emphasis than I've been willing/able to show.

(I have deliberately not looked into whether JLA's original complaint to CW was sound; CaptainWaterford has come under admin scrutiny recently ([146],[147],[148]) but he should enjoy the same "rights" on his talk page as the rest of us.) ——Serial 12:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like CommanderWaterford incorrectly gave JorgeLaArdilla a {{uw-delete3}} warning, which JorgeLaArdilla then removed. Then there's a discussion on CommanderWaterford's talk page about this, which CommanderWaterford likewise removes (after, ironically, invoking WP:DTTR to JorgeLaArdilla who joined in 2018, which CommanderWaterford himself had just templated!). JorgeLaArdilla gets upset, removing multiple sections from their own talk page, including their 2018 welcome message. Multiple WP:TPG violations are then committed on CommanderWaterford's talk page by JorgeLaArdilla. Neither party comes across looking especially well in this exchange. Both CommanderWaterford and JorgeLaArdilla are cautioned to channel more patience in their Wikipedia interactions. El_C 13:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally agree with El C, except and I can sort of sympathize with JorgeLaArdilla getting upset and going kind of overboard. I'm very quickly losing faith in User:CommanderWaterford's ability to use RedWarn, and wonder if there's a way short of blocking him to prevent him from using it anymore. I'll leave him a note to make sure he knows that this thread is about him too; he may have assumed it's all about JorgeLaArdilla. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2020 UTC)

That's a perennial problem with the JAVA-based power tools. No easy way to turn them off (that I know of). When it's an admin-conferred privilege, it only takes the click of a button. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing his work this morning (multiple poor CSD tags, multiple false accusations of vandalism, refusing to discuss with people raising problems) and his response to my note just now, I am going to block CommanderWaterford indefinitely if he uses RedWarn again without getting consent here to do so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, see you at the Arbcom. Have a nice day. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, uw-delete3 was likely automatically selected by RedWarn. You had 3 chances to review this decision:

• On the rollback screen, you could've selected another quick rollback reason
• Normally, you have the choice to choose a number of options after rolling back, however, you had warning selected as default, which is not a problem but did remove another chance for you to review your decision.
• On the warning screen, RedWarn deliberately illustrates its selection of a warning template. You are then shown a preview of it. You then must click the button yourself to confirm this choice and submit.
• On the user talk page, if you noticed an issue, you have a 10 second (ish) timeframe to click "undo". You can go to the page history to revert this even after the issue occurs.

RedWarn is a powerful tool, this is clearly shown at the top of the RedWarn page and in WP:REDWARN/A. More care. Ed6767 talk! 19:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I already left you a note on the talk page, honestly don't know what you are exactly trying to achieve by threatening me to block from using Redwarn, as I told you, wishing you anyway a nice day. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

What I am "trying to achieve" is prevent further disruption by you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Floquenbeam but you can discuss this with the arbcom in the next days, I don't have time in life for this, sorry. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I am in agreement with you, actually, which I thought was reflected in my evaluation note. CommanderWaterford, calling Floquenbeam's warning a "threat" and escalating this to Arbitration while the matter is still ongoing here at ANI, does not inspire confidence, I'm sorry to say. El_C 15:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply we disagreed. Report was about Editor A. You commented that actually Editors A and B were both at fault, which I agree with. I'm just saying that in my opinion, Editor B is more at fault, so to speak. (Floq goes and looks again at his post) Ah, I see, poor word choice on my part. Fixed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

CW: You'll just be wasting everyone's time, as ArbCom is extremely unlikely to accept such a case at this point in the process. ArbCom is the final step in dispute resolution, not step #2, and they're likely going to see Floq's actions as being well within admin discretion. In fact, I'm surprised Floq gave you another chance, I thought for sure you were going to be blocked from using RedWarn (whatever that is) in this cycle, not the next one. Maybe the fcat that you're pretty much a newbie (2 months) saved your bacon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

According to this discussion, CW disclosed that he had a prior account to both TonyBallioni and Rosguill, fyi. Some kind of clean start, perhaps. ——Serial 15:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

which they subsequently denied and demanded a cu to prove "innocence"...Praxidicae (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• indef block Misuse of power tools and lack of accountability for their use. Taking a wholly unacceptable approach to criticism, including but not limited to threatening to escalate to ArbCom when concerns are raised. Such is well within admin purview and well within the scope of ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Going back to Tony's comment at Serial Number 54129's dif's, I'd say the line has been crossed.Adding per WP:CIR and Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project --Deepfriedokra (talk)

A two-month-old account citing DTTR and knowing about ArbCom? There's a rash of well-meaning but largely inexperienced users showing up and going nuts with Redwarn, but this particular account smells a little fishy. Like a piece of dirty laundry. Grandpallama (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, in fairness to CommanderWaterford, I actually informed them of WP:DTTR a few weeks ago. El_C 17:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I do see that was a fairly big topic on their talkpage near the beginning of the month. It looks like there are other degrees of familiarity with WP processes before that which are also alarming, though. But familiarity with DTTR seems explicable. Grandpallama (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Somewhere up above it talks about this account being a WP:FRESHSTART, though I must say the successfulness of the freshstart is open to debate. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, telling an admin to take a hike and then threatening with Arbcom probably isn't what a fresh start is meant for. Is there any way RedWarn can be removed, short of blocking them?-- P-K3 (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

How many months should someone be here before they know about DTTR and ArbCom? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

In and of itself, it's not a big deal, maybe a minor red flag at most. In combination with other things, it becomes part of a suspicious pattern. Grandpallama (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama, "smells a little fishy. Like a piece of dirty laundry" - how better to discredit oneself than with such insulting comments? Ridiculous. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have been keeping a general eye on the use / misuse of RedWarn as of late, and CW is one of the users that has come across my radar a few times. I am incredibly dissapointed that even in the face of what is actually quite gentle, constructive criticism, CommanderWaterford insists on reacting to aggressively, both in general and to Floq especially. CW, I'll be frank here: This cannot end well for you. If you want to remain unblocked, even a tiny sign that you're willing to accept criticism of your actions and attempt change your behaviour would be a good place to start. Otherwise, I'd like to propose a somewhat novel solution: an indef block suspended for three months subject to their use of automated or semi-automated editing tools. I think being forced to "get their hands dirty" will demonstrate if they're really interested in contributing constructively to the project. This will both help calm the pace of their edits, and mitigate their "warn first, ask questions never" attitude without wasting much more admin time. Hopefully we can make a helpful editor out of them! -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes it's nice to be gentle with people as Alfie proposes, but this editor has made it clear on their talk page that they have no intention of listening to, let alone acting on, advice, so I don't see any resolution short of an indefinite block. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• I went ahead and blocked CW, per my previous final warning and their responses here and on their talk page: if there’s a consensus to lift it here or if any other admin thinks it was a mistake it is no longer needed, I don’t mind the block being lifted. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 31 July 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.

109.197.152.21

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

Removes stuff mainly about Kurdish but other languages as well.

• They removed text from Kurdish phonology 3 times this year
• Removed from Kurdish phonology last year as well
• Removed a Kurdish occurrence in a IPA sound page
• Removed a letter from Kurdish alphabets page, edit survived 20 days.
• They have also vandalized ku.wikipedia
• More stuff removed/useless stuff added in other language-related pages.

Been warned multiple times. This IP appears to be only used for adding incorrect information or removing important information. -- Guherto (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

About the word "vandalism"

"Their revisions appear to get reverted" is not our definition of vandalism. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Look. They remove important stuff or add useless stuff and it stays so for a few days until somebody reverts it. The reversion is not vandalism, it is correction of the vandalism to prevent further spreading of misinformation. Are you just going to let him/her continue removing important stuff/adding useless or incorrect stuff and let it stay so until somebody notices and reverts? Isn't it easier to just not allow said user to edit at all? -- Guherto (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hang on now, don't get shitty with me. I'm not defending this IP, and I'm not suggesting they've done nothing wrong. I haven't even investigated your claims. I was just trying to help you by pointing out that disruptive editing is not necessarily vandalism. This instance might be vandalism and it might not, but the mere fact that someone's edits are usually reverted does not mean it's vandalism. But if you're not interested in what we mean when we use specific terminology like "vandalism" here, then that's entirely up to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't get angry, I misunderstood you. I thought you thought this was not worth investigating because of the last sentence in my report. The "additions get reverted" was a tiny part of my report and I got annoyed when I thought that ruined the entire report. -- Guherto (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, let's tone it down. The documentation as to what vandalism is not is important to consider when remarking on edits which are deemed otherwise disruptive. El_C 17:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed the word "vandalism" from my entry. Sorry if I used it incorrectly and I hope something will be done :) -- Guherto (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by a proxy

At Talk:History of English#Requested move 31 July 2020, 36.77.92.128 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a comment that copied a sentence from mine almost verbatim. This caught my attention as a possible attempt at creating an impression of canvassing or puppetry. Then I realized another IP from the same range, 36.77.92.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), had spuriously added a bunch of articles as subjects of the RM despite the OP's (Soumya-8974) intention. 36.77.93.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also clearly the same person, cleaning up after 36.77.92.121.

36.77.92.121 and 36.77.93.19 test quite poorly on IPQualityScore. There clearly seems to be an attempted disruption, but I can't quite pin down what kind or by whom. But I think the range is worth looking into and should at least be blocked on the basis of being an open proxy. Nardog (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Block the IPs. They have disrupted my requested move of History of English. Therefore, I had to withdraw the RM and start a discussion at WT:LANG. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 04:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no "nom". I'm just alerting admins. Nardog (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination disruption

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

---

MapReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continued to disrupt Little Women (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). First, they removed the GA nomination that was not theirs to remove. Next, they made cosmetic changes to the article in relation to its grammar and phrasing, punctuation, and the format of quotations and asserted that their substantive contributions showed that the article was not ready for GA. Per this edit summary, I have referred them to WP:GACN, where it specifically states that users should not impose "[their] own stylistic preferences", but they have continued to edit the article without adding any content. There are currently many film articles nominated for GA, so I don't understand their obsession with this particular one.

All of that said, MapReader has stated that I, the article's GA nominating editor, might be struggling with NPOV here. Per this message, they also suggested that I'm not adhering to WP:OWN, so I would like to put my own conduct under scrutiny. I welcome any feedback. KyleJoan^talk 06:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a very strange report, and I would ask for a WP:BOOMERANG here since IMO the reporting editor is struggling with both WP:OWN and WP:NPOV in relation to this article, about a film listed on their userpage as among a small number of his or her favourite films. I don't believe that my editing history evidences any of the above accusations. If an article is put forward for GA, it is not reasonable to describe matters such as corrections to grammar, punctuation, formatting of quotations as "cosmetic changes". My comments about the article not being ready for GA[149] were reasonable and measured, flagging areas where more work is needed to get the article up to standard. Editing the article "without adding any content" is perfectly permissible and frequently helpful - certainly for an article aspiring for GA. I don't see any evidence that I have an "obsession" with this particular article - my recent edit history evidences hundreds of edits on other articles, including adding content to get a Geography/Places article up to potential GA standard, and as a frequent editor of film pages my interest in this particular article is no greater than in very many others. The other editor seems excessively keen to revert my changes even where they are simply modest improvements to the article, and equally keen to get into some sort of dispute process when such is neither appropriate nor justified. Even the title of this report is unnecessarily gratuitous, with nothing in my edit history to back it up; indeed the reporting editor has previously thanked me for my help to move the article toward standard.[150] MapReader (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

If your reason for removing the GA nomination was so reasonable and measured, then why did an administrator state, It being too soon since release and having some grammatical errors aren't really suitable for a close? You copyedited the article without adding/removing any actual content (e.g., modifying In April 2020, Deadline Hollywood calculated the net profit of the film to be $56 million, when factoring together all expenses and revenues to In April 2020, Deadline Hollywood calculated its net profit to be $56 million), so "cosmetic" is the word I would use. Forgive me for not noticing your contributions to other current film article GA nominations. Can you kindly direct me to one of them? KyleJoan^talk 07:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It is disappointing that your approach to discussion comes across as so combative. Whether or not my comments about the GA nomination were reasonable is something others can judge - I linked to them directly above. The Administrator's comment you tag was fair enough, and the article remains in the GA queue. Indeed nothing would disrupt the nomination more than your frequent proposals for RfCs on the most minor of textual changes, which would take weeks to resolve and put your nomination on hold meantime. The edit you quote above is a good example - the sentence said "net profit" and then went on to say "when factoring together all expenses and revenues". The second part is unnecessary and simply padding to say the same thing as "net profit" again. The term "net profit" crops up regularly in articles and doesn't need defining each time; if there is any uncertainty a link to the relevant WP article is the answer, and I have added one into the article. Such an edit is not "cosmetic" and I would ask you to reflect on whether dismissing other editors' contributions in this way is the best way to approach things? Besides, even if they were cosmetic changes, why all the fuss? Filing an ANI report because you think someone else is making cosmetic changes to an article is simply wasting the Administrators' time. MapReader (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan, MapReader I've had a look at this, and the situation is not quite as KyleJoan has described. MapReader cancelled the GA nomination because he felt the article was not ready, but did so because has an interest in improving it and since he has contributed to it, he doesn't feel it would be appropriate to review it (presumably, with the intention of quickfailing it because it is not ready). For example, in this edit, he says "What is stated in the article needs to be cited (with statements in the lead supported by the article)." and that's right, because good articles must adhere to the manual of style for lead sections, being an accurate summary of what is correct and verifiable in the article body. Elsewhere, I see you reverting claiming "stylistic preferences", but what you reverted seems to be a simple case of copyediting and making the prose a little tighter and easier to read.

I see that the article is up for GA review again; I would personally be tempted to quickfail it for failing point 5. "Stability", but that probably wouldn't be constructive. Aside from you reverting each other, I don't see MapReader being anything other than helpful and putting the article in a state where it genuinely is "good". He's not making major structural changes. I totally understand how you can get pissed off when you've done a lot of work on an article and somebody comes along and fiddles with it, but you really really have to resist the urge to do anything, because the chances are the other editor is just trying to help you. I would simply let MapReader "have at it" and let him have his copyedit. The two of you have a shared goal - improving the article - so why not focus on working together as a team?

tl;dr - content dispute, no administrator action required Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:08, 1 August 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.

Johnpacklambert and Prods

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

---

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

I'm concerned that Johnpacklambert (JPL) does not understand when a prod should be used to delete an article. WP:PROD states in the opening line that it is for "a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion". WP:PRODNOM goes into detail about what to do before nominating an article for a prod, including a link to WP:DEL-REASON.

I have raised my concerns with JPL in March 2020 and in April 2020. Despite bringing this to his attention, prods are still being made by JPL that I believe are improper use of the prod process. Examples from today include:

• This article lacks any reliable sources
• article lacks multiple reliable sources as required by GNG
• one source is never enough to pass GNG
• The sourcing is not enough to pass GNG and the competitions are not enough to establish default notability
• one source is never enough to establish a passing of GNG

Having one (or no) sources does not equate to the article being non-notable, and therefore these are not valid reasons to delete by prod. I'm happy to be corrected on this! I'm sure there are articles that get prodded that deserve to be so, as they are total rubbish. However, I see no attempt in trying to fix the issues, just drive-by tagging. These articles may well be non-notable, but not for the rationales being used.

My concerns about his lack of understanding of the prod process are also echoed across his AfD noms, for example this one. I see that in March 2017, JPL was banned from making more than one AfD nom in a 24hr period. I think something similar should be applied to his prods. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is an unreasonable proposal. Having 1 or no sources means an article does not pass GNG in its current state. The whole purpose of proposed deletion is to nominate for deletion articles that clearly are not meeting inclusion criteria. If a biography of a living person has no sources it can be nominated for speedy deletion just one those grounds. Proposed deletion is likewise meant for articles with little sign of notability, and especially when we are dealing with biographies of living people, as these articles all are, it is perfectly acceptable to nominate for proposed deletion articles that lack any sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

But do you know the difference between notability and an article having no sources? I don't believe you do, as these examples show. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a go. One is a concept, the other a waste of space/pixels. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• I’m not sure I understand why linking WP:CIR was necessary seeing that overall Johnpacklambert is competent & a good faith editor maybe a few errors but a “lack of understanding” ?? I think not! I also do not see how “banning” which is a tad bit too extreme would be necessary here when other non extreme measures which would be just as effective would be sufficient here.Celestina007 17:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

If he's "is competent & a good faith editor" then why was he banned from logging multiple AfDs? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose any sanction. It must be very disheartening for JPL to see his good work dismissed in this way. Well done JPL. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

There's also disruptive edits, such as the ones on the article Barbara D'Alterio (see the edit history). Multiple times JPL has proded an article with no summary to indicate this, against the very instructions detailed at WP:PROD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Now this is turning into "let us find fault with everything Mr. Lambert has ever done that we do not like". There are not "disruptive edits like D'Alterio", this is one case of legitimatly not realizing I had prodded it before. The fact of the matter is that that article still lacks any one source that would pass GNG. If you look at the edit summary the three times were seperated by first a year and then seven months. The most interesting thing is that in all that time no one has bothered to even try to add anything that is at all better sourcing. I have been very particular of late to make sure every time I propose an article for proposed deletion I include this in the edit summary, so Mr. Lugnuts attack on me for not doing so in the past really does come off as trying to find fault.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Of the 7 entries in that page's history since 2018, 3 are you PRODding it, 3 are someone else removing it, one is a bot. That's ... not great. But it does seem to be an isolated incident. I'm wondering why you haven't punched it to AfD though? You're allowed one a day. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You have to bear in mind how much emotional abuse I get from Lugnuts every time I nominate any article on an actor, actress or film for deletion. Working up to be ready for that level of insults for even thinking that not everyone who had a credited part in a commerically produced film is notable by default is not easy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Here are some more recent examples from just the past few days (forgive me if I don't do the diffs, you can see from the recent edit history) - D. J. Baxendale, Bayartsetseg Altangerel, Beno Zephine, Giovanni Borsotti, Mariana Botas, Doug Brochu, Nar Cabico. All declined, all show no evidence that WP:BEFORE was used. If you were making geninue prods on non-notable articles, there would be no issue, but that's not the case. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So, this seems to me like a bit of a culture war. Some editors don't like articles that are published without being supported by multiple sources (which is what GNG calls for), and seek to delete them without doing as rigorous a BEFORE as they probably should. Some editors are happy with making thousands of stubs supported by a single source and an SNG, hoping that someone else will come along and improve them, and they get annoyed when people seek deletion without attempting to improve the sourcing first. A certain proportion of editors will see one, or the other, or perhaps both, of these approaches as less than ideal. I would encourage any reviewer to look for sources before nominating for PROD; I would also encourage any experienced author to aim to provide refs to enough sources to establish an obvious GNG pass before publishing an article in main space. I don't see anything actionable here, but I hope all editors might consider whether there's any room for them to up their respective games. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of the issues here goes to the issues that for a long time we allowed articles to be created without even making an account on Wikipedia, and there seem to still be ways to do so. There still is lots of creation of sub-par article, especially with relation to people involved in sports, but there is also a huge problem with legacy articles sitting around from a time when Wikipedia had even less clear standards for notability, inclusion and creation process than it does today. As an editor I have evolved in my understanding of what does and doe not constitute sourcing that passes the general notability guidelines, and have nominated at least 3 articles I created for deletion, but I think that number is a bit higher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Quick question: do you agree that a lack of sources in an article is not a reason for deletion? Hobit (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • <ec>: **I've got to disagree with you here. The rules for using PRODs are pretty darn clear. If this editor is commonly ignoring the rules and nominating because the article (not subject) doesn't have enough sources, they are doing it wrong. It's about as much about "culture" as stopping at red lights. I've not yet looked at the underlying issue (though I'm quite familiar with JPL's comments at AfD), but if they are regularly nominating things using WP:PROD without an actual valid reason for deletion, that's at least as much of an issue than doing the same at AfD. Hobit (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

    Hobit, if you don't stop at red lights, people die. Let's keep this in perspective. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

    Apparently I need to work on my analogies, second time I've been called out for them. The point I'm making is that the line is clear and this is way over it. If he (or anyone) feels that not having sources in the article is a valid reason to delete an article, I'd suggest he propose that change. As it stands, it clearly is not. Hobit (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

    Sure it is; see WP:BLPPROD which is specifically for BLPs (which JPL's recent prods all seem to be) which have no sources at all; clearly "no sources" is expected to be a reason for deletion for BLPs. Maybe finding a reference is preferable to some but it's not required, and presumably if someone like Barbara D'Alterio is "prominent" someone ought to have found any source at all besides a cast list and a Wordpress blog saying so in the fourteen years that article has existed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

    Help me out here. He's not using WP:BLPPROD, he's using WP:PROD. The bar for BLPPROD and PROD are really quite different. In particular, any source is enough to overcome a BLPPROD. Are you claiming that because BLPPROD exists, the bar for the PROD process is lower than otherwise specified in WP:PROD? Sorry, I really don't follow your argument, sorry if I'm just being slow--it's been a long day already. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

    But you actually need a source to overcome a BLPPROD, you need absolutely nothing to remove a regular PROD. Which is what on some occasions is exactly what happens after the PROD is removed, which is in part why it is not uncommon for a PROD to lead to an actual deletion nomination. So if someone puts a PROD on a page, any editor came remove it, including the page creator, with absolutely no change to the article and no reason needed to be given, and then it is ineligible for PROD, and can only be deleted by AfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

    Right, any source cancels a BLPPROD, and any objection for any reason whatsoever cancels a PROD. I would say the bar for removing a PROD is substantially lower. My point, though, is in response to your assertion that not having sources is not accepted as a reason for deletion: clearly it is accepted, for BLPs. The policy says that information on living persons that is challenged may not be restored without providing a reliable source. I don't particularly agree with this approach, but I would suggest that JPL PRODding a BLP is in effect challenging the information wholesale, and if nobody provides a source to counter the challenge then policy compels deletion. But maybe I'm wikilawyering. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

    Wow. PROD is really clear on what a valid deletion reason is. BLPPROD is really clear on what a valid use of BLPPROD is. "No reliable sources in article" isn't something that either PROD or BLPPROD have as a reason for using them. Hard stop. Making sure that the line between the two is large was part of why BLPPROD didn't just get folded into PROD. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• oppose any sanction. As per Roxy. This is ridiculous. The doom and gloom here is unwarranted, prods are worthless anyway and I doubt anything is going to get "mistakenly" deleted after a 7 day prod by flying under the radar. Praxidicae (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've honestly no idea. Doubting that anything is going to get mistakenly deleted via PROD seems like a strong statement. How can you measure how many articles mistakenly get deleted via PROD? Is there some common review process or some other way to know this? My own intuition is that PRODs would be more likely to have problems than the much more regulated speedies and there are a fair number of wrong ones there that not only get overturned at DRV, but later get kept at AfD. Hobit (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You're explaining a theoretical situation where a prod would actually probably be appropriate because I find it unlikely that a notable subject would be deleted by way of a prod and it would just suddenly slip away. If no one cares to refute it for 7 days, well....

Prod deleted articles are very easy to restore. One only has to make a request. Praxidicae (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, good grief. OPPOSE --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support proposed 24-hour restriction. This recent behavior continues the same trend of ignoring WP:BEFORE that got him topic banned from AFD. I'm not sure why the topic ban didn't include a restriction on PRODding in the first place. Calidum 19:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It didn't include a restiction on prodding because one of the actual complaints was that I was flodding AfD in some cases with articles that should have just been prodded. The more pertinent complaint was that I had dared to question the absolute deference of allowing everyone who has ever played one game in a football league to be considered default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose pretty much what Praxidicae 'said' I don’t see any real reason here thus far for any dire sanctions or actions to be taken. Hence I oppose any sanction(s) against Johnpacklambert. Please let us quit attacking good faith editors over relatively trivial matters. Celestina007 19:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Celestina007: Question: Do you feel it is appropriate to PROD articles solely because of the sources currently in the article? Hobit (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • That is the explicit rule on BLPPROD and I always thought it was at least the implicit rule on all prods.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

      Ah. That's not the case for PRODs. PRODs are not appropriate for insufficient, but non-zero, sourcing in the article where a search for sources has not been carried out. That is, before nominating for WP:N/WP/V reasons (absent a blatant hoax), you have to do a WP:BEFORE. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hobit, I 100% get your argument but Johnpacklambert has acknowledged he may have erred by thinking BLPPRODDING & general prodding followed the same rules. What I don’t understand is why Lugnuts & perharps yourself are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill by seeking for the 'death penalty'. There are real problems facing Wikipedia & JPL making infinitesimal errors isn’t one of them. @Mdaniels5757, yes you are very much apt & I think JPL understands that by now. Can someone close this discussion already? Celestina007 22:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Unless I'm missing something, and it's quite possible I am, he's been told his PRODs were problematic in both March and April (per the top of this section). He's continued to do the same things. In general, he is highly involved in the deletion processes on Wikipedia (500 AfDs in the last ~30 days, likely more than any other editor[151]), but misunderstands basic deletion issues and seems unable to hear issues. Of those 500 AfDs, he !voted to keep less than 1% of the time. For example, in something I nominated for deletion, he said it wasn't verifiable [152] which was just utterly wrong. When I pinged him, there was no response. At the end, the article was kept. He literally !votes to keep less than 1% of the time, which seems to indicate not really looking at the subject. I don't think I've ever used this link before but WP:CIR seems to apply here. Maybe he can help Wikipedia in other areas, but not understanding the deletion process (PROD, WP:V, WP:BEFORE) while being perhaps the most active editor in that area is a big problem. Hobit (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

His whole deletion mantra of using "one source is never enough to pass GNG" (or variations of this) seem complelty at odds to his own article creations, such as Vincent J. Piro, Adeyemi I Alowolodu, Obinna Ogba, LeRoy Davis White, etc, etc. It just reaffirms for me that he simply doesn't understand prods, notability, or indeed, what he's actually doing. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't like sanctions of well meaning editors but think this deserves criticism, at least a WP:TROUT. It's an article about a Portuguese actor. w:pt:Tiago Abravanel has no fewer than 30 sources. There is WP:SNOW of this article being deleted at WP:AFD, so nominating it for WP:PROD is disingenuous at best. --GRuban (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support the 24 hour restriction and will provide examples of the editor's poor PROD work shortly. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert often prods incorrectly because he doesn't consistently do adequate WP:BEFORE. Examples include:

Prodding Billy Sands with the comment “neither IMDb nor Find a Grave is a reliable source we should not have articles with no reliable sources”, and after it was deprodded, providing a rare plot twist and demonstrating he is capable of adding sources here.

Prodding an Emmy nominee here: with the following reason: “The only sources are the subject's own website and IMDb, just repeating them multiple times to fool people to thinking there is something of substance here does not change the total lack of any reliable sources”. Here he assumes bad faith editing of whoever made the article in the nomination statement and focusing on the state of sourcing in the article rather than the subject’s notability and the existence of reliable secondary sources.

Johnpacklambert has been vocal in his defense of how he prods articles sourced to IMDb. To Bearcat, he has written, “I have nominated several for proposed deletion but keep having the proposed deletion be removed and was even threatened with being taken to ANI for nominated articles that have as their one and only source IMDb.” Yes, multiple people have a problem with that because one is not supposed to prod unless one has completed BEFORE and believes the prod is uncontroversial. By this point he must know how controversial entertainment BLP prods are. Note he created two sections for this, eleven days apart: here and here.

I think the privilege of being able to do multiple prods per day is inappropriate for him at this point. I’m sorry if Johnpacklambert feels anxious or frustrated when he sees tagged articles or articles sourced only to IMDb. I’d prefer he stick to one deletion nomination per day and if necessary one prod per day so that editors with researching tendencies can look into a matter for him. Speaking of which… he should be able to just use his daily deletion nom. I have not seen him attempt the max deletion nomination per day I think since back in April when he was very into the classic film scene, though he could be doing it in other spaces. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support a ban from all deletion processes I just took a look through his last 15 or so prods. I would say approx 3 or 4 of them were maybe valid PROD's according to the PROD rules and thats being generous. This isnt to say they would survive AFD, quite a few of them wouldnt. But just as many would. But its clear the bare minimum of BEFORE just isnt being done. It also looks like JPL has just switched from nominating at AFD, to systematically going through topics and PROD-tagging to avoid his AFD restriction. This wouldnt be so bad if he was actually following the guidelines and only prodding articles that qualify. But he's just carpet bombing and seeing what sticks. Its the same issue that led to the AFD restrictions. There is no indication he understands (despite it being explained to him multiple times) what you are supposed to do before nominating/prodding, so why waste time constructing another custom restriction, the problem will just be moved somewhere else. Either make it a blanket ban from all deletion, or just unprod everything he prods. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - In this case, I don't see evidence of an unacceptably-high error rate sufficient to necessitate the proposed sanction in light of the exchange between JPL and Mdaniels above, plus I agree with Prax. More broadly, I don't understand why it should be OK to mass-create articles that don't meet our policies (like WP:V) but it's not OK to mass delete them. Why doesn't the creator of an article have to do a WP:BEFORE search, but the deleter does? Hobit is right that PROD is clear but policy should follow practice, not the other way around, and I, for one, think PRODing articles that are only sourced to IMDB is a good thing. It's good for the encyclopedia. Not PRODing them is bad for the encyclopedia. And--just my opinion--if PROD says otherwise, it should be changed. No one should be creating an article without, at least, one reliable source, or else we're just ignoring WP:V. After 20 years, it's time to require some minimal verification for all topics. Or, at least, don't ban those who PROD unverified articles. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Two points: #1 yes, if you want to change our deletion policies you probably should propose changing them rather than supporting people who are massively ignoring them. #2 are you saying you disagree with WP:BEFORE? Because that seems to be exactly what you are saying--that someone using our deletion process has no responsibility to look beyond the article as it exists. If you believe that is "practice" (and I often see that it is, though I think it shouldn't be) then propose the change and see what happens. It might well be that people support such an action these days (see the sandcastle essay/story on my user page), though I'd personally hope we aren't at that point quite yet. Hobit (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

    Hobit, consider this series of events: Editor 1 creates an article with no source. Editor 2 PRODs it. Editor 3 de-PRODs it but does not add a source. Now, who should do a BEFORE search? All three should. Assuming there is a source out there, who should add it? All three should. Who do we sanction for failing to perform a BEFORE search? Only Editor 2. That is what I disagree with, and it doesn't require any change in policy, because while policy might forbid JPL from PRODing an article based on a lack of sourcing in the article without first doing a BEFORE search (which JPL has acknowledged below), policy does not require that we sanction JPL for failing to do so. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

    • I understand the argument. I don't even disagree with it. But A) thems the rules as they exist right now B) If someone was dePRODing 100s of articles a month without any relevant arguments, I suspect they'd be here too C) this editor seems to really not get our policies and guidelines. As I said, he's probably involved in more deletion debates (AfDs, Prods, etc.) than any single user right now. But apparently he honestly didn't understand that we don't delete on the basis of the state of the article (aside from WP:TNT). I mean *didn't know* even though he's involved in at least 500 discussions a month. That seems like a problem. And it's not like people haven't reached out to him. Over and over. I've done it once in the last month and he was supporting my position but it was so wrong I had to say something (again, he claimed the article wasn't verifiable when it had plenty of sources in it to meet WP:V). I'm happy, for now, with the PROD agreement found below. I suspect, much like we did with BOZ, I'll be asking for more meaningful and policy/guideline-based deletion arguments at AfD too. Right now they are almost all of the form "no reliable sources in article" (and *that* isn't always true...) or sometimes "non-notable lawyer" or something like that with no policy basis at all. Hobit (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Firstly, PROD is not supposed to be a big deal. People can remove them for any reason no matter how stupid, or even no reason at all, so it's also no big deal if you get a lot of PRODs declined. Secondly I agree with Levivich. Why do we allow the apparently semi-automatic creation of a bzillion tiny, badly sourced stubs but then wail and gnash our teeth and put people through the wringer for trying to delete some of the worst of them? We should move WP:BEFORE to be a prerequisite for creating articles rather than deleting them. Reyk _YO! 08:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Whatever would we do without hundreds of articles about f list athletes who once set foot on a notable stadiums field? Praxidicae (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Find some other database to scrape, no doubt. Reyk _YO! 13:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

re: "We should move WP:BEFORE to be a prerequisite for creating articles rather than deleting them." Wholeheartedly agree. This should be proposed.   // Timothy :: talk  14:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Prax. --JBL (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: There's a .sig I've been using for many years that runs "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I don't agree with what you're saying." Inadequate sourcing is not only a valid ground for deletion, tens of thousands of articles have been zapped for just that lack. Neither JPL or any of us are under any onus to agree with Lugnuts' definition of "uncontroversial," which happens not to be set down in any guideline I can see. From what I can see, the nom's objection is to the language JPL is using in his prod rationales. Any kind of sanction for *that* is just plain absurd. Ravenswing 14:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying, but I'd like to be sure. Are you arguing WP:BEFORE shouldn't be a part of the deletion process? If not, could you clarify
    • I'm pretty sure that WP:BEFORE forms no part of my opposition, but I'll answer your question anyway: no, of course not. In fact, I really would love to see it explicitly written in that a deprodder must use BEFORE prior to removing a prod. But, like with the original complaint here, I want rather more proof that JPL ignored BEFORE than mere speculation. Ravenswing 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• question for edification, can the OP or those supporting sanctioning JPL for this please provide an example of a prod placed by JPL which resulted in deletion but shouldn't have? Praxidicae (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That someone would have to be an admin, yes? Hobit (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'm concerned that John Pack Lambert seems to be circumventing his 1 AfD a day restriction by nominating multiple prods, a lot of which seem to be dubious. PROD is for uncontroversial deletions that don't require a discussion but do not meet any CSD criteria, and there's no way that "one source is never enough to pass GNG" should led to an article being deleted without discussion. An AfD should be had in such cases to determine if additional sources exist to establish notability. If JPL is making prods that need to be AfDs, that kind defeats the point of the restriction-- P-K3 (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support The PROD process explains itself quite clearly: "PROD is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. ... PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." It seems apparent that JPL is nominating topics for deletion in the face of expected opposition from editors such as Lugnuts. As PROD must not be used in such an adversarial way and JPL has been previously warned and sanctioned for their abuse of deletion processes, they should be banned from the PROD process altogether. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I am a he. Your use of the plural to refer to me is very insulting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Jesus Christ!, Oppose per Roxy, JBL, Prax, Celestina and DFO - I see nothing wrong with John's PRODDING here and IMHO this relates nothing to AFD. –Davey2010^Talk 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, Johnpacklambert’s work in deletion areas is far superior to many of those voting to support this proposal. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Devonian Wombat: I'm seriously surprised to hear anyone say that. Could you point at specific things (with links) that you feel were outstanding in some way? Say three things? I've looked over perhaps 100 AfD !votes of his, and I only found a few things that I thought were policy/guideline based comments, and I don't recall anything particularly worthy of praise. Hobit (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

A modest proposal

It's been suggested that WP:BEFORE be moved to being before article creation, rather than as part of the deletion process. That will further reduce our editor pool (adding in-line sources to an article is likely initially beyond most new editors), but I think a lot of folks here wouldn't mind the reduction in new article and frankly our new editor pool is shrinking enough that it's not clear we need to worry about shrinking it more. So perhaps we are at a point it's time to require all new articles have at least two possibly-reliable sources within 7 or 14 days of creation. A bot tags them say no sooner than 24 hours after creation and notifies the creator. After 14 days it gets treated as a speedy (admin reviews but probably just accepts unless the bot screwed up or it is clearly notable). We also agree to follow WP:BEFORE as part of the deletion process of older articles. I suspect the folks who really worry about in-line citations being a requirement for articles could work their way through the articles in a year or so, much like we did for BLPPRODs (which was actually a fair bit of fun for me--just taking name off a list and trying to source them).

For the record, I think that the impact on the editor pool is the main reason to not do this. So I'm probably opposed to my own proposal. But if we did do it, I'd hope we could create some YouTube videos about how to create an article and maybe start seriously working on recruiting drives, creating a list of topics that are notable (with proposed sources) that newbees can start on, and maybe dropping the DRAFT space entirely (who wants to create an article that someone else has to approve before it shows up) or at least for pre-approved topics. I honestly suspect DRAFT space is the worst thing that has happened to editor recruitment ever. Drafts sit waiting while folks that often have a bar for creation that is way over our inclusion guidelines act as gatekeepers. Hobit (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd support it myself, but (a) it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of gaining consensus, and (b) this isn't the venue to make the suggestion anyway. Ravenswing 15:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, partly just pointing out that people are effectively doing this already here by saying "eh, it's not within policy, but that's okay". Partly trying to get a sense of if this is where we want to go. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose We already have a huge number of guidelines, policy and process for article creation including WP:AfC; WP:CSD; WP:GNG, WP:NPP, &c. WP:BEFORE is not some simple shorthand for citations; there's a lot more to it than that and it is written specifically for the AfD process. We don't need some half-baked version of this repeating for article creation because we already have a mountain of such stuff.

The general issue with article creation is that doing it well is beyond most people. Hobit himself only seems to have created 10 articles and 4 of those were deleted. They should please get more experience of the process before trying to tell the rest of us how it should be done. JPL has created 2,421 articles and, while 244 of those were deleted, that's a better survival rate. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose more bureaucracy that could deter new good faith editors but not bother the undisclosed paid editors and sockpuppets who are skilled up in advance. Also too much automation will have a dehumanising effect and further deter new editors, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• AfC is a joke because we do not force anything through it. Those who oppose an expectation of before for creation of an article show a very strong bias against making Wikipedia a source that lives up to its own stated principles of verrifiability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Another modest proposal

Hobit your proposal is worth consideration, but this thread on a specific editor's conduct isn't the right place to do it. Perhaps start an RfC and link to this discussion, which we ought to keep focussed on how to deal with the issue at hand.

How about this as a way forward. Johnpacklambert said here that he thought a lack of sources was an implicit criterion under which an article may be PRODed. John: no, it's not. You need to satisfy yourself that there is a valid reason to delete. While WP:BEFORE describes the checks you should make before nominating at AfD, you should still check for sources yourself to confirm whether or not the subject is notable - if there are sources out there which aren't currently in the article, but which might establish notability, either add them to the article or, if you're feeling lazy, slap a 'sources exist' tag on it (or, if you're feeling really lazy, do nothing) rather than PRODing. I have already said that I don't think that you should be sanctioned over this, but that there is room for you to up your game in this area - perhaps if you would undertake to do that, we can all move on? GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I will try to use more review before prodding articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Johnpacklambert - I'm not sure about the 'try' in there - any chance of something more concrete? I was thinking of something like "I confirm that I will not in future use standard PROD on any article on the basis of a lack of sources unless I have first checked and been unable to find suitable sources (although I reserve the right to apply BLPPRODs to entirely unsourced articles about living people)." GirthSummit _(blether) 15:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd support this too. Thanks Girth for putting together some sort of wording. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Here is goes. I confirm that I will not in the future use standard PROD on any article on the basis of a lack of sources unless I have first checked and been unable to find suitable sources (although I reserve the right to apply BLPPRODs to entirely unsourced articles about living people).John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm perfectly fine with that. I'd love it if you did that for your AfD !votes too... Hobit (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hobit, I don’t like the manner in which Johnpacklambert is being treated. Established good faith editors like JPL should be able to enjoy editing & not feel like they are walking on egg shells. I’m still baffled at how minor errors pertaining to prod use would escalate into this. Seeing as prods are the least important of the three methods of deletion. I mean who really cares about prods? or uses them? Save for JPL because of the same limitations this commmunity has imposed on him. Let us not sacrifice good faith editors on the altar of perfection. Celestina007 21:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Celestina007: I responded in detail to your query above, I'm not sure if you've seen it. Suffice it to say I disagree with your characterizations of his deletion work. But he's agreed to do a better job moving forward and I'm hopeful that will happen. Hobit (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The fact, as you say, he's an "Established editor" should mean he's been here long enough to understand the process. After (at least) three attempts to explain this to him in recent months, he now appears to get it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Move to close

JPL has acknowledged the issues and committed to avoid repeating them. The OP seems satisfied. As I read it, no further action is needed at this point, so we should probably close this. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit, this seems to be the best course of action at this juncture. I second this/Support this. Celestina007 23:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that now JPL understand the prod process better this can be closed. P-K3 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Hobit (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine with me too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 1 August 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.

More eyes needed on Patrisse Cullors

Patrisse Cullors is one of the founders of the Black Lives Matters movement, which unsurprisingly is despised by the right wing (bloggers especially).

As such her article has had a succession of mainly drive-by editors trying to push “Marxist” into the article. Although it’s been somewhat civil and mainly a content dispute, I’m wondering if there is anything else we can do as it’s a bit exhausting to deal with the same issue repeatedly. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gleeanon409! I am not an administrator but I saw this post and I added warnings to this page. Anyone who makes further disruptive edits, I will report. I’ll let the administrators take it from there! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Full protected it for four days, that should knock off the edit warring and give some time for a consensus to build.

@Gleeanon409: Oh, and by the way you were definitely edit warring, don't do that. I have decided not to block you only because I've protected the page, but I doubt another admin would have been so kind. Don't push your luck going foward. Even if you're right, that doesn't mean you can break WP:3RR. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, apparently she "learned about Marxist thinkers". We had a programme at school that also did this: it was called "history". Guy (help!) 08:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Likewise for me. Our history teacher (Britain, early 1960s) was an Irish Catholic communist and Marxism was prominent on his curriculum. He was very successful – in putting us all completely off communism. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have come here sooner. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I have come across this a while ago, and spent some time looking into a YouTube source that a new account had used (can't remember which one, but can dig it out if anyone is interested). For what its worth, there is a video of her being interviewed some years ago where she does describe herself as a "trained Marxist", but the context is important. The interview was about setting up the Black Lives Matter movement, and the interviewer was asking her whether the movement was grounded in theory (in a history/political science sense). Her response included a brief statement that she was a "trained Marxist", by which I inferred that she meant that she had studied Marxist theory, but they moved on and didn't explore that phrase. I agree that for any mention to be made of it in the article, we'd need a heavyweight sourcing with discussion of what is meant by the word in this context - it's not a label shat should be used glibly, or without thorough explanation. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Please consider pasting this in the new RfC. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Knox490

Knox490 has continued to beat a dead horse into a pulp over at Talk:Stefan Molyneux for 4 days or more over the issue of Molyneux being called a white supremacist. Their essential argument being "RS are wrong" [[153]]. Its time this was stopped.Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I provided ample evidence for what I maintained. I did so in a cordial manner despite some incivility of some of the discussion participants. I also invoked a Wikipedia rule which is designed to amicably resolve situations such as this.Knox490 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I've been following this (as a non-participant) with some interest. Correct me if I'm wrong, Knox490, but essentially you are using an ignore all rules argument to set aside the RS SECONDARY coverage of this matter and base the article text on PRIMARY research? Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, yes. That is correct. The mainstream press is not infallible. And in cases where they are wrong, it makes sense to do so.Knox490 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of cordiality, I have decided to agree to disagree on this matter and move on.Knox490 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue may go deeper than just this one article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Flagrant Twitter Endorsements

The following discussion is closed. 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 IP User: 209.122.10.206 continues to add Twitter Endorsements to different pages. They have been warned many times about not adding solo Twitter Endorsements. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so many warnings on one talk page. Most recently I had to change back something on List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

These warnings were mainly for unsourced or poorly sourced edits as well as speculative vandalism and being uncivil to other editors. They have had way too many warnings in my opinion. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 03:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/81.101.15.25

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

---

This user has only just come off a two-week block and has already resumed disruptive editing – mainly going from one BLP to the next changing "English" to "British" (example). Please could someone uninvolved re-block? SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Without wishing to defend the editing behaviour, having taken a look at this page and seeing that the infobox describes him as a British citizen, isn’t the underlying edit actually reasonable? MapReader (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Question, since he wasn't born in England, how is he English? And British is a nationality technically, not English. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Which was also my thought. British citizenship is a verifiable fact. Englishness is rather more tricky - whilst most people born in England might be considered English, there is cross-border traffic (easy for someone living in North Wales to be born in Chester, for example), and of course plenty of Brits have parents from different of the constituent nations. I have no problem with someone of obviously Scottish heritage being described as Scottish rather than British, but as a general rule British is the nationality, not English. MapReader (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to link to this edit (I got the two "R. Grants" mixed up ...), which I think provides a clearer example. On their talk page, the user was pointed to this guidance but doesn't seem to have taken it on board, and rapid-fire editing to enforce a particular label is disruptive. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Had he halted to discuss instead of insisting that he was going to continue, he would not be currently blocked but he has not participated in any consensus building and has the net yield as a POV warrior. The lack of a block appeal but the return to the same behavior is not a good sign. Blocked one month.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Berean Hunter Looks like they are back - see Special:Contributions/82.132.247.39.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Not specific to this IP, but a general comment. WP:UKNATIONALS is worthwhile reading on this question. I don't agree that British is the default - we should look for what the sources say, and what the subject says about themselves. Changing an existing article to reflect one's own personal preference, without reference to sources or discussion, strikes me as inherently disruptive. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Anon blocked 31 hours. If someone who can see would like to rangeblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• The vast majority of edits to politicians and to user talk pages concerning politicians in 82.132.244.0/22 are confirmed from a long term sockmaster and I have cu blocked that range for a month, Deepfriedokra. I'm not sure whether 81.101.15.25 is the same editor though.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:45, 30 July 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 Reinthal: 3RR breach and persistent harassment

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

---

Sadly I have to report the unacceptable editing of user:Reinthal today.

S/he has a view that a citation published in the Mail on Sunday and mailonline, concerning the TV series World on Fire (TV series) is acceptable, whereas I do not, the Daily Mail and Mailonline both having been identified as unreliable sources by multiple RFCs.

S/he is in breach of WP:3RR by having reverted this[154] edit to the article four times within seven hours[155][156][157][158]

I reverted three times, on the basis that WP policy on the reliability of the Mail and mailonline is perfectly clear, but stopped after three in line with 3RR. Such that his version of the article is currently live.

Given the similarity of the previous edit, it is possible that user:122.150.83.215 is a sock puppet of this user.

Despite having ended the edit war myself, he (or she) posted warnings on my talk page both about warring and that I was in breach of 3RR[159]. I have pointed out that 3RR prohibits more than three reversions[160] and also that s/he shouldn’t be trying to force edits as to what appears on my own talk page[161] but he has now SEVEN TIMES tried to bully me by reposting his/her factually inaccurate warnings onto my talk page, in clear breach of policy that gives users the right to decide the content of their own talk pages. Here are the seven edits[162][163][164][165][166][167][168] Edit warring another user’s talk page so persistently is clear bullying and harassment, contrary to WP policy. (Update, now TEN identical edits to my talk page warning me of a policy I haven’t broken in the first place)

It isn’t acceptable that another editor should try to force content onto my own talk page, but I have given up removing his inaccurate statements as he is clearly trying to intimidate me my immediately restoring his warnings each time I try to remove them from my page. I would ask for intervention to bring his unnecessarily aggressive and false accusations to an end. MapReader (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) WP:RSPDM provides up-to-date links to discussions and conclusions as to the usability of The Daily Mail and related sites as sources. Narky Blert (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw Ponyo has blocked them for 72 hours for the repeated posting on your talk page (including after I explained to them that WP:BLANKING allows you to remove the warning). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that needed to stop.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Why he didn’t go check 3RR and see that I only reverted him the three times and then left his edit live, I don’t know. MapReader (talk) 19:35, 29 July 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.

"Feminism is as bad as racism." New user Velvetlaptop looks like Dcasey98 sock

Back in March I reported this person, resulting in a block. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1005#Need more eyeballs – Amerocentric disruption from Greater Chicago. The person is strongly nationalistic, pro-American to the point of absurdity. Now they have a new username, Velvetlaptop.

The first involvement I found from this person was activity on the IP range Special:Contributions/2601:243:400:F535:0:0:0:0/64 in 2017. They shifted to the range Special:Contributions/2601:243:680:3688:0:0:0:0/64 in June 2019. Activity on the range included climate topics, pop culture topics such as music and fashion, and politics. One locus of trouble was at Stereotypes of the British in August 2019 with the person blanking a section and saying, "America gave Britain its modern musical heritage."[169] Another trouble spot was the article 2010s in which this person said, "Fuck off. Feminism is as bad as racism. It’s a female supremacy movement that has ran unchecked for decades..."[170]

In March 2019, the IP Special:Contributions/2601:243:400:F535:A022:89B:5556:C699 began disrupting the American popular music article, saying, "America invented punk..."[171] This stuff was reverted, and Honethefield98 continued the disruption. Honethefield98 was found to be a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98, who was also using the same range of IPs.

In February 2020, this person began using the IP Special:Contributions/73.8.230.59, tagging a bunch of global music genres as being American.[172][173] This IP returned to the 2010s article to add a bunch of fashion stuff, unreferenced.[174]

Special:Contributions/2601:243:400:F535:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked by Berean Hunter in May for a period of three years. Today, the range Special:Contributions/2601:243:680:3688:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for six months by Widr, followed one minute later by new user Velvetlaptop picking up where the IPs left off, restoring reverted material.[175][176] I have a discussion going at User talk:Velvetlaptop, but it looks like the user should be indeffed as a sock of Dcasey98. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Story is not adding up. Perhaps they can offer a cogent explanation, but it's best if they were to do so in the form of an unblock request. El_C 02:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Ha, smoking gun on their userpage now... Our exchange I'll quote here, starting with my statement: "Let me quote what you state above, "User:Binksternet has often battled with me on Wikipedia on my original IP address, and repeatedly reverted a sourced edit I made to Heavy Metal music about 5 months ago that was reverted..." The only reverts "five months ago" on the Heavy metal music by Binksternet were to revert an Checkuser blocked sockpuppet named Grafton56 (sockpuppet of Dcasey98). Binksternet reverted no IPs and no other accounts "five months ago", and no other repeated reverting of a user or IP has occurred by Binksternet this year on that page. This to me reads that you are saying that you are Grafton56 (aka Dcasey98), no? Zinnober9 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

to which they replied

"That was indeed the account I had used at my previous address a long while after I had lost the Dcasey98 account. I think I mentioned this, or at the very least implied it, on one of your talk pages. I'm often frustrated to find seemingly convenient accusations of sockpuppetry linked to me, often over accounts that I have lost the log-in information for and can no longer access. That's why I was mainly focused on my current IP conduct, on which I abided by any bans I have ever received, under which I made this account today. I think it's counterproductive to accuse anyone who's ever owned two+ Wikipedia accounts of engaging in sockpuppetry, and banning them continuously for it. Velvetlaptop 03:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion has since marked them as that sock, and turned off their talkpage access. Zinnober9 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Two new socks today by Dcasey98: one edit by Illinois IP Special:Contributions/107.138.239.21, and some reversions by Special:Contributions/Campainfinance. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Alleging chronic false statements by an administrator

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

---

I'd like to dispute a months-long series of statements and actions by administrator Sergecross73. It may be possible to glean the essence of the controversy from the diff for his talk page comment at this link. Before going farther, I'm wondering whether there's a way to prevent him from blocking me or closing my talk page discussions while the dispute is ongoing, and I'd like to be sure this forum is an appropriate place for it. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. 208.53.231.158 (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The easy fix is for you to create an account, agree to only edit from that account, so you can be officially blocked by a uninvolved admin, for the necessary time until you stop disruption. Do you have any other advice on how to stop your from edit-warring from a dynamic IP other than semi-protection?AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

For context, I’ve repeatedly protected the primary page that this WP:SPA edits because every time the page is unprotected, they edit war or edit against consensus. And every time, it stops until the page protection ends, when they start it up again. Also, the IP refuses to use our edit request system. And it’s been going on for over a year now. And they didn’t notify me if this conversation on my talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 2 August 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.

Mohd.maaz864

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

---

I am at something of a loss as to how to approach Mohd.maaz864 (talk · contribs). This user is a relatively infrequent editor who has a somewhat abrasive and disruptive editing style that I have not been able to address. I previously gave them a warning at their talk page (User_talk:Mohd.maaz864#Hi), which describes some of the problematic and somewhat off-putting behaviors that this editor has engaged in. Here are some examples of what I'm talking about (though essentially every edit that they've made is in this style):

• Talk:Al_Jazeera#The_Guardian®'s_report_on_a_memo ([177], I would have quoted it but it's very long)
• User_talk:Aroma_Stylish#Final_warning (same)
• At least somewhat disruptive edit summaries:
  • [178] edit summary: Undid revision 970463345 by PedroLucasDBr (talk): “Unconstructive[sic]” how? Don't be impetuous because of your WP:UAL. I didn't mention the relevant docs owing to an advice of much-senior editor but here they are, chronologically: MOS:RETAIN, 2nd para in WP:MOS, and WP:GLOBAL. If you can't fix any of my lapses, please don't break!
  • [179] edit summary Undid revision 970593489 by Marko67efc (talk): Welcome to Wikipedia, "dear"! Regardless of whether you happened to just watch the rerun of that documentary on AJE a while ago or something else motivated you to know more about him, but what you've done is called vandalism here. Hopefully, you'll stay. ("Welcome to Wikipedia, "dear"!"?)
  • [180]: Undid revision 969019342 by Aroma Stylish (talk): Spelled-out my tags questionable to the extent of any reason! There's no compulsion to open talk-page to merely "discuss" inline tagging if they're succinctly explained in "reason=" parameters and even duly-linked to their respective policies for oblivious editors in edit-summaries — especially when they're. Cease-and-desist from acting obtuse and vandalism. Shabbat Shalom!'

These are just the first diffs I came across; there are many more. I simply cannot make sense of what's going on here. A large portion of the edits this editor makes is varying levels of disruptive and the editor doesn't seem to get it, though they're likely here in good faith. The user's been previously blocked by Bishonen for edit warring against multiple editors, rudeness, aggression. Any advice? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Their various responses to my block in 2018 were just as strange as the diffs you found, L235. I would have thought by now they'd either have learned better or been indeffed, frankly. Here's their unblock request (warning, may cause dehydration) and here one of their responses to me. Since it was in 2018, it doesn't matter. Just saying that what you found is not a new thing, Kevin. As for their being here in good faith, welll... is that your honest opinion, or just your Wikipoliteness? Bishonen | tålk 21:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC).

My advice involves opening their userpage, selecting your block tool of choice, entering a reason like WP:NPA, WP:NOTHERE/WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, or WP:CIR, and pressing the go button. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Bishonen | tålk 21:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC).

I agree too. Indef'd for NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That works. Thanks all. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And thanks for shutting down talk page access. That screed was the icing on top of the lovely cake. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:40, 2 August 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.

Gd123lbp and Alex Jones

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

---

• Gd123lbp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alex Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• InfoWars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DS Alert:[181]

Gd123lbp has been complaining about how unfairly Wikipedia treats Alex Jones,[182][183][184] which is fine; with 10 million monthly visits to InfoWars, a few of them showing up on Wikipedia to complain is inevitable. However, despite there being a clear consensus against him on the article talk page, he has been edit warring to remove sourced material from the article.[185][186][187] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

They have now said that Guys posting a link to this is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Partial-blocked for a week from the article and talk page. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It is working so far. No disruption elsewhere and he just made a noncontroversial edit to Peter Hitchens. Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 2 August 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.

Muboshgu Censorship and Overlording

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

---

Admin user Moboshgu openly likes to use their admin privileges to censor information on political figures or notably referenced quotes they don’t like without opening consensus discussions and then turns around and tries to act like the editors he censors are the ones that have to open a consensus. They abuse their position. They act as an arbitrator of truth, you can find their actions on the politician Karen Bass’s wiki page. Tired of these partisan hacks acting like arbitrators of truth by censoring completely valid and verified information they don’t want others to see or know about their pages they watch. Wikipedia!!! Get it STRAIGHT and NEUTRAL. People like this admin have no business being here whatsoever. Sirsentence (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sirsentence, please provide diffs of the edits that you believe were improper. You also have failed to notify Muboshgu (whom I assume is the actual subject of this section) as required by the ANI instructions. Please see the red box towards the top of the page for how to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've checked their edits in the last 2 years on that page (4, in total). None used any admin tools afaict (that is, they're engaging as a regular editor). They removed new edits cited to Fox News. Per the recent RfC, doing this and seeking consensus on the Talk Page (where they have raised a discussion) seems perfectly legitimate. Consensus is needed to retain edits like this. In lieu of Sirsentence providing specific diffs of policy-breaking behaviour, I'm inclined to say no foul. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, yeah I acknowledge my WP:INVOVLEMENT in US politics and do not act as an admin on AP2 pages, except in the cases of extreme vandalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• This was unwise. I anticipate a WP:BOOMERANG. First of all, I was not notified of this post, even though the instructions are clear, in red lettering, that you are supposed to notify someone when discussing them here. Second, when adding contested information to a page, the WP:ONUS is on the person who wants to add it, not the person who opposes it, to establish consensus. Third of all, I have used the talk page, at Talk:Karen Bass#Fidel Castro, and so far you have not. Finally, there is the highly POV content of your addition, seen here and here, to which I have a valid objection as even the Fox News source you use doesn't go as far in attacking Bass as your edit does. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• How does one apply to be an overlord? Asking for a friend. Praxidicae (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• If you have to ask then you'll never be one. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I was offered an overlordship, but I held out for being Lord of the Underworld, which I was told was already occupied by some orange guy in Washington, DC, Tramp or Dump or something like that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• When I see accusations of "partisan hacks" concerning political topics in election years I am reminded of the parable of The Mote and the Beam. Acroterion (talk) 20:25, 31 July 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.

Myers–Briggs Type Indicator

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

---

Some people seem to be unconvinced that this psychological tool is valid and repeatedly insert things such as "pseudoscientific" in the lede or categorise it as "Alternative Medicine", even though it is almost never categorised as such in scientific literature. Although the MBTI is very controversial, this does not seem to be constructive editing. --2003:CD:7F0E:F700:40A6:1EDB:B000:5467 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably because it's bullshit - a pretty much meaningless fad that won't die, invented by a couple of blatant opportunists Guy (help!) 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bingo. Grandpallama (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, my "personality types" story: as part of a class my first year of university, a guest lecturer gave us a bunch of those personality tests (to "learn about how we best work with others"), and at one point I stood up and asked the lecturer what difference it made if I was an INTJ, or whatever my enneagram value is, or any of the other "types", when the tests are so obviously gameable as to be meaningless. She responded "well of course you'd say that, you're an INTJ!" Probably the only time in my life somebody has used reasoning so circular that I was literally left speechless. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Is that a taughtology? Grandpallama (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Tautolly. El_C 04:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threat against me/WMF(?)

The following discussion is closed. 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 recently reverted an edit by 2A00:23C5:BB05:9500:24C0:2E5F:7187:6AD on the Kris Weston page (this edit in particular) due to it being an unreferenced change to a BLP article. I gave them a level 1 notice for an unreferenced BLP addition. They shortly after posted on my talk page seeming to believe I represent Wikipedia/WMF and threatening legal action. I then responded stating that I do not work for WMF, nor represent Wikipedia, and attempted to give them advice on what to do. I'm not quite sure if this was the right thing to do in terms of responding, however I attempted to be as helpful as possible in regards to the issue. I've asked on IRC to talk to an administrator and was recommended to post about this here, which I was wishing to avoid making it public however I don't quite see a quieter route for this. 0qd (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, the IP might well be the article's subject; Kris Weston has mentioned his autism diagnosis widely on social media and his own website, so I can understand why they might be upset even though you technically did the right thing. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• There are more edits from the same /64 range, all of them to Kris Weston except for the post on your page, 0qd. Contributions here. Note especially this lovely edit. I have blocked 2A00:23C5:BB05:9500::/64 for two weeks for personal attacks. Perhaps another admin wishes to block them for longer for legal threats; I don't have much taste for it myself. Bishonen | tålk 21:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC).

Thank you for the assistance. I'll hold off on archiving the post on my talk page until this discussion is closed; the post is a tad out of place. 0qd (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I have added an NLT block as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Also note this edit. I think that semi protection is needed for the article and talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm I reading this right? Threat over removing "autistic"? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

This guy has been at it since 2005 apparently: [188]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's arelief. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:48, 2 August 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.

Editor Anjan10: Agenda-driven editing, fringe content, edit-warring, etc.

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

---

Trying to be as succinct as possible, editor Anjan10 needs some administrative attention. I noticed him edit-warring at Sushant Singh Rajput where multiple times he injected editorial content into the article. Sushant Singh Rajput is an Indian actor who recently died, and police declared it a suicide. A fringe of fans and conspiracy theorists believe that he was murdered and that there is a police cover-up. While Indian police are still investigating matters related to the death, like claims of abetment and fraud, the police have not changed the cause of death. Yet people like Anjan10 and recently-blocked editor Jack Shukla have a different tale to tell.

As for Anjan, he seems to think that Wikipedia is a forum for fringe thinking and conspiracy content. At the Rajput article he has added:

• " There was controversy as there were rumors of when the door was opened and who was there at that time."
• "the mystery here was he was hanging from the bed and his height did not make it a suicide case so it was suspicious asking for investigation."
• "the mystery here was he was hanging from the bed and his height did not make it a suicide case so it was suspicious asking for investigation." (second time)

At Death of Sushant Singh Rajput he has added:

• "as there were rumors of when the door was opened and who was there at that time."
• "There was controversy as there were rumors of when the door was opened and who was there at that time." (second time)
• "the mystery here was he was hanging from the bed and his height did not make it a suicide case so it was suspicious asking for investigation."
• "the mystery here was he was hanging from the bed and his height did not make it a suicide case so it was suspicious asking for investigation." {second time)

Competency concerns are certainly raised by their questionable insertion of (poorly-written) rumours and editorialising about what details constitute a "mystery". And this is not the first time the editor has focussed on conspiracy stuff, as their edit history indicates. Here promoting alternative Covid19 treatments and here when he resubmits the content, describes it as "Covid Killer".

A little bit before that, in March 2020 the editor was again editorialising in a Covid19 article, adding "as during the time of 2009 Flu Pandemic lots more people were infected and died yet the mass hysteria seen for Coronavirus wasn't there". The editor tried to force this content into the Covid19 article three additional times[189][190][191]. On the talk page, he argued: "This is edit I tried to put on page why have edit war over it is Coronavirus same as H1N1 why even quarantine patients can't tell if it is dangerous though read reports of a third of patients being on Ventilator." I don't exactly know what he is trying to say, but the tone of it seems like he's pushing the "Covid-19 is a hoax" agenda.

So, it would seem they're here to promote fringe thinking and conspiracy theory content, not to build an encyclopedia according to community standards. The fact that they've skirted by with not-quite-three-reverts just looks to me like someone trying to game the system. I'm not sure what action should be taken here about the user, but I would also suggest raising article protection to Extended Confirmed for Sushant Singh Rajput and Death of Sushant Singh Rajput. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite partial block from Sushant Singh Rajput, Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, Death of Sushant Singh Rajput and Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput for disruption related to the promotion of WP:FRINGE content of a recently deceased person. Have not investigated if the other edits are also problematic, so am not sure if a sitewide block is needed. But this takes care of the immediate disruption. El_C 20:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the conspiracymongering about COVID I would say he should also get sanctioned for that as well (IIRC isn't COVID-19 under community sanctions?). I also agree with ECP for the main article at the very least; the constant presence of stans trying to convince the world he didn't off himself reminds me a lot of EgyptAir Flight 990 (Where everyone but Egypt seemed to consider it tantamount to suicide by pilot, but Egypt officially refused to even consider the possibility despite the evidence). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 21:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually ended up going with sitewide indef, after all. Both articles now ECP'd for a while. El_C 21:03, 2 August 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.

Maddie1243 and Teardropcity

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

---

Two users Maddie1243 and Teardropcity have been vandalising pages related to The Monkees. Since they both share the same editing patterns, they are very likely the same person. While neither of them have a very high edit count, I think that keeping a close watch on both users would certainly pay off. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:39, 2 August 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.

Actually, I blocked both of them. If any other administrator thinks longer blocks of one or both are justified, please go ahead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd have indeffed as VOA's. There may be more. I SP'd Michael Mesmith. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit war (sorry!)

The following discussion is closed. 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 sorry, but I could not figure out the edit war noticeboard. On the page Patrisse Cullors, Fa suisse keeps adding back controversial information without coming to a consensus. I believe that they even broke the 3 revert rule. If someone could please take a look that would be great. Once again, sorry this is the wrong noticeboard, the other one was a bit confusing. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

There are two users asking for "consensus" but effectively blocking the addition of specific content. They provide no sources, their references to policy are pretty artificial, and they do not provide much if any constructive contribution. The contention centers around the addition of Patrisse Cullors' self-description as a marxist, which has been supported by 8 users on the talk page (myself included) during the past few weeks. There are quality secondary sources and the primary source is provided as well. The addition consists of a few words (10-15) on the page of an activist that has over 800, yet this is called POV-pushing, undue, etc. I almost initiated a procedure here but I felt that the matter was solved, the two users being unable to engage meaningfully on the talk page, consistently falling back on their request for "context", because the proposed addition is considered to be in itself a political statement which could have consequences outside of wikipedia. If need be I can of course provide diffs and attempt to detail the debate a bit more. Fa suisse (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fa Suisse:Even if you're right, don't edit war. You have just narrowly escaped a block, only because I opted to full protect the page. Do not break WP:3RR. At any rate, this board does not solve content issues. What it seems like is needed at this point is either formal dispute resolution, or for someone to create a neutrally worded WP:RFC on the subject. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the decision was wise (as to my intentions, I was not planning on reverting any further). The discussion is still proceeding on the talk page and we'll see if this needs formal dispute resolution or a RFC. Thank you. Fa suisse (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by Raltor

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

---

Raltor recently vandalized Dian Fossey with this vulgar sexist edit[192]. Sorry if this is the wrong place to report this. I figured that this wasn't persistent vandalism. ~ HAL333 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Not persistent, but a report at WP:AIV would have sufficed. Indef'd for vandal only, though NOTHERE could apply. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. ~ HAL333 16:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Long-term disruption at Falun Gong by User:TheBlueCanoe (involves the deprecated The Epoch Times, Shen Yun, and various other closely related entities)

Bear with me here: Anyone encountering this ANI stands to benefit from reading this NBC News article from August 2019 ("Trump, QAnon and an impending judgment day: Behind the Facebook-fueled rise of The Epoch Times"), this New Yorker article from March 2019 ("Stepping into the Uncanny, Unsettling World of Shen Yun"), and this 2019 article from Radio France Internationale ("Shen Yun: Fighting Communism - and making a stack on the side").

Other useful coverage can be found in a September 2019 article from The New Republic ("The Obscure Newspaper Fueling the Far-Right in Europe"), a July 2020 ABC News (Australia) article ("The Power of Falun Gong"), and a June 2020 Axios roundup of recent coverage of Falun Gong attempts to influence US government policy via the Trump administration ("In media agency shakeup, conservative groups push for Falun Gong-backed internet tools").

So, while visiting a city in the US earlier this year (back when we could still do this), I found myself bombarded with ads from Shen Yun, a performance arts group who claim to have revived ancient tradition. As editors who have worked with me here know, I write quite a lot about folklore studies topics on Wikipedia. So I decided to dig a little deeper into the group's background and claims. After reading some of the above pieces, I was shocked to see that Wikipedia had no coverage of what reliable media sources have been reporting about Falun Gong and its extensions like Shen Yun since around 2016. Upon turning to English Wikipedia's article on Falun Gong, the new religious movement behind Shen Yun, I was particularly surprised by how much it read as a promotional piece, totally ignoring any of the increasing media coverage surrounding the topic around the group's far-right pivot and accompanying political involvement. As a regular over at Wikipedia's fringe noticeboard, and since I found that Falun Gong leader and founder Li Hongzhi has made all sorts of deeply fringe statements about aliens, homosexuality, and any other number of topics, I decided to go ahead and begin looking for and adding missing coverage. Surely an oversight, I thought.

Well, soon I learned that the absence of this coverage was quite intentional: Single-purpose account editors camped out at the page would quickly revert any mention of these topics. In the article body in particular there appears to have been a general attempt to obfuscate or downplay the central, hierarchal role of leader Li Hongzhi. The article didn't even mention Dragon Springs, a large Falun Gong compound—its de facto headquarters—in Deerpark, New York, or the two Falun Gong schools. There was certainly no discussion about any of the topics raised by the above media sources.

For example, while The Epoch Times and Shen Yun claim otherwise, media sources make it clear that these groups and numerous others operate as Falun Gong extensions, or, as reliable news sources put it: As "Falun Gong media" ("Falun Gong’s founder has referred to Epoch Media Group as 'our media'"]), "Falun Gong outreach efforts" ("The Epoch Media Group, along with Shen Yun, a dance troupe known for its ubiquitous advertising and unsettling performances, make up the outreach effort of Falun Gong") or, more straightforwardly, "religious-political propaganda" or "commercials" ("The ads have to be both ubiquitous and devoid of content so that they can convince more than a million people to pay good money to watch what is, essentially, religious-political propaganda" ... "elaborate commercial for Falun Dafa’s spiritual teachings"), just as a few examples. (And, of course, as of fairly recently, The Epoch Times has been altogether deprecated as a source here on English Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources).

Instead, English Wikipedia's Falun Gong article portrayed Falun Gong as something of an ancient, decentralized tradition persecuted by the Chinese government—just as Falun Gong presents itself—and little else. Not a word about supporting far-right movements over here in Germany, nothing whatsoever about Dragon Springs and Falun Gong schools, and not a whisper about massive monetary support for the Trump campaign in 2016 and since (take a look at the May 14, 2020 revision). While it is no doubt true that adherents in China are persecuted there (the Chinese government is, of course, well known for persecution), the religious group is indeed quite new, as a large amount of academic sources have made perfectly clear: Like Scientology, it's a new religious movement, and scholars don't mince words about this: "Western scholars view Falun Gong as a new religious movement (NRM) though any connection or claim to religion by adherents is strenously denied by adherents." (Farley, Helen. 2014. "Falun Gong: A Narrative of Pending Apocalypse, Shape-Shifting, Aliens, and Relentless Persecution" in Lewis, James R. (editor). Controversial New Religions, p. 241. Oxford University Press.)

And like when Scientology was revealed to have meddled with Wikipedia's coverage (Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia), the article swarms with single-purpose accounts ready to lawyer, scrub, and revert away that which does not echo Falun Gong's claims.

Perhaps the most visible editor camped out at the article is User:TheBlueCanoe. Consider this timeline of diffs, wherein myself and others add to the article, and TheBlueCanoe repeatedly removes all 'negative' media coverage of Falun Gong, only giving an inch here or there when a position no longer appears sustainable. Diffs:

• May 19, 2020: I add NBC News coverage to the Falun Gong article
• May 19, 2020a: TheBlueCanoe removes media sources
• May 19, 2020b: Assuming good faith or misunderstanding, I modify the material and add more—but The Blue Canoe removes all 'critical' the media sources again
• May 22, 2020: After another editor restores them, TheBlueCanoe again scrubs the article of 'critical' media sources (Involves @PaleoNeonate:)
• May 24, 2020: TheBlueCanoe again removes all 'critical' media sources (Involves @Mojoworker:)
• June 5, 2020: TheBlueCanoe yet again removes all 'critical' media sources
• June 26, 2020: TheBlueCanoe removes most 'critical' media coverage and all mention of Dragon Springs (Involves @Doug Weller:)
• July 13, 2020: TheBlueCanoe strips summary of political involvement and accompanying 'critical' media sources from lead
• July 27, 2020: Yet more of the same

This would have undoubtedly continued indefinitely until either myself or other editors just gave up on adding to the article or an administrator intervened. Fortunately, an adminstrator did step in, @Guerillero:, and indefinitely locked the article to non-administrators on July 27, 2020. ([193]) Unfortunately, no further action has been taken about the repeated scrubbing, so it's hard to expect much else when the protection is eventually lifted.

It's very difficult to view the above diffs as anything more than scrubbing. It's obvous that the NBC News sources above are quality reliable sources. These events and connections are important and require coverage. However, it's easy to picture that, sooner or later, maybe even as soon as the article is no longer protected, TheBlueCanoe will simply swoop in again and strip the media sources out once more.

I later learned that TheBlueCanoe had aggressively removed similar material from the article before I came along. Compare this August 30, 2019 revert by TheBlueCanoe, wherein TheBlueCanoe stripped the NBC News piece from the article before the above diffs, and this May 15, 2020 revert by TheBlueCanoe, which dared to mention Falun Gong's connection to, for example, the Q Anon conspiracy theory promoted by The Epoch Times) (@Nathan868:. This approach has been the case since at least 2013, over time the user snowballed to remove all 'negative' coverage of Falun Gong (see the thread to which this June 14 2013 diff is attached, and here's another from June 29, 2013 — there are plenty more). Sure, these old edits have their issues, but while we're not likely to refer to Falun Gong as a "cult" in Wikivoice (and shouldn't)—cult is a term scholars generally don't use in that colloquial context—we do need coverage of why and how this appelation is so commonly applied to the new religious movement, and by who, for example.

Anyway, taken as a whole, it seems to me that there's a clear, long-term pattern here for what is essentially a single purpose account. TheBlueCanoe has been a long-term disruptive presence on Wikipedia's Falun Gong page, yet while I have edited, the account contributes next to nothing to the article itself. There's not a lot of contribution happening here, but a lot of disruption.

TheBlueCanoe is not alone. Notably, in the background are the other entrenched editors who step in to echo TheBlueCanoe. When I came around on May 19 to introduce the media sources, @Cleopatran Apocalypse: unsuccessfully sought to have me topic banned ([194]). This yielded various admin comments noting that there appeared to be some level of off-wiki collusion occuring to shape the Falun Gong article. This editor also has a history of, for example, defending The Epoch Times. ([195]) Other editors have also mysteriously appeared out of the woodwork to either revert to TheBlueCanoe's preferred version or to echo him on the talk page: Take @Bstephens393: as an example. This account's first edit since 2013 was on May 19, 2020—as you'll note, the very day I added the media sources—at which time he popped in to agree with TheBlueCanoe ([196]) and weigh in Cleopatran's attempt to have yours truly topic banned ([197]). There's no shortage of stuff like this around this and related articles.

I think it's important to emphasize that, despite the drive-by media source stripping and wall-of-text attempts at somehow lawyering away or hiding the above media sources, myself and others have continued building the article out with quality sources. Some of the editors who have endured the onslaught of revisions—and involved in some of the diffs above—include @Horse Eye Jack: and @Binksternet:, both of whom built English Wikipedia's new Dragon Springs from material introduced in the Falun Gong article.

In short, Falun Gong and related articles would greatly benefit from administrators willing to step in and take action when an account comes along and attempts to scrub the article of media sources or anything else that might seem 'critical' or 'unfair' to the article's subjects: After all, Wikipedia isn't censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

It would be quite possible — even fairly straightforward — to present a diametrically opposite story of events over the last couple of months. Indeed, my complaint about User:Bloodofox's abusive tone, personal attacks, aggressive style, and bullying did so, to a certain degree.

It would also be fairly straightforward to present a completely different narrative of the topic in question. In general, I think that Wikipedia should favor high quality scholarship over media reporting, and WP:RECENT is to be avoided. High quality scholarship is distinguished from media reporting because (in this case) it is typically ethnographic work, or detailed textual analysis, by scholars with relevant, established expertise, including linguistic expertise and cultural knowledge. Such scholars have often spent years embedded in Falun Gong communities, or have a background in Chinese religions, and they portray a rather different state of affairs to that Bloodofox depicts. No one has said that media sources should not be used. These are disputes about emphasis and due weight. For example, is it appropriate to have several longish blockquotes from media reports on some recondite question of FLG practice...? That sort of thing.

The main problem with this complaint, if that is what it is, is that it seeks to preempt a resolution on the question of how Falun Gong should be handled on Wikipedia by biasing readers with Bloodofox's preferred emphases and interests in the topic. Imagine the opposite complaint that started with how a poor innocent faith community that only believes in truth and tolerance is being persecuted by a big bad communist state who harvest their organs, and there are some editors here who are trying to persecute them even more by perpetuating that propaganda. I would hope such an effort would be looked upon rather dimly.

As for the edits Bloodofox highlights: each was preceded and followed by extensive debate on the talk page. Some editors engaged in that debate by focusing on the content, issues of due weight, and sourcing; others called names, made personal attacks, and went into long FORUMing about how their views on the article subject are the only legitimate views to have.

As for my "history" of "defending the Epoch Times," people can read my comment for themselves (I had forgotten about it and don't think I contributed much after that). I have become quite familiar with the literature on this topic since getting into these disputes, but I kind of hate touching the pages because of how nasty and personal it gets. If you do not subscribe to a certain narrative, you get called an apologist. I so strongly object to this. The bullying, name-calling, aggressive edit warring are the actual major problems here. It's natural that people are going to have divergent views on a phenomenon like this. The whole point is to hash out such differences in good faith. Bloodofox seems to think that is becoming increasingly difficult, and I would fully agree.

In fact, the incident that apparently triggered this complaint perfectly illustrates why. The other day, user:Binksternet removed [198] from the article the three main beliefs of Falun Gong, and inserted a conference paper by a scholar who argues that those beliefs are in fact a "tactic for evading deeper inquiry" and that members of Falun Gong are instructed to lie about their practice. This was a dubious representation of the original source anyway, it turned out.

Note that the central beliefs of Falun Gong being "truth, benevolence, tolerance" appears in almost every scholarly work on that group. This is not some fringe fact. Note also that there are a number of major academic books and papers by established scholars about the beliefs of Falun Gong, which convey opposite ideas to those of this scholar, in her conference paper (i.e. not a peer reviewed document, but something presented to other scholars for comment prior to publication). Note also that there are certain disputes in the study of Falun Gong, where people with area expertise (Chinese language, background in Chinese religion etc.) look somewhat askance at folks like Heather Kavan, who does not speak Chinese, has no relevant background, and teaches speechwriting. She also gives interviews to Chinese agencies connected with the anti-Falun Gong security campaign in China, etc. I am not saying here that she can't be used, but I'm trying to convey some of the context at play. I wrote on the talk that I believe having some discussion of how FLG seeks to represent its beliefs would also be valid. I was reading through Noah Porter's celebrated ethnography the other day and he has a whole section on FLG discursive strategies. They have a whole lot of weird beliefs, but say that they are not central, and try to represent them in a manner that makes them most understandable to outsiders. All that, including the evasions, is worth being represented somewhere. But to use one dubious source in order to remove info about the central beliefs, reported in all the major scholarship, and instead say that they're just evasive tactics and members are taught to lie... well. That is the dispute about these pages in a nutshell.

It's indeed very difficult to have productive discussions when editors have such vastly different understandings of our shared enterprise here. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• For newbies like me, there were two arbitration cases: WP:AFLG (2007) + WP:ARBFG2 (2012). The log of 2020 discretionary sanctions is here where JzG and Guerillero have recorded sanctions. I see that I commented at Cleopatran Apocalypse's talk regarding a very bad aspersions issue where Bloodofox was said to have "repeatedly misrepresented sources". I guess we need to draw up a list of editors to topic ban and articles to watch. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Johnuniq, Cleopatran Apocalypse has <700 edits, so is not wise in our ways despite xyr long history here. As admins I think we being by setting expectations about neutrality and brevity of reports, and correct use of WP:BRD, de-escalation, consensus-forming and dispute resolution. This seems to me to be escalating beyond the objective merits of the complaints. Guy (help!) 08:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• With regard to "scrubbing", I found it important that the contentious reverts dealt with the 2nd paragraph in the lead and a full section at the top of the article. While policy does not say in which order the sections should be, I think it's odd that the first section of the article would be about political involvement and include long quotes from the LA Times and NBC News. Are the political positions of the The Epoch Times newspaper and the Shen Yun dance company such an important aspect of the FLG that they warrant a full 2nd paragraph in the lead? While this content should be in the article in some form, the diffs cited here mostly detail a disagreement about WP:DUEWEIGHT. --Pudeo (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Were placement the issue here, moving the material around would be no problem—that'd be a typical response on Wikipedia, of course. However, as the diffs display, what I and others experienced above was repeated, wholesale removal of any and all 'critical' media sources. Editors before me also experienced this in the sample diffs above (but simply moved on, rather than contest the matter further). :bloodofox: (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I am willing to answer questions from the community about my interactions within the topic area and attempts to control the disruption through sanctions. Please ping me if you require me.

  I think my actions speak for just how contentious this topic area is. Placing most everyone involved in the article under a 0RR sanction and indef full protecting the article was not something I did lightly. As you can see at WP:AC/DS/Log#Falun Gong 2 various attempts have been made to keep the article from becoming a mud fight. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• This subject is frustrating as Hell. I think it needs a full ArbCom to sift and sort, and decide who needs TBANS and who needs CBANS. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  What Binksternet said. We need to exclude the pro and anti POVers. They are WP:NOTHERE anyway. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Frankly, I agree with bloodofox, that this is going to require Scientology-level sanctions & enforcement to get an actual, factual set of articles established. I've been wary of even dipping my toes into this area because I've seen how fervent believers descend on any attempt to provide factual information they deem critical of the group. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Deepfriedokra and The Hand That Feeds You. We need to exclude the pro and anti POVers, and it will require Scientology-level sanctions & enforcement. I tried for years to improve these articles, but it was impossible in the crossfire between a large number of Falun Gong devotees and a less conspicuous group of pro-Party propagandists. It is high time to do something about this. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• The Falun Gong topic area has seen major content battles over the years. The three major groups of involved editors are 1) pro-Falun Gong activists, 2) anti-Falun Gong activists, and 3) veteran editors who happen upon the conflict and try to sort out the problems. Bloodofox and myself are in the latter category, while BlueCanoe and Cleopatran Apocalypse are in group 1. Group 2 would have included PatCheng until he was recently blocked for socking. STSC would also have been counted in the group 3, having started the username 14 years ago, and getting extensively involved in other articles before making Falun Gong edits, but they were hounded off the Falun Gong topic by users from group 1 including Blue Canoe and Marvin 2009 (who is now topic banned for pro-Falun Gong activism.) If group 1 and group 2 were allowed to edit freely, the article would be a constant war of reversions and non-neutral additions. What is needed is for the article to be developed by veteran editors from group 3, who are impartial and will attempt to frame the topic neutrally. Bloodofox should develop a version of the article in userspace, and we can have a Request for Comment to see whether that version should replace the current contentious one. And all editors in the groups 1 and 2 should have 0RR restrictions placed as soon as they are identified by their behavior. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hum, this comment by STSC was quite chilling and I'm not surprised he was topic-banned. --Pudeo (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, my. Yes, that is egregious, and it would put STSC into the second group, if not banned or blocked. Binksternet (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think those three groups just about sum it up. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Since this has gathered some admin attention and results in admin action by Guerillero already, I just wanted to mention that I did plan to eventually file AE reports and ask a topic ban for some editors who appear to have a conflict of interest about the topic. —PaleoNeonate – 17:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  Please do. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  I would also be interested in an AE report --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I made the mistake of getting involved in the FG space within the last year, I say mistake because its by far the most acrimonious space I’ve ever come across and I’m familiar with the Taiwan-China and Israeli-Arab conflict spaces so I thought I had seen acrimony, disruption, IPs, and SPAs but it was nothing like the FG space. There is a clique of long term editors/gatekeepers who appear to have COI issues with FG, as far as I can tell they’ve never been successfully challenged and most editors will simply leave the FG space after encountering them rather than endure their assault. This discussion is a step in the right direction but dealing solely with TheBlueCanoe won’t solve the problem. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'd have to agree that TheBlueCanoe is disruptive. My edit mentioned by the OP merely expanded a ref with a cite template and Google books URL, and removed content from the lead that was already mentioned further up in the lead. Yet it was reverted by TheBlueCanoe. This editor is seemingly the poster child for WP:CPUSH – ticking most of the boxes there and exhibiting apparent civility in conversations on the talk page while editing tendentiously. As mentioned, TBC is not the only problem, as there are many SPAs that appear out of nowhere when there's contention at the articles involved. I agree with Binksternet about the three major groups of involved editors, and echoing what Horse Eye Jack says just above, as a member of group 3, I'm disinclined to make the same mistake and wade into the morass of Falun Gong related articles – at least pending the conclusion of the promised AE (or Arbcom case). Mojoworker (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• It appears that User:Bloodofox is (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting my diffs above, so I want to clarify: I never supported any motion to get him topic banned. This is proven by the same diff that he provided. [199] It was a brief statement that I gave after a) encountering the extraordinary hubbub on this page after my long PhD hiatus, b) intended as a neutral, uninvolved observation, where I both sided with Bloodofox's suggestion to include the NRM label and expressed my concerns as follows: "Reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements. There are legitimate questions to be resolved here, and patience is undoubtedly a virtue when the articles in question have a frustratingly complicated history." It should also be self-evident that just because all editors have not spent tens of thousands of hours on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Furthermore, anyone who has devoted a considerable part of their life to editing cannot be automatically considered neutral just because of their accrued social capital. Ostensibly some people are on Wikipedia to wield definitional power, and while many of their contributions can be laudable, their edit patterns may reveal occasional elements of struggling for/against pseudoscience, secular materialism, militant atheism, conservatism, liberalism, or wherever their first principles are anchored. I shouldn't even need to state this explicitly, since in their heart of hearts everyone who's followed Wikipedia over the years knows this to be true.

I've also acquainted myself (cursorily) with the previous ArbCom cases related to this topic, and I've noticed that merits and accomplishments in other areas have never been understood as a free pass to cast aspersions and engage in ideological battles, irrespective of Wikipedia "seniority." Overall, the only way around confirmation biases and echo chambers is open discussion about things like structure, due weight, NPOV, and other Wikipedia policies -- even if these have recently been framed as irrelevant nitpicking or hindrances to getting things done. Furthermore, if Wikipedians want to assess any transcendentalist religion primarily from its most recent critics' perspective (and rewrite the lede based on that) all the while showing contempt for peer-reviewed academic research if it doesn't fit the narrative, we've already turned into RationalWiki and should openly admit that.

I happen to be specialized in related topics as an academic professional, and the only reason I got engaged after my hiatus was to ensure that the various perspectives of Religious Studies, Sociology, and East Asian studies would not be scrubbed now that China is clearly on the offensive on various fronts. We also need to acknowledge the elements of culture war here; doing otherwise is just intellectually dishonest. That said, rational debate is what I have always stood for. It all boils down to this one thing that I've repeated over and over: we're here to fairly describe the (sometimes competing and diverse) narratives prominently present in reliable sources and not to establish a single hegemonic master narrative. I have nothing against anyone's POV; the root cause of what we're currently seeing is the broken process of good-faith discussion, including the aforementioned push toward a cohesive, unambiguous, straightforward master narrative, which I see as blatantly reductive corner-cutting. From an uninvolved, objective standpoint, I believe it would be apparent that this process has been equally undermined by those involved "veterans" who're now strutting as purveyors of discernment and truth. Bstephens393 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The above editor, Bstephens393, would be in Group 1 of Blinksternet’s three group breakdown of the involved editors. They are highly involved so take their statement that they are capable of seeing this from an "uninvolved, objective standpoint” with a grain of salt. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That's all you have to respond? Personal attack, no diffs to back up your ad hoc categorization, and zero contribution to the substance of the discussion? How persuasive. Bstephens393 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

You've been editing FLG related articles since 2011. Not counting edits to administrative pages, at least 75 of your 522 (so about 14% of your edits) relate to Falun Gong. It's downright dishonest to claim to be saying things From an uninvolved, objective standpoint with that kind of history, so it's not a personal attack to point out your involvement. Your claim of being uninvolved makes quite telling the way you go on about how you are the one who wants rational discussion and how other people are (granted, perhaps without realizing it) biased is also quite telling (nevermind the way you go on about your PhD). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

After counting administrative pages, at least 95 of your edits (18%) relate to Falun Gong. So, almost one-fifth of your editing activity. Now, imagine that one-fifth of someone else's activity was in a contentious topic, and it was pretty easy to find them taking sides in arguments between editors (even if they paid lipservice to the idea that the other side isn't perfect). How hard would it be for you to not see them as dishonest (either intellectually or willfully) if they claimed to be uninvolved? Ian.thomson (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by TheBlueCanoe

[Not sure if I should comment here or in the thread above? Here's my read on the situation, anyway].

TL;DR: I believe this should go to ArbCom.

• I've been editing this topic for several years. I'm very familiar with the scholarly literature, and my interest has been in trying to ensure that the page is not overtaken by ideological agendas, and that the content conforms to Wikipedia's content policies.

• Bloodofox, Horse Eye Jack, Binksternet, and others began editing this article since April or May of this year. Since then, the Falun Gong pages have been the site of endless and apparently intractable edit wars involving at least a dozen editors.

• These users do not appear to have even an elementary level of understanding of Falun Gong. In the case of Bloodofox, his view of this topic seems to be based almost entirely on relatively news coverage in left-liberal news publications (since the Trump election, really). While the perspective offered in these news stories is important, it is also just one perspective within an expansive and varied body of academic literature.

• These editors treat the page as an ideological battleground. Binksternet, for instance, removes references to Falun Gong's core moral teachings, making some remarkable claims and misrepresenting sources along the way.[200][201][202][203][204] Bloodofox and others have inserting lengthy block quotes from recent news articles haphazardly on the page, with no regard for coherent narrative structure, due weight, or balance, and a tendency to stretch the sources to support claims that are not directly made. They have edited the lede to highlight apparent controversies that would appear extremely marginal in relation to the broader topic Falun Gong. For instance, the lede section they prefer does not include any mention of Falun Gong's core religious tenets, but it does tell us what a Falun Gong-affiliated dance troupe thinks about the theory of evolution. Etc.

• In other words, there are legitimate questions of Neutrality and Due Weight in how these news sources are presented on the page, as User:Pudeo noted. My edits, cited above by Bloodofox, were never aimed at "scrubbing" or "censoring" the article, but about ensuring a neutral and proportional representation, particularly in the lede section. I always explained my rationale on the talk page. However....

• The conflict is intractable because talk page discussions are impossible: every attempt to discuss content questions is quickly derailed by personal attacks, soapboxing, strawmaning opponents' arguments, and demands to stop discussing content (e.g. [205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217]

• Bloodofox is not the only offender, but certainly the worst: he personalizes every content dispute with accusations of "scrubbing" or "censorship," and insinuations that anyone who disagrees with them is an SPA, is acting in bad faith, or is an agent of Falun Gong. Discourse is impossible in this environment. (e.g. Bloodofox: [218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236] Horse Eye Jack: [237][238][239][240]

[241][242][243][244][245][246][247][248][249]

• For an example of how this dynamic plays out, read this recent talk page discussion[250], which is sadly typical. I describe in detail why I edited the lede section as I did, and invite other editors to discuss the content. Both Binksternet and Bloodofox state their intention not to discuss the issues, personalize the dispute, and edit war back to their preferred version.

• Some of the editors here have, in addition to the foregoing, also engaged in conduct that might reasonably be interpreted as harassment and hounding. This seems like an attempt to drive their perceived ideological opponents off the page. But I will save my evidence of that for ArbCom or AE.

So, again, the issues here are significant and intractable. It's a massive pain, but I believe this needs to go to ArbCom. When this case was filed I was preparing a request for Arbitration, but a recommendation from uninvolved editors here might make the case stronger. TheBlueCanoe 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You're aware, I'm sure, regarding your comment about "left-liberal news publications", that "Reality has a well known liberal bias". It's almost as if the liberal media wish to reveal the truth. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I liked the way a documentary called this: "the gospel of the liberal media". —PaleoNeonate – 23:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I can’t believe I just clicked through all of those diffs (you’re attributing some of Fox’s work to me BTW, might want to check those diffs again), not one was problematic or supported your arguments about harassment, hounding, etc. The only mildly questionable thing is a lack of understanding on my part about how to use SPA tags back in the day which was quickly addressed, that not one of your complaints here though its just something I noticed about my old work. BTW you’re multiple days into not providing diffs per WP:ASPERSIONS on your talk page so its interesting that you have the time to compile diffs for this page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppeting?

Allegations from blocked sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PatCheng.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some of TBC's edits are worth examining, he shares a similar editing pattern to the editor User:Homunculus who is was topic banned back in 2012[251]: 1) TBC first created his account in Oct 2012, while Homunculus was topic banned in July 2012 per WP:ARBFLG2. 2) Both TBC and Homuculous has an affinity for the expression "Yea", which is quite a coincidence between two people with similar POVs editing the same FLG articles: [252][253][254][255] 3) Both editors shared a similar style front page, scenery + poetry [256], [257]. 4) Both editors try to promote David Ownby, a scholar on Chinese religions, as some sort of authority on FLG, and use the same excuse to dismiss certain claims ie Ownby doesn't mention them in his book [258][259] 5) This edit is rather suspicious [260][261]. Homuculous quickly reverted an edit by Quigley to a previous version by TBC, before quickly reverting himself due to realizing that he violated his topic ban. 6) Both editors argued for the exclusion of certain sources critical of FLG, using the excuse "WP is not an indiscriminate collection of sources. [262][263][264] 7) Both editors argued that Chinese state media can be used to a limited extent: [265][266] 8) Both editors use the term "illuminating" as a describing term: [267][268][269] 9) Several deletions using copyright violation argument: [270][271][272] 10) In the article 610 Office, compare Homunculus's last edits (inserting Tong and Jamestown), with TBC's first edits in reverting to the old version inserting the same sources: [273][274] 11) The way both editors conversed here indicate some form of familiarity, perhaps in real life: [275][276] 12) Both editors nominated pet articles for Do You Know [277][278] 13) Both editors signed up for Wikiproject Free Speech [279][280] 14) Both editors requested semi-page protection at the FLG main article, citing IP vandalism. [281][282]. Both editors also requested anti-vandalism functions from admins: [283][284] 15) Both editors are involved with BLP dispute discussions in the Li Hongzhi article, curiously involving the subject's US citizenship status. [285][286]--LucasGeorge (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Even if it turns out they're just two different people, behaving like a sockpuppet of a topic banned user is justification for a topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC) I opened a case here [287]--LucasGeorge (talk) 09:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor NOTHERE

A cursory examination of the user and user talk pages and contributions of EzinneAnwuri pretty clearly demonstrates either a NOTHERE or CIR case, or both, and if not that then problems with UP#GOALS at the minimum. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I left a welcome template and message. I don't think anyone had really attempted to communicate with this user prior to that outside of a templated warning or two. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say definitely WP:NOTHERE. With the exception of this edit, the user's contributions are almost exclusively religious in nature, and most of them are on their userpage and talk page. This looks like textbook WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM to me. Darkknight2149 04:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate's friendly message seems like the ideal response to me, and I don't think any further action is needed just now. I say wait and see how they go. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Issues with a 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.

---

Hi,

Please let me appeal to your tolerance if this is posted in the wrong place. I joined Wikipedia yesterday and was almost immediately threatened with a ban by a Celestina007 who has continued to be abusive since then, both on my talk page and on other pages, including purposefully misrepresenting my answer to a question she put to me and telling other editors "not to bother" investigating my request for help at the Teahouse. I’m not so concerned about editing the article in question, some Wikipedians have explained the process around that to me and that’s fine but given that she’s been following me around the site I’m actually now worried about posting or editing anywhere and feel effectively bullied off the site. Could someone take a look at this for me please?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohemian Alchemyst (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• In this diff you competely & significantly overhauled an article “List of occultists” I reverted your edit & rather than discuss your proposed changes in the talk page of the article you undid my revert & labeled me a “vandal” as can be observed here. Now In this diff Ian.thomson told you the same thing I told you earlier which was, for such bold changes discussing it in the talk page of the article is good practice. Then in this diff here you cast aspersions by insinuating that Aciram is a sockpuppet of mine with 0 proof to substantiate that. You proceed to go to the TEAHOUSE to attack my character as seen here. I’m afraid defending myself isn’t stalking you. In that same TEAHOUSE you were told the same thing every other editor remotely involved in this has been telling you, which is; seek consensus first at the TP of the article, simple! Furthermore please stop using your “expert editor on occultism” excuse to introduce WP:OR into the article & if you’d quit with the POV-PUSHING that wouldn’t be a bad idea as well. It’s never about what you know for a fact but rather what you can prove via WP:RS.Celestina007 22:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007 My first edit was my overhauling of List of occultists. Being new, I was unaware that overhauling an article was considered problematic for you. In my edit summary, I asked anyone reverting it to continue the discussion on the talk page. You undid it, I rolled it back, you undid it again and since then I have not touched that article. Your first interaction with me, which can be seen on my talk page, a few hours after I'd opened an account to contribute my learning, was to threaten me with a ban. There was no discussion, no explaining, just you on a power-trip, abusing a new user. I advised that I wanted another editor to check over my work. You asked me a question about whether I had any practical experience of the occult and when I answered yes but that that wasn't relevant to my edits you behaved appallingly, openly telling me that you hadn't bothered to read the rest of my detailed response but that you'd caught me out and that I was pushing POV. You know that that is a lie. After more of your abuse and power-tripping and because I didn't want to presume the time of Eggishorn who'd been kind enough to explain a few editorial matters to me and who also called you out for your aggression, I went to the Teahouse to ask if other users could help me to deal with you because I felt that if I made any further edits, anywhere on the site, your ego would go berserk again. You followed me there, said untrue things about our discussion and then told the people that I was turning to for help not to bother getting involved. You've left me no choice but to ask an admin for input. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia. I have a lot of learning in some areas that I'd like to share and I do not want you to continue stalking me and abusing me while I do that, in fact I do not want you to ever communicate with me again. You should read your own comments back to yourself in a spirit of honesty and feel ashamed of how you have behaved. Also, I am aware that if you've done this with me you'll have almost certainly done it with other users as well who won't now be editing because they've been bullied and abused from the minute they have started contributing. You have caused me to feel that this website is a hostile environment but I will do what I can to make sure I'm the last person you do that to. So, I would ask any admin to check over our contact with each other; let them see my talk page, my contributions at the Teahouse and on the List of occultists talk page. You've written the words that are there; I think you should be judged by them. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to do you, don’t just be disruptive. I’ve “watched” & “bookmarked” that page since 2017 & if you are going to up & make such drastic changes please propose them first at the talk page of the article. Simple! Quit dragging me. Celestina007 00:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Like I said when I opened this complaint, none of this is about the article. I'm an intelligent person, once it was explained to me that there's something of an etiquette around major edits, I understood that and I've been using the talk page since then. This complaint is about your behaviour. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As a point of order: Bohemian Alchemyst, before they even registered, attempted to discuss the issues with the article on the talk page and received no response. The idea that they came stomping in and whacked a great heap of changes in without attempting to engage is a herring so red it makes candy apples look dull. I also note that Celestina007 has yet to respond on the article talk except to accuse BA of socking, not apparently noticing the timestamps of the initial talk page post or BA's explicit acknowledgement that the IP comment was theirs before they registered. I don't honestly know what to make of this. There is nothing that should have resulted in immediate threats and it's all way out of proportion to an obvious good-faith attempt to contribute content and improve the project. BA could have done better but we tend to cut newbies that want to contribute some slack - that is what AGF says, after all. The lack of AGF that should be extended by experienced users is disappointing. This is certainly not how we should welcome subject-matter experts to the project, with templates and threats. At this point, however, there is nothing here that should result in administrative action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, I have suggested to each a few hours ago that WP:ACADEME may help each to understand the other somewhat better. It deals with interactions between generalists and experts. Fiddle Faddle 07:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Timtrent, Eggishorn, If they are willing to recognise that they haven't been "tough" but have behaved 180° from AGF and if they agree not to do this with anyone else (and I'd prefer it if they didn't interact with me directly again either), then I'd be happy to put this down to an authoritarian personality-type gone bad with wiggage-induced-by-the-times. That being said, given everything up until now including the provocative doubling-down below, I would be pleasantly surprised if that capacity is there. If it isn't, then I think the best thing is to let an admin take a look at their interactions with me (and, God knows, probably other people too) and decide the best course to follow Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm outdenting out of context. I hope to suggest to both parties and admins and others who taken action or interest in reports of this nature that a period of quiet reflection be taken by involved parties, with a view to quiet resolution away from this board. This feels like a WP:BRD that has escalated almost by accident. There is no long term problem here, just a flash in the pan (0.9 probability).

I'd like to see olive branches held out by both Celestina007 and Bohemian Alchemyst to each other (probably on one or other editor's talk page, not here on this board in the harsh glare of other editors' opinions), and a quiet resolution of a situation which most assuredly ought never to have happened. I am making a conscious decision not to "A said, B said" here, but to make a firm suggestion of each of them standing away from this for at least 24 hours and then either approaching the other in spirit of working together and both discussing how to improve Wikipedia rather than sparking off each other.

If that happens successfully please may I suggest that this be closed as "No action needed, issue resolved"?

If it does not happen, certainly let whatever transpires here take its course after due consideration. Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• This entry made here at the talk page of that article by Desmay really summarizes what I think I have been trying to say. Perhaps I should be less tough next time in my approach but in the end I don’t think original research should be tolerated in any form by any editor even if they claim to be experts on the subject or “intelligent people”. Celestina007 11:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

---

In my non-admin opinion my judgement is that there appears to be a discussion by admins to conclude here. A day or two's pause has taken the heat out of this. Even so the olive branches I was hoping for are absent. We have twigs, but not branches. I've tried as a non admin to be a peacemaker, with I would say, 40% success.

The problem with this kind of a report is that it can backfire. But I think what was started must now finish. Fiddle Faddle 13:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Timtrent, I’m pretty sure your mediation did help “cool things” I’m also positive Bohemian Alchemyst is also appreciative of your intervention. The underlying problem IMO is that BA isn’t happy his work which he may have considered expert knowledge was undone. I can see he is beginning to learn the ropes But they ought to also understand that Wikipedia is not about truth or what they know to be the “truth” but rather Wikipedia is what can be verified via reliable sources all other would be described as “Original research” I’m happy to support BA as there are very few of us editors who still are interested in occultism. My advise for BA is to take this slow & in no time they should be an established editor.Celestina007 14:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  Celestina007, As I said, I think 40% successful. I still have hopes that each of you can and will do more than holding out olive twigs, and will hold out full branches to each other. In that way everyone will have learned something, though only they can say what, and peace will have broken out. Admin attention will have become unnecessary, and each can walk forward neither having won nor having lost.

  I think it is important for neither to criticise the other, each to accept that the other is simply an editor they have encountered and choose not to encounter again, and to move forward.

  To me that would be an ideal, editor generated outcome for each of you. Doing anything else is likely to lead to some form of censure, perhaps for each participant in the brouhaha. Fiddle Faddle 14:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  Celestina007, the problem is not the article and the fact that I've had to write that a number of times now reiterates one of the problems; you don't read replies properly. You read what you want to read and then go off on a power-trip, threatening bans and citing user articles and saying that I'm pushing POV or OR. If you had actually read what I have written you'd know that that is the opposite of what I've been doing. If I've written a reply and you don't understand something or want a TD;LR then asking me would have always been welcome. You've been aggressive from the moment I pressed "Publish changes" and there has been no reason for it, in particular your taking out of context my answer to your question on occultism was an extremely ungracious thing to do. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Bohemian Alchemyst, funny enough I asked that question for two reasons, the first you already know, the second reason was I too have a background in occultism. Rosicrucianism to be precise. The question wasn’t intended to be malicious one although it may have looked that way. Lest I forget, if you come across an entry that describes an occultist as an alchemist or vice versa you are more than free to make the appropriate changes & use a reliable source to substantiate that but a complete overhaul of the article wasn’t proper. In any case like I said it seems as though you are beginning to learn the ropes about how Wikipedia works & I’d be more than willing to assist you on your Wikipedia career since you are amongst the very few editors interested in what I also I’m very much interested in which is occultism. Celestina007 15:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

_______________________

• @Admin, I've change my mind a few times since I opened my account but I have decided that I'm going to not edit here; I don't think it's the right place for me. With that in mind, if you want to close this issue with no further action then that's fine, there's no point in Celestina007 being sanctioned when the person concerned isn't here. Thank you to both Timtrent, Eggishorn, for their help and support. Bohemian Alchemyst (talk) 15:41, 4 August 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.

Byzantine Empire page move

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

---

Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was moved without discussion to (Eastern) Roman Empire. A noble sentiment but not justified or consented to. Now the page needs an administrator to move it back. GPinkerton (talk) 12:59, 3 August 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.

Constant Vandalism

Hi Admin, User talk:Shaheed Hemukalani is constantly vandalizing Communist Party of India article putting all sorts of rubbish information without any reliable sources. Putting whole list of leaders name without realizing that political parties can have multiple leaders that does not mean we have put entire list of leaders in an article. This particular editor has been warned multiple times by other editors regarding his behavior, but he is no mood to relent. His main job is put bullshit information without source in Communist Party of India article. Please intervene immediately. Either you block him or warn him, but the problem is he is not willing to listen at all.--Amrita62 (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment from an uninvolved non-admin - The user in question (Shaheed Hemukalani) has made unsourced edits, but you gave him a 4im as his first warning on his talk and left a comment swearing and threatening a block. You were also warned by Soman for said nonconstructive comment and were told to give him constructive feedback/criticism if you wanted to. [288] Instead, you took this to ANI, and without warning the user at all. I highly suggest you resolve this with the editor personally, or else you may face a WP:BOOMERANG. Giraffer (munch) 14:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd say there is no vandalism case to discuss here. There might be an issue of content dispute, but bringing it to ANI is highly counter-productive. Either Amrita62 presents an edit diff where Shaheed Hemukalani has committed vandalism or the withdraw the accusation. To be clear, adding unsourced materials isn't vandalism and in the case of the latest reverts by Amrita62 the material reverted was properly sourced. --Soman (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I brought this issue over here because user Shaheed Hemukalani is not willing to listen I told him that entire list of notable leaders of a political party is not required instead it should focus on developing an article with reliable sources. I even gave him eg of different political parties which are nominated as good article. Moreover he does not give any reply at all in his talk page. What can I do; thats why I took this matter to ANI. Take a hard look at the article you'll notice now he keep adding information like vast list particularly after the "Leadership" section. Don't you think it violets MOS:LISTBASICS and MOS:LIST. Yes I do admit I should have notified him. Despite you guys pinged him, he is not even willing to comment over here. If this is a behavior of a person how can you communicated to him.--Amrita62 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Brooklyn nine nine fan

User:Brooklyn nine nine fan has continued adding unsourced content to articles after a Level 4 warning was given, this time 5000 characters of irrelevant fancruft on MrBeast, all without a source. The user has not responded to any warnings and has made no attempts to communicate. SK2242 (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

197.83.246.23 trying to impose poorly sourced fan theory (i.e. fringe) and making disruptive edits questioning widely held views from reliable sources

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

---

197.83.246.23 (or 197.86.143.179, 197.86.143.126, 197.86.143.140, etc.) has been trying to impose a fan theory at The Master (Doctor Who) diff and The Monk (Doctor Who) diff plus some other articles (diff and diff). When the differences between primary sources and secondary sources as well as the idea of due weight in regards to neutral point of view are explained, they respond with indifference diff or point-y edits diff. Also, unwilling to understand due weight diff and fringe. DonQuixote (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not it at all, and DonQuixote knows that. Actually, there are multiple issues here.

First, the "fan theory" is reliably sourced. It was inserted to try and give some NPOV to the articles.

More importantly, the The Monk *Doctor Who) article is a complete mess. The problem with this particular article is that there are multiple, mutually contradictory, accounts as to the nature of this fictional character. And each one has some sort of RS to back it up. DonQuixote(and another editor who appears as if on demand) are trying to forcibly push ONE of these latter-day interpretations as the "one correct version". The irony is that DonQuixote has repeatedly stated that "all viewpoints must be shown", and accusing me of being the one trying to push one POV version. DonQuixote is now upset because I moved a sourced sentence written in an unofficial guidebook approximately thirty years after the character appeared on tv from out of the introductory paragraph to further down the page.

In short, I had thought that everyone involved had agreed that only the information relating to the actual character, the creation of said character, and the relevant reliable sources relating to the television appearances should be in the introduction. And then all other information from subsequent dates be placed on the article, but not in the introduction. And none of these subsequent, contradictory, accounts should be given precedence over any of the others. Yet DonQuixote is pushing for ONE account to be made out to be "correct", even blanking valid sourced information. I did not remove anything. In fact, I added information, and clarified certain things to try and attempt to keep the NPOV status of the article intact.

Yet DonQuixote seems to be heavily invested in pushing ONE latter-day version of the character as the "correct" one, to the detriment of ALL other interpretations, all of which are reliably sourced, even attempting to make deceptive edits to the article. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't want to start a discussion here, as it's not going to be constructive, but two points

It was inserted to try and give some NPOV to the articles.

see WP:false balance

there are multiple, mutually contradictory, accounts as to the nature of this fictional character.

The character has appeared in multiple media written by multiple authors--so that explains that.

DonQuixote (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you want to start a discussion? After all, you were the one who reported another editor for 'disruptive behaviour'. yet, when the other editor tries to explain the situation, you now have no interest in commenting on the "incident" that you yourself reported?

In a nutshell, there is a fictitious character who appeared in Doctor Who on television in the 1960's. And, ever since different people in different media, over more than 40 years, have defined and written about that character in a variety of different ways. To the point where there are now multiple contradictory, and utterly irreconcilable, versions of the character in different narratives. And, each mutually distinct version has reliable sources stating that that version is the "one real version". What DonQuixote wants is for his preferred version to be the focus of the article, even ONLY using one type of "reliable source" in the introduction. And then for EVERYTHING ELSE to be buried in the article, sometimes being no more than a link here or there. He has also blanked reliably sourced information from the article if it contradicts with his preferred interpretation. And, he has phrased certain sections in an unsourced, deceptive manner, which would make a reader of said article get a very different understanding of issues from what the reality is.

All I have attempted to do is make the article neutral, and not to give preference to one conflicting version of said fictitious character of another. And that is the issue. To be blunt, DonQuixote has stated his preference for Big Finish Audios and their ONE adaptation over all else. And DonQuixote wishes to make the "Big Finish version" the "one true version" to the exclusion of all else. Well, he has no problem with everything else being there, just not in the lead the way the Big Finish information is. And maybe a sentence or two, as opposed to the rambling summaries of in-universe Big Finish storylines. If my objecting to that is a mistake, then I apologise. If note, then I suggest other editors look at this article, and try to clean it up, and remove some of the fanboy nonsense from it. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The IP has now reverted me to reinsert a copyrighted image into one of the articles. CMD (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this at the beginning, but the IP also dismisses sources (secondary sources and adaptations in other media) that don't support or contradict his POV, as can be seen in this discussion, amongst many. The IP thinks that I'm biased towards Big Finish because I dare to defend something that he dislikes diff. DonQuixote (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Chaps, take a step back. You're going back-and-forth over a fictional character's article on Wikipedia. Is this the best use of your time? Is this the best use of your effort and determination? As stated above, correctly, the Monk exists amongst scores of different books, comics, and other sources; there is no one true fixed version. The article here should reflect that. Wikipedia can't host one article for each and every different version of the character, so one article covering everything will have to do. But remember not to spend so much time, and so much effort, desperate to have the final say. Editors will follow you. The article will change by hands other than yours. That's how it works around here. Do your best, do what you can, but also remember to take a step back if it's getting too much. doktorb _words^deeds 09:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but my main concern at this point is that the IP is flagging sources as unreliable (nine specific ones) simply because they displease him (a few of those sources are cited in other completely unrelated articles) and it seems that he'll make the same point-y edits because he's not getting his way in other areas. DonQuixote (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

"Fringe" typically applies to areas where there is a scientific consensus of some sort and various theories held by a minority of scholars or outsiders to the field. Disagreements over the nature of a fictional character hardly apply. There is no reason for the article to ignore different versions and interpretations of the character, so far as there are available sources for them. Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I meant "fringe" as in "due weight". The problem is that the IP isn't happy with those primary sources being "only" mentioned and summarised (as I told him multiple times, his preferred version of the character is already mentioned in the article). See this discussion. DonQuixote (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

DonQuixote can't possibly claim to speak for me. However, I made my point very clear.So, to reiterate..

First, this character was never even referred to as "the Monk"(upper case) for a start. I provided RS on the discussion page.

Second, what the character was created as, and what Big Finish turned (what they claim is the same character) into are two totally different things. Now, I am fine stating that in the article. However, DonQuixote wants the article to state that that the character was originally created in Big Finish's image. Which is just plain wrong. Yes, Big Finish have made a major retcon in their own fictional stories, but that doesn't mean that the original creation was for the character to exist in the Big Finish vision of the character.

And not only are there these two contradictory versions, but between them, were a host of others. No two of which truly "fit". I attempted to put that in the article, and DonQuixote repeatedly blanked sections, because he/she didn't like that.

Really, it's s hopelessly tangled, contradictory mess, which built up over decades of different writers each trying to put their own touch on what was never even the original character to begin with. And, to be frank, the original character that appeared on television probably isn't even notable enough for its own Wikipedia page to begin with. However, because DonQuixote clearly prefers ONE' singular retcon version of this character, he/she is trying to force ALL versions of the character(s?) over the years into one mould. And, yes, there are some RS which back up DonQuixote's preferred Big Finish Monk, but there are also RS which back up other versions of the character(s?). How is wanting to keep neutral and accurate being "disruptive"? 197.83.246.23 (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And yes, even DonQuixote's wording in the thread topic, with "poorly sourced fan theory (ie. fringe)" and "widely held views" speaks volumes in itself. DonQuixote wants to push his/her POV to the detriment of ALL other versions of the character(s). And he/she considers anything other than his/her preferred interpret as a "fringe fan theory". 197.83.246.23 (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You know everything is archived, right? Nothing you've described in these three comments is even remotely true. See the above link in my previous comment, to which I'll provided another link here. Also, the comments of other editors (including a 3O) here

And what I meant by "poorly sourced" is that in the few months that you've been active you brought to the table one game (a primary source) and two comments from critics. By contrast, what I meant by "widely held views" is that I was able to come up with eight additional secondary sources in a couple of hours, which you summarily dismissed as "unreliable". "Due weight" means reflecting what the sources have to say. DonQuixote (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I haven't even spent "A couple of hours" thinking about this. All I needed to do was post at least one RS for each position, which I did. Thus, every version has at least one RS. And your preferred version has multiple sources? I'm sure they ALL do. Difference is I am doing other things with my time besides scratching through old books and websites to try and find something that nobody disputes is ONE version of a character. But the problem is you want ot push it as the definitive version of that character, and THAT'S what is at odds with Reality. By the way, here's a video someone(not me) made... [289]. And here's that Radio Times article on The Web Planet [290]. The Doctor is explicitly described as "visitor from Earth". And unlike your 21st century fanfiction, THAT is from the radio Times, and is contemporaneous with the issue in question. Here's another link from the time [291]. And we see it's "the monk", NOT "the Monk". And now your "widely held view" is exposed as being anything but. And then at least one officially authorised guidebook says that he is the exact same character as The Master. (couldn't find the relevant page online, but then I never really spent that much time looking for it.) So he's both a human time traveller who disguised himself as a monk(and it NOT "the Monk") AND he's the Time lord known as the Master. And then, there's also RS stating that's a Time lord who is actually called 'The Time Meddler'. And then there's also RS stating that he's a Time Lord who is actually called 'Mortimus'. And then there's the RS that you claim is the "widely held view". Simply because it's YOUR view. And, yes, you spent days trawling through the nether regions to find sources that back up your view. Nobody ever disputed that you would. But it's NOT the "widely held view". It's YOUR view. And just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they have a "fringe fan theory". They just have RS that contradicts yours. Get it? Got it? 197.83.246.23 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, everything is archived here. You're the one trying to push your "ONE" version of a character. When you tried to push the POV that the Master, the Monk and the War Chief were all just one character and that that was the primary version, you did so without any secondary sources and with one game (i.e. poorly sourced). When I tried to tell you that the articles document every version of the characters ever published (which included the one you were trying to push), you whined about later adaptations and how the only one that matter was the FASA game. I asked you repeatedly for other sources, particularly secondary sources. And then when you started making disruptive point-y edits, I responded by doing exactly what I asked you to do--which was to cite additional secondary sources (diff and thread). To be honest, this attitude of yours right here in this comment you just made is the reason why I brought this to ANI. DonQuixote (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

And who is the one trying to force ONE version into the introductory paragraph? That would be you. You only started this thread, complaining about "disruptive edits" because I moved a statement that is NOT universal, and is 100% at odds with the character as created, out of the introduction and down the article. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, after I found eight additional secondary sources (spanning four decades,

mind you) supporting the sentence in question, which you summarily dismissed (and which I mentioned and linked to at least twice). That clearly shows that you're the one with the bias. Diff and thread linked in my previous comment. DonQuixote (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

To be brutally frank, so? Again, nobody disputes you found links that state your preferred version. But a) there are ALSO RS for other, different versions. And just because YOU prefer on version, doesn't mean that should take preference. Plus b) YOUR preferred version is a MAJOR retcon. Notably, NONE of you RS are within twenty years of the character actually appearing on television. By all means include your preferred retcon of the character. But you can't claim that that was what the character was originally. Which is what you're trying to do. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You refuse to get the point--and that's the problem. The point is that wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what the sources have to say. If virtually no source says that the Master, the Monk and the War Chief are the same character, then it shouldn't be plastered everywhere as if it were important (it can be mentioned as one of the versions). If many sources on the topic say that the Monk is the first of the Doctor's race that appeared on the programme, then you shouldn't be going around dismissing them or flagging them as unreliable. The point is that we're not dealing with a single static character (which is what you obviously have in your mind). We're dealing with the entire history of the character both in each medium that he has appeared in and in popular culture. Look, I'm sorry that your preferred version isn't popular as you would like it to be, and that's actually at the root of the issue here. Because we're not putting your preferred version on a pedestal (editor1 and editor2), you're now making these disruptive point-y edits, dismissing the consensus of reliable secondary sources, and making false straw-man accusations. DonQuixote (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

What? Look, you have sources that say something. But there are also sources that say something completely contradictory. And stop trying to pretend the issue is now something else. You only started this thread after I kept one of your sources on the page, just not in the lead. Because, while you did have RS, there are also RS which state other completely different things. So wgy should your preferred source take precedence? Did I ever try and put certain sources into the introduction? No. Did you? Yes, and that's why you're whining and complaining now, because I tried to keep the article neutral and balanced.

To sum up..NOT all sources refer to the character as "the Monk". NOT all sources even say he was a Time Lord. In fact, as originally created, the character was NEITHER of those things. And yes, there are RS for that. And there are also RS stating that he is the same character as the "War Chief"/Master.

YOU want him to have been a Time Lord actually called "the Monk" from the start. But Wikipedia is about NPOV, not what you want. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You only started this thread after I kept one of your sources on the page, just not in the lead.

Yeah, no. I started this because you were dismissing nine reliable secondary sources and flagging them as unreliable. That's the problem. You can't just dismiss sources because you dislike them, and, from the edit and discussion histories, because you weren't getting your way--it's disruptive. DonQuixote (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

And again YOU are missing the point. While some of those sources are indeed reliable, the information they contain can not be posted in the introductory paragraph, as a) they do NOT refer to the character as originally created who actually appeared on television and b) they do not refer to every version of the character that has appeared.

By placing that information in the introduction it gives a single version precedence over everything else. So, keep that information in the article...BUT NOT IN THE INTRODUCTION. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The original version of Superman could only leap one-eighth of a mile and tall skyscrapers. It is widely accepted today that Superman can, instead, fly. Again, due weight. DonQuixote (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

The IP in question should be blocked from editing these articles and, if they do not refrain from insults, blocked from the site itself. They are being disruptive and tendentious, all because they believe specific actors are not getting the "recognition" the IP feels is deserved. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Coming from someone who has no history with the article? Where did you appear from?

But seriously, I propose that w ekeep the article neutral, and not push one POV over others. if something is not universally true about the fictional character in all its versions, then it should not be in the introduction. And "HandThatFeeds" is the one being disruptive and insulting. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor who checks in on ANI from time to time, to give discussions an outside perspective.

As for your accusation that I'm being disruptive and insulting, please provide diffs. Failing to do so can be considered a personal attack. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• IP editor, the purpose of noticeboards is to get uninvolved editors to look at the situation. Can you point to any of our guidelines or policies to support your view that if something is not universally true about the fictional character in all its versions, then it should not be in the introduction? That sounds like quite a novel idea to me, and I suspect it's just your own opinion. Personally, I'm not that interested in our articles about fictional characters, but if the suggestion that you are reverting the removal of copyrighted imagery from our articles is correct (I'm about to look into that), and you ever do that again, I will block your IP address from the project, not just these pages. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

So, you're saying Wikipedia is happy to push one particular POV reinterpretaion as the "only correct one", even though there are multiple reliable sources which state that that is not the case? And I had no idea that it was a copyrighted image. But anyway, i don;t care now. I'm wasting my time trying to have a sensible discussion with small-minded people who have nothing better to do with their time then be offensive. Especially, this 'HandThatFeeds. And, if Wikipedia has no problem with an article claiming that one interpretation is "correct", even if that is only one of several Reliable Sourced versions, then Wikipedia is flawed. And, you're threatening me with blocking me for doing something I had no idea was even wrong? "if [I] ever do that again..."? Who do you think you're speaking to, a toddler? You can make the article any inaccurate fanboy version you want. I don't care. I will not be spoken to like that by some anonymous person on the internet. I don't need to be insulted by people who I bet don't have the guts to speak like that to people's faces. And, any WORTHWHILE ecncylopaedia would NEVER push one version of a character in the introduction of an article about that character to the detriment of all other versions of the character. If it "sounds like a novel idea to you", then maybe that says something. So, I couldn't care less about any of you, and that includes the internet tough guy who threatened me for something I had no idea was "wrong". I thought I was trying to improve an article. But clearly nobody else here cares about that. I'm out. Don't bother responding. I won't be back. And you can post nay nonsense you like on any article. This is a waste of time. You're all utterly pathetic. And I bet someone will respond, and act as though you are somehow "correct". But I won't be reading it. 197.83.246.23 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for making personal attacks. If they start up in the same vein when the block expires, let me know. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:20, 4 August 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.

U1Quattro reverting edits after ANI warning

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

---

Hi. On 13 January, U1Quattro and I were warned about edit warring regarding how turbochargers are described in Infoboxes: AN3 page The argument spread across several pages at the time, so the issue is not specific to BMW M8.

A few days ago, U1Quattro's edit violated the warning: diff

It turns out that there are also 2 other breaches since the January warning: diff, diff

This user continues to make unjustified reverts and label good faith edits as "disruption" or "vandalism". So it seems that the lesson of his previous 6 blocks hasn't got through. (I look forward to U1Quattro vehemently arguing that the AN3 decision was wrong or whatever, but IMHO this is a simple case that a warning was issued and has not been followed.) 1292simon (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Making 1 revert is not edit warring. But will get my told you so in, I did say there should be an IBAN between these two users. Having said that the warning does say do not revert, it reads like its a 0RR restriction, and they seem to have done so.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

One edit seven months after AN3 is not an edit war. Why don't you run a RfC on the turbocharger issue?--Hippeus (talk) 11:53, 5 August 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.

Over action

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

---

Dear senior editor, I'm an experienced editor from Wikiproject Myanmar. I want to complain about over action of User DMySon on recently created, Salin Supaya. Salin Supaya was a highest level crown princess consort and chief queen designate during the late Konbaung dynasty. The article is created by newbie editor Zin Win Hlaing without online source. I've added many book source to article when i saw the article. However DMySon moved the article to draft again again! What the hell is that? This is pure bullying and he bite newbie!!! All of Burmese royalty articles have only book source! How much do he need? Royalty are almost always notable. Please kindly see newcomer Zin Win Hlaing' talk page and Salin Supaya article also. He also received the Warning: Three-revert rule on his talk page see. Thank you so much dear senior. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Per the message in the red box at the top of this page, you're required to notify the involved editor of this posting. I've done that for you. Neiltonks (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cape Diamond MM, i moved the article in good faith. I would suggest to Zin Win Hlaing to submit this draft for review. If you really think this article is notable enough and having good reliable references. You may submit the same draft for review. Let the other editors decide whether it is notable to make its entry in main space. I am not opposing anything. In-fact i would love to welcome newbies.DMySon 11:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait what? You moved the article for good faith? Lol the article have well sourced and good written! Please kindly see other Burmese princess articles on Wikipedia. Most of articles are no source! Why so serious? Cape Diamond MM (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm protector of royalty article on Wikipedia. For now... See Meiktila Princess, Taingda Princess, Seindon Mibaya are no sourced! If you moved this articles to draftspace, the article creator and respected editor Hintha will f--k you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cape Diamond MM (talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hay....Where are admins and senior editors? Pls resolve this dispute! I has been edited royal related articles for a long times. I very angry on this stupid. That Salin Supya article is well sourced and many information available on Google Books see. I really don't understand why??? Cape Diamond MM (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Cape Diamond MM is blocked for 24 hours for that "...the article creator and respected editor Hintha will f--k you" outburst. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I has been unblocked and cleaned some rude words. So continue to discuss. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 14:40, 4 August 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.

Another "typo" fixer - changing "African-American" or similar to "Black-American" even at African Americans

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

---

• Juminz (talk · contribs)
• Example diff

User:Jpgordon warned him last month about lying in his edit summaries, which are clearly not the default. All their edits except the one at Marlon Brando seem to be similar. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Christ how much effort? I think a TBAN as this is all a bit too pointy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

And still at it [[292]] so its not as if they are not active right now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin but have just warned him with {{uw-disruptive1}}. If he continues, we can warn him with {{uw-disruptive2}} next. —Unforgettableid (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

He is [[293]], now edit warring.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Final warning issued. El_C 13:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Still at it [[294]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. El_C 14:45, 4 August 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:Pillow4 engaged in a massive amount of taxonomy modification

Pillow4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaged in a campaign of re-defining biological taxonomies across the project, with no apparent engagement in any discussion of the matter. Attempts to engage in discussion ([295]) have been summarily dismissed ([296]). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Admittedly they stopped with the Hominina/Australopithecine copy-paste after being asked to (didn't notice that they had already removed a warning before I left mine). Everything else seems kinda competent, but they are certainly going at a hell of a clip and in very wide sweeps, in an area that has been pretty much polished for a while. I suspect that none of the taxonomy folk have even had a chance to look at this yet, it comes so fast. Blanket replacements of images is rarely a good idea under such circumstances. Pillow4, could you please slow down and at least give people some time to look over your changes? It reduces the risk of later messy cleanup operations. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Valoem and New Way Forward Act

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

Doesn't understand how BRD works? Check. Bad-faith accusations against other editors? Check. Edit-warring at multiple BLPs to include contentious material despite clear objections? Check check check check. (This is ignoring the competence and NPOV issues in the parent article New Way Forward Act that they created; I've removed the citation to Tucker Carlson and the time-traveling criticisms from Trump, but more attention would be helpful. This is escalated from BLPN.) --JBL (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Couple of points:
  1. Including this bill on the pages of numerous American politicians strikes me as a bit of a coatrack: "Senator Gurpleton is a supporter of the New Way Forward Act. Here is a long-winded ramble about what the bill is. Blah de blah de blah de blah de blah de blah."
  2. I agree that a statement Trump made in May 2019 cannot possibly relate to a bill introduced seven months later.
  3. You won't get far talking to POV-pushers the way they talk to you.
• Reyk _YO! 22:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, I honestly can't even believe what I'm reading.

• Valoem: How could you revert this, I added sources? These are facts.
• JBL: WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and misrepresenting sources are all concerns here. You made a bold edit, but per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to stop reverting and take your concern to the talk page. Here are several other demonstrable problems with your edit.
• Valoem: But... but... NO, I ADDED SOURCES!!! [continues reverting]

Valoem has now been reverted by two different users. And who cites Tucker Carlson? On top of obvious edit warring, POV pushing, and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, I suspect there could even be an element of WP:CIR at play, just going off of Valoem's actions here. Darkknight2149 23:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah, the level of incompetence shown here regarding BRD is quite astounding for someone (as JBL says) who has been here for 15 years. This is facepalm territory as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I've added reliable sources showing this two people believe in the New Way Forward Act I did nothing wrong here. The onus is on me I added sources why are your removing source information? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Even if you had a point, the onus is on you to go to the talk page and discuss the disagreement instead of continuing to hammer the Undo button. As an editor with rollback, autopatrolling, and pending change review rights who has been with us since 2006 and who was blocked for breaking 3RR back in 2010, I have a hard time believing that you don't already know this. A better question would be why are you edit warring and ignoring the WP:BRD process? Darkknight2149 05:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The 3RR was due to editing the article Phil Ivey against an IP editor regarding format. It is fairly clear that you are using Wikipedia as a political tool if you are going to bring that up. Our goal is to create a neutral presentation of laws. Is there a rule against attributing Tucker Carlson? I also cited what Jesus "Chuy" Garcia said in the support section yet that was not removed. And 2010? you haven't even been around that long. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

My point was that you are obviously familiar with edit warring policies, not that the 2010 block has anything to do with this situation. Darkknight2149 08:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"Is there a rule against attributing Tucker Carlson?" Visit Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Under "Fox News (talk shows)" it specifically states: "Fox News talk shows, including Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, The Ingraham Angle, and Fox & Friends, should not be used for statements of fact but can sometimes be used for attributed opinions." Dimadick (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That's what I did it was an attribution. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• More of the same incompetence and attacks on my good faith are now on display here. I am logging off Wikipedia for the next 10-ish hours hopefully. --JBL (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You're not being honest here. That link has nothing to do with you, I was talking about a different editor that added copyright vio to the page. I had an admin review it and he removed the tag. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, WP:BRD is pretty clear. When you get reverted, discuss. Sometimes that discussion ends up being via the edit summaries ("revert: no source", "put text back, added source to NYT") which in some cases can work just fine, but should generally be avoided. This one is a bit less cut-and-dried, as it's a really new article and if it had been all done in one pass the reversion would have been the bold part. But it wasn't. Our rules don't always make the best of sense in a given context, but experienced editors should really know this one. Hobit (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

My apologies I was under the impression reverting sourced material need to be discussed. Anyways I only reverted one and did not violate the 3RR. I have opened a discussion on AOC and listed sources showing they are supporters of the bill. I am not sure why this was controversial in the first place. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It really isn't. Worse things happen, even with experienced editors, every hour here. But you really should know how BRD works at this point. You do now, so that's great. I don't think this really ever needed to come here at all, but seems like a net positive outcome, so there you go. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User repeatedly creating uncredited machine translations from other wikis, despite warnings

Despite receiving multiple warnings (such as [297]), Jackson767 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to upload articles which are machine translations from other language wikipedias, without crediting the source. This is a violation of WP:Licensing, WP:COPYVIO, and leaves messes for other editors to clean up after. Furthermore, it's not a constructive contribution (to see a machine translated version of another wiki's article, use Google Translate). The results are often incoherent and/or unverifiable. Here are some examples of his work: Battle of Heishiguan, from Chinese (deleted), Alfonsas Vincentas Ambraziūnas, from Lithuanian (reverted/stubbed), and just today Andrey Davidovich Gorshkov (from Russian, draftified by me). As far as I can tell, virtually all of their contributions consist of this. (t · c) buidhe 18:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would add that moving the poorly translated and under-referenced articles to draft doesn't help as the user simply moves them back to mainspace, for example [298] and [299] --John B123 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

John B123 Buidhe, I've partially blocked Jackson767 from editing mainspace indefinitely. They can be unblocked once they demonstrate the will to properly attribute translations. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 20:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees, I'm not sure that's a great way to handle this problem. AfC/new page reviewers unfamiliar with this user often fail to recognize this problem, perhaps mistaking their work for the original creations of a non-native English speaker—see the messages left on their talk page. (t · c) buidhe 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, Right, also blocked from draft space. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 20:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing from User:CathayPacificFrequentFlyer

Hello there. CathayPacificFrequentFlyer (talk · contribs) keeps reinstating an unreliable source at TAAG Angola Airlines despite being told not to do so. Here are the diffs:

• Unexplained reversion
• Another unexplained reversion
• Yet another reversion disregarding the unreliability of the source

Let me add that sources anyone can edit, such as seatguru.com, cannot be considered reliable. Please also note the sarcastic replies at the messages left at their talk. Thank you.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I have also noticed that the user has taken up the cause of re-adding poorly sourced or non-neutral information that was originally added by the now-blocked User:AllNipponAirwaysLover. See examples like this one. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - here is the page history to make this a little more clear. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to add, more unexplained reversions: in Francisco Duque III, 1, I tried to reason on the user's talk page but the user just deleted it. Also on Rodolfo Acquaviva, 2, another unexplained reversion and reinstating AllNipponAirwaysLover's edit. Possible sock? - SUBWAY 17:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AllNipponAirwaysLover --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Go Into The Light

• Go Into The Light (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure what to do in this situation, but this (new?) user who appears to be a WP:SPA seems bound and determined to derail the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (2nd nomination). Perhaps an uninvolved admin can look at the situation and decide whether there might be some way to engage with this particular account that would allow things to become more... wieldy? I note that a query into a possible conflict of interest was removed from his talkpage a few days ago with a rather snide edit summary: [300]. jps (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Inferring from the talk page of the article, this could be the subject itself desperately attempting to keep his own bio here. It was suggested that the good doctor was the one who originally posted the material here so it wouldn't be an unreasonable guess. That being said, we'd need an SPI case page to compare the two before leveling accusations. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that he hit a disallow edit filter (LTA 1053) twice. Any idea as to why? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

He used the word 'moron', which the filter blocks. Number 57 22:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is Dr. Bechly. It is more likely someone who is active in ID controversies of the Denyse O'Leary sort. That's as far as I'm willing to speculate, however. jps (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A 2011 source describes him as a curator at the State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart. As discussed at Talk:Günter Bechly#Career change, he resigned his job at SMNS in December 2016, and began work as senior scientist for the Discovery Institute’s Biologic Institute, senior fellow with DI's Center for Science and Culture, and at some stage [founded?] an Austrian offshoot of the DI. . . dave souza, talk 13:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• "It should be noted that this very page contains the subject's denial of the accusation that he created it, and he seems to have been well aware of concerns like Wikipedia not being an autobiography service, as he then proceeded to try and edit it... You wouldn't want to burn in hell for all eternity, after all."[301] -- Go Into The Light 11:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• "The article was created by a colleague at our museum and subsequently expanded by myself"[302] --Dr. Günter Bechly 11:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Here is the edit by "a colleague at our museum":[303]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Go Into The Light: The evidence that raised the suspicion about a conflict of interest is the contributions history which is public information. Single purpose account is a related essay. Another useful essay is WP:BLUDGEON: the important is that your "keep" vote entry be clear and ideally based on policy-based arguments. While it's possible to reply on other parts, it's not very useful to fill the page with repetitive text and accusations for instance. While you shouldn't edit your previous messages where other editors already replied, it would be best to revise your own "keep" section (<s>...</s> may be used to strike parts when doing corrections) and to let the process run its course. As for religious advocacy itself, WP is not the place for it and I'm sure that threats of hellfire will not convince them to ignore English-WP policy... —PaleoNeonate – 17:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not religious in the slightest, I fear you have totally misread that hellfire comment, which was sarcasm. Why I came to Wikipedia is already part of that public record, as is my denial of having any kind of conflict of interest at all. Go Into The Light (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Call for block

• Could someone please partially block User:Go Into The Light from editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly? The disruption is derailing the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It really is NOT letting up. This is already deep into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and perhaps also into WP:NOTHERE territory. jps (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

    NOTHERE is convincing, —PaleoNeonate – 18:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Please block per NOTHERE. I am eager for that AfD to close. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
    • User blocked as NOTHERE. I would have did a partial block for that AfD, but now that they have moved on, it's time to stop. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oh, no. He has started in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz as well, arguing that WP:NPROF doesn't apply. Please, somebody, make it stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Was indeffed, and it got so bad that talk page access was revoked. Ravenswing 00:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit on Joseph Nicolosi and Dean Hamer

I seek attention about this change in Dean Hamer and this changes in Joseph Nicolosi article by User:Sxologist. He has a biased tendendency of establishing his own view, he tends to use same policy differently to establish his view, above are the proves. 116.58.201.111 (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You've mentioned me on two administrator noticeboards for this. One revert is not edit warring. First, you removed the required WP:FRINGE notices from Medical Associations, made drastic edits to a page that are not required, used primary/original sources instead of reputable secondary ones, added a fringe source (Joseph Nicolosi) and now you're disruptively wasting peoples time by tagging me here under an anonymous IP. Learn how to use Wikipedia. For making such baseless accusations and disruptive fringe edits, I hope you get banned. Don't call me "bias" because I actually happen to work in this field and can see how you're trying to spin things. Sxologist (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin) As this full diff will show, Sxo's edit to Nicolosi was simply a restoration of the article to a state before a series of IP edits, most of which were made with no edit summary to justify them. The Hamer edit was similarly a reversion. I suggest the IP editor learn about the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I smell COI, or at least a heavy barrow being pushed uphill. This fails WP:MEDRS. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG, to be clear, you mean the IP? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, both, as it turns out. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist is fine, he is not Freeknowledgecreator as I explained below and on his talk page. Anyway, the IP seems to me to be the problem here. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Given that this account was started this March, surely this is just another Freeknowledgecreator sock? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist? No. Freeknowledgecreator wasn't taken to ANI and blocked until May: [304] Also, while Freeknowledgecreator's edits watered down how conversion therapy was fringe, Sxologist is the opposite and edits following the scientific consensus in this area. If anything, the IP is Freeknowledgecreator, although I am not saying that is definitely the case. The shifting IP is just mad that other editors (not just Sxologist) aren't allowing their fringe edits and took Sxologist to two different noticeboards. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, I think the IP might actually be Lazy-restless, a user who got indeffed and topic banned simultaneously at this ANI report, and who said he was from Bangladesh, same as this IP's geolocation. He's currently globally locked. The stuff that the IP added at Dean Hamer [305] uses the same sources that Lazy-restless originally added to Xq28. [306] I had rewritten that material, and this IP copied the rewritten version to Dean Hamer. Additionally, this IP, 116.58.201.111, is very similar to 116.58.201.145, who was at Xq28 after Lazy-restless' block, complained on the talk page about being reverted by me, and then mysteriously pinged some random-seeming people who were all at Lazy-restless' ANI thread, namely Flyer22 Frozen, Drmies, and Boing! said Zebedee. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

LouiseFeb1974

LouiseFeb1974 (talk · contribs), LouiseVickers74 (talk · contribs) - I believe these two accounts are the same person but I am not looking for a checkuser and will be cross at anyone who thinks about it.

This is one of those cases where I wish we could do something, anything else. In short we have:

1. A user who seems to be pretty good at creating content

2. Leaves no (or minimal) edit summaries, never edited outside main space

3. Email disabled, so the only way to communicate with them is on their talk page, which receives no replies

4. After unanswered messages about problems, a thread is started here

This usually brings us onto point 5 :

5. User is blocked, generally per WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and is gone forever

Essentially, it's a conflict between don't bite the newbies and communication is required. Previous examples include Bob Henshaw (talk · contribs) and Ludwigpaisteman (talk · contribs). I don't want these people to leave Wikipedia, they're improving the encyclopedia in good faith and not getting into trouble.

Ideally, we'd have a better communication system than talk pages, or possibly some sort of "oy, read your talk page [link]" notification that is impossible to miss (unlike the current notification system, which is possible) that comes up when they try to edit, that's not as swift and severe as a block.

Any other ideas? Does anyone else lament the loss of the big orange bar? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean something other than blocking them in article space with a block summary that says, "please respond to our concerns on your (link to talkpage|talk page)"? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, this was actually my thinking as well. I was discussing the accounts with Ritchie333 and it occurred to me that an article space block with a reminder to WP:ENGAGE would be appropriate in such cases. Problem is that when I have tried this approach in the past it's effectively been as if I'd fully blocked them from project. Editor did not return nor engage. The script idea is an interesting one and worth exploring but perhaps some people just aren't cut out for (or just don't have any interest in) working in a collaborative way? We can only but try... Glen 14:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

In answer to your question, yes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

One possibility could be for an IAdmin to install User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar for them and see if that makes a difference. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Even with the big orange bar the phenomenon of the article-space-only editor was real. I think an article-space block is a reasonable avenue in a case like this. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Ritchie333, although it had escaped my notice here were two accounts. I have now left a few messages asking for edit summaries from LouiseFeb1974 (talk · contribs). But as Ritchie says, there has been no response since the account was started on 30 June. I have even belatedly added a welcome message. A block may now be justified, unless there is some way of selectively adding a "review filter" for edits made by these two accounts? Yes, I do miss the old "OBOD"! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What about a block from a single article to get their attention? Murder of Lesley Molseed seems like a candidate. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Jauerback, this seems reasonable. Glen 14:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we make sure any block notice has a wikilink to their talk page that they can click on and emphasises they need to reply? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I only comment because I remember of Bob to whom I sent a beer template back then. The talk page warnings were issued without effect, so a block was ultimately needed. Another editor had to cleanup the census data at many articles. This means that any large template, perhaps even the beer one may have been missed from the talk page. The hope was that the block would cause the editor to respond and it would probably have been lifted. If there was another notification system that'd show up at the top of any page and made it easy to write a reply, I'm all for it and it's probably worth a Village Pump thread. On the other hand, the block should theoretically have produced a similar effect while also stopping the ongoing disruption (the editing needed to be interrupted in this case). As previously mentioned I'm sure the block would have been lifted if the editor managed to reply, so is it that different to a block that displays the UTRS email address? I've been blocked as an IP address but years ago (the block was targetting another user using the same ISP), I don't remember what message is shown when we try to edit when blocked. —PaleoNeonate – 00:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I see, on Ritchie333's talk page, that it's agreed that the editor is making good edits ([307],[308]), so it's bizarre that they are likely to be blocked for, err, not doing anything wrong.
  I'm the first to demand that "Communication is fundamental" (ANI contribs passim). But I note that Ritchie333 has been pinged twice to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allerseelen (band) and asked to change his !vote, but has not yet replied there.
  Of course, he doesn't have to change his !vote, but considering he is very aware of how painful it is to have anything at AfD, one might have thought he would jump at the chance to alleviate anyone else's (...[309], I'm just baffled at how many times I've been templated bombed in the past week, having very rarely happened before. I know full well what that sort of treatment does to newcomers, and being repeatedly hit by it, even as an experienced editor, is disillusioning in the extreme to the extent that [310] if people don’t want me to contribute here I’ll find other things to do).
  Cheers! ——Serial 12:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I saw the pings, but I haven't had 10-15 minutes spare to sit down and write a response. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Oh, well, thank you, sir. Well, I think I'm man enough to sacrifice the pleasure of killing to maintain the general good humour. (to poets) There's to be no murder today, gentlemen. (poets complain) But prepare to Mrs. Miggins' -- I shall join you there later for a roister you will never forget! ——Serial 03:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ogryzek - Thomas Hesse

Ogryzek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Seems to have some sort of vendetta against Thomas Hesse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), repeatedly asserting that "he is not noteworthy" (e.g. [311]) or unsourced accusations despite being notified by me of the sourcing requirements on his talkpage there. this edit is also concerning, as it shows he doesn't appear to care about Wikipedia's sourcing reqirements. A full list of all his edits to the page:

• "He is not a noteworthy person. Please delete this entry", replacing the lead
• "Someone who doesnt pay contractors who have worked for him." with the edit summary "Added truth" (WP:TRUTH)
• "An unnoteworthy person who for unknown reasons has an entry on Wikipedia", perhaps because the subject is notable or , less likely, that noone has come to delete it yet
• "Someone who has no tact, and instead of talking with people who have given thousands of dollars of work, just ghosts them, like a thief. And is completely unnoteworthy."

yet another unsourced addition

To conclude, Ogryzek doesnt't appear to care about the sourcing requirements nor the biographys of living person policy. If I sum this up, I am somewhere in WP:NOTHERE or WP:ICANTHEARYOU teritory. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I have warned the user. If he blanks the page again I'll ban him - it's gone far enough. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours - literally right after I posted he blanked the page again. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User:WoodLay and copyright

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

I warned WoodLay about copyright issues in May, but they appear to be continuing to add copyright material to articles (e.g. Crucifix of Quebec National Assembly but also sentences in edits such as this). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

A first short block is probably in order, on the other hand I wonder if it will change anything considering the low activity level, other than being in the log for longer future blocks if violations persist. Also concerning is the lack of response to warnings other than blanking. I wondered if a language barrier explains both, but I've seen other edits in proper English like Special:Diff/966808502 (does not seem to be a blatant copyright violation?)... —PaleoNeonate – 23:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Note that WoodLay has blanked my notification about this discussion, without engaging here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

So i understand now that when you have links on pages. you should use your own words instead of just copying the whole words from the website link. this will be in the front of my mind next time i do pages such as 2020 Venezuelan parliamentary election when i used my own words on the Opposition Election boycott. WoodLay (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This can probably serve as a formal received/confirmed warning, making a block unnecessary at this time, thank you for the reply, —PaleoNeonate – 05:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, although I'd add that some assistance in identifying past violations would be appreciated too. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Misuse of sources by User:Sandbh

(non-admin closure) Content dispute moved elsewhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The behaviour of User:Sandbh in a discussion at Talk:Periodic table#IUPAC: an endorsement on group 3 (1988) is concerning me. It appears to involve misreadings of reliable sources, using original research to discredit sources, and selectively using sources. Let us take one case as an example. Now, I am afraid that this will be a bit long, because it just takes quite long to refute a misuse of sources. Landau and Lifshitz's Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3, Quantum Mechanics (1958) contains a note on p. 271 regarding the periodic table. “ In books on chemistry, lutetium is usually placed with the rare-earth elements. This, however, is incorrect, since the 4f shell is complete in lutetium; it must therefore be placed in the platinum group, as in Table 4. ” And this source, among others, was cited by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) in a 1988 report (doi:10.1351/pac198860030431) to endorse the idea that group 3 of the periodic table should contain scandium, yttrium, and then lutetium instead of lanthanum: “ ” For reference, the symbols of the elements involved are Sc (scandium), Y (yttrium), Lu (lutetium), Lr (lawrencium), La (lanthanum), Ac (actinium), Ce (cerium), Th (thorium), Yb (ytterbium), and No (nobelium). IUPAC currently even has a project reexamining the matter right now, whose chair is Eric Scerri. And he considers it an endorsement: “ Thirdly, I should also mention that figure 3 that I call an optimal table, was already endorsed in an earlier IUPAC report, E. Fluck, New Notations in the Periodic Table, Pure and Applied Chemistry, 60, 3, 431-436, 1988. ” — Eric Scerri This seems to me to clearly support the idea that the relevant body endorsed the form with group 3 as Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr in 1988. But that is not how Sandbh sees it. First he discredits the report itself. He claims that "Fluck’s saying that group 3 is Sc-Y-Lu-Lr was a personal opinion, relying on questionable sources." But how is it a personal opinion? Fluck is not listed as the author of the 1988 report per se, but rather as the person who prepared the report for publication. Indeed the report is rather headed by the words "International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry: Inorganic Chemistry Division". And at the bottom of the cover page it is even called a report: "Republication of this report is permitted without the need for formal IUPAC permission on condition that an acknowledgement, with full reference together with IUPAC copyright symbol (© 1988 IUPAC), is printed. Publication of a translation into another language is subject to the additional condition of prior approval from the relevant IUPAC National Adhering Organization." Then he discredits Scerri's interpretation. He writes "Eric seeing Fluck’s statement is a personal opinion, not connected with his role as the Chair of the IUPAC Group 3 project." True that. But Eric Scerri, being on the actual IUPAC Group 3 project, is surely well-placed to know what IUPAC did or did not do in the past. And he's surely a reliable source for that very reason. Sandbh disputes this, saying "No, Scerri does not necessarily know what IUAPC has or has not done." But on what basis? We have to take the source at face value, we cannot try to discredit it based on some supposed behind-the-scenes background that we know nothing about (because it isn't publicly stated) That would be original research. But that's exactly what Sandbh does. He wrote to me in that discussion "You are reading things into this article when you do not have sufficient awareness of the background to it". But what have I read into it? I simply reported exactly what the IUPAC report said and that Scerri said it was an endorsement. Finally we come to what, to me, is the most astonishing part of Sandbh's behaviour. That is with reference to the source by Landau and Lifshitz (the Course of Theoretical Physics) referred to in the IUPAC report. Now, this is not just any other old textbook. It is a classic. We need only look at the Wikipedia article on it to get a sense of the accolades which it has received. Science called it "renowned". American Scientist called it "celebrated". The Soviet government even awarded its authors the Lenin Prize in 1962 (which was the first time it had ever been awarded for teaching physics). But what does Sandbh do? He tries to discredit it. And not by referring to an independent reliable source to do this. By instead referring to his own WP:OR analysis of it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 48#Landau & Ligshitz (1958): Redux. He advocates his own view of it that is at variance with what the IUPAC report says. He claims that Landau and Lifshitz supported lanthanum and lutetium in group 3, but IUPAC does not seem to see it that way. In fact he gives no source for his interpretation. Whereas all the sources I found that consider Landau and Lifshitz's statement interpreted it the way IUPAC did: “ Let me point out, however, that we made some changes in the periodic system. Here is Lu; all of your text books show La in its place. We just shifted the whole thing over and started La near Ba then all the rare earths, and finally Lu under Y. From all points of view, a crystallographic, metallurgical, superconducting, melting point in particular—this is the proper way to do it. And it was a mistake in the periodic system—unfortunately mostly propagated by the Welsh [Sargent-Welch?] Company, that La was here and again, everybody copied it. When we published that there was a mistake in the periodic system and La should be where Lu is and vice-versa, we were extremely proud of it until we found it in the Landau Lifschitz book where they had previously mentioned it. In subsequent papers we gave them credit but we didn't know it at the time we came to this conclusion. ” — Bernd T. Matthias (1969): Systematics of Superconductivity. In Superconductivity: Proceedings, Volume 1. “ Placing La next to Hf in the 5d row was merely a convention. If, following Landau and Lifshitz, we put Lu next to Hf, then all transition metals with n = 3 are not superconducting (see Table I). [They show a periodic table with indeed group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu, and La and Ac moved to the f block.] ” — D. C. Hamilton and M. A. Jensen (1963): Mechanism for Superconductivity in Lanthanum and Uranium And finally, that's not even the most astonishing thing Sandbh does in his WP:OR attempt to discredit the source. He draws a "Landau and Lifshitz periodic table" which is assuredly not what Landau and Lifshitz give. What Landau and Lifshitz give What Sandbh in his own analysis calls a "Landau and Lifshitz periodic table" As can be seen, Landau and Lifshitz did not even give a periodic table. These tables are scattered across different pages in their book! But Sandbh creates a "Landau and Lifshitz periodic table" anyway, even including elements on it that were unknown to Landau and Lifshitz as they were only discovered after 1958. To do so, he must read into the minds of Landau and Lifshitz to figure out how they would have dealt with lawrencium with its unprecedentedly anomalous gas-phase ground-state electron configuration of [Rn]5f146d07s27p1 rather than [Rn]5f146d17s2. Not only is lawrencium not in their table, it would require rather more than mind-reading to find out what Landau and Lifshitz would have done, because this configuration was first predicted in 1971 when Landau had already passed away, and first received clear experimental support in 2015 when Lifshitz had also already passed away. I ask: how can this be considered anything other than a misuse of the source? This is not even the only case of misuse of sources in that discussion. There I have referred to several, such as claims about the relevance of gas-phase ground-state configurations for the d and f block elements. Sandbh continually claims these as relevant (without quoting any sources, simply asserting that thousands of sources use them without backing it up) despite the fact that I have already provided five sources refuting the idea. He also selectively quotes Scerri whenever he says something that might be taken to support La under Y: thus, for instance, he quotes Scerri and Parsons to support his idea that Jensen's 1982 article supporting Lu under Y (which IUPAC also refers to in its report above) is flawed, but fails to note that Scerri and Parsons support Jensen's conclusion anyway for other reasons. (In fact, both their criticism of Jensen and their support of his conclusion for other reasons anyway can be found in the same essay in Mendeleev to Oganesson.) Or how he claims that there effectively wasn't any controversy about group 3 before Jensen's 1982 article, despite me being able to find so many sources about it and supporting Lu under Y prior to 1982 (Bury 1921, Shemyakin 1932, Landau and Lifshitz 1958, Seel 1961 and 1969, Hamilton and Jensen 1963, Hamilton 1965, Matthias et al. 1967, Merz and Ulmer 1967, Luder 1967 and 1970, Chistyakov 1968 and 1970, Matthias 1969, Wittig 1973). But in the interest of not taking too much space, I have restricted myself to just the one above. I have pointed this out to him all there, but he does not address my concerns. He simply points to word length and says "​​​It's unfortunate this topic takes up so much wordage. Addressing Double sharp's contributions now takes me so long it's starting to impact my RL obligations." Well, of course it is long. It always takes more verbiage to point out a misuse of sources than to engage in it. And this is not a new pattern of behaviour from him. This topic has been discussed since last December(!) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 42. There it came about because he was planning to publish an article outside Wikipedia about the group 3 issue and asked the other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements for a peer review. By far the most active participants were him, myself, and Droog Andrey. There we found much the same thing: misinterpretation of sources, selective quoting of sources, and refusing to change his view even in the face of completely standard texts like Greenwood and Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements contradicting him. In the interest of space I haven't provided specific examples, but I can do so if requested. Because, after all, that is not quite relevant: it was for an external publication. So it spilled on through archives 44, 46, and 48, in which I progressively lost my patience. Since refuting him made me realise more and more about the subject and that Wikipedia's showing of La and Ac in group 3 may not be justified (as reliable sources focusing on the issue are generally against it, and they already form a significant 18% minority in general chemistry textbooks – we must remember that the textbooks are often not quite within reach of current knowledge; an example is how the d-orbital explanation of hypervalence lives on in textbooks despite it having been known to be false for decades), culminating in a first RFC (Talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should the default form of the periodic table be changed to put Lu and Lr in group 3, rather than La and Ac?) Now, I realised that I overreached in my harshness towards him: it was not justified per WP:CIVIL. So I apologised to him on his talk page and withdrew the RFC. (Since I did not know yet that IUPAC had really endorsed the Lu under Y form, it did have a weaker case.) However, despite this, the same behaviour with sources manifested itself again when this discussion was reopened when I found this statement about IUPAC's endorsement. And this time it's not about his external article, but about Wikipedia. I escalate this here reluctantly. I have worked productively with him on Wikipedia in the past, and would certainly much prefer to be doing so again. But this misuse of sources is now affecting a content discussion. Is there anything that can be done about this? Double sharp (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC) ​Over the course of three posts Double sharp has so far contributed 10,000 words to the relevant discussion at Talk:Periodic table, here. My two responses, which I've tried to keep concise, amount to 1,200 words. His latest contribution here, brings his word count up to 12,000 words, I pity the poor Admin who has to deal with this one. It is not WP:ANI material. That said, I stand ready to assist. Sandbh (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC) ​ As can be seen, Sandbh still does not address his problematic use of sources. He only refers to word length even though it simply takes that long to show how problematic it is. Double sharp (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC) (non admin comment) These arguments approach the length of a PhD thesis over multiple archives. But really it sounds like the RFC opening rather answers the question, the IUPAC have a compromise form at the moment, clearly intended to stop chemists from bickering. Could you both live with the compromise form? PainProf (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @PainProf: The point here is not the form, it is about Sandbh's misuse of sources. But since you asked: I could live with Sc-Y-* indeed. It is shown by IUPAC (even if not explicitly recommended). It's Sandbh who apparently cannot, judging from his comments about it at Talk:Periodic table#A navigation aid for Wikipedia, based on the periodic table (see the end of that section). It is true that I would prefer Sc-Y-Lu as it was actually endorsed by IUPAC in 1988 as quoted above, whereas Sc-Y-* is not explicitly recommended by them. Actually Sc-Y-* poses a little difficulty for the navboxes on Wikipedia like {{Periodic table (navbox)}} which give the 32-column form. There the compromise is impossible. But we can look at what IUPAC does in that situation. Only the 18-column form appears in the most recent 2005 Red Book, but the 1990 one has 8-, 18-, and 32-column forms. In the first two, the compromise is possible, and they show Sc-Y-*. In the last it is not and they show Sc-Y-Lu. But, again: this can also be resolved by switching to an 18-column navbox and showing Sc-Y-* everywhere. I am okay with that compromise. Sandbh, it appears, is not. Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC) I don't really see a major conduct issue, you are holding each other to very high standards, it seems like you've collaborated productively a lot in the past. I really think if you both concede ground you could end this minor conflict quite quickly and get back to that? PainProf (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @PainProf: But I am willing to concede ground. I've stated above that the compromise form Sc-Y-* would be fine with me. It's not my first choice, but I'm fine with it. It's, however, apparently not fine with him. I do think that misuse of sources is a significant conduct issue. We have indeed collaborated productively a lot in the past, and I would like to get back to that, but it really does raise questions about his use of sources. And it is not even a new issue: Flying Jazz pointed it out back in 2013. There is this exchange in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements/Archive 17: “ Yes, Hill and Holman use the term poor metals in the 'main table' at the back of their book. Sandbh (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC) I'll be purchasing Hill and Holman's 5th edition from 2000 and also their 6th edition from 2011 to see what these author's views were and how they may have changed from one edition to the next. This will take time because the texts are so difficult to obtain where I live, but I love chemistry books and I love examining how book editions in general change over time, so I'm excited at the prospect of adding two chemistry books to my collection that are recommended in curricula far away from where I live. Some serious discussions instead of mockery may result from my examination of those editions. If you'd like to answer the question, "Did Hill and Holman use the term Poor Metals in their "main table" at the endpapers of their text?" with something more specific than, "Yes, Hill and Holman use the term poor metals in the 'main table' at the back of their book," now is the time. Flying Jazz (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I have a copy of the PT in question. What would you like to know about it? Sandbh (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC) You have given the straightforward and verifiable answer of "yes," to the question, "Did Hill and Holman use the term Poor Metals in their "main table" at the endpapers of their text?" I'll be verifying your answer by obtaining a copy of their 5th and 6th editions. Until I do receive copies of both texts, I have no further questions for you or for anyone else on this Project, and I won't be interacting here or elsewhere on Wikipedia in any way. Goodbye for now. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC) ” And later it turned out that what Sandbh said wasn't true: “ After nearly six weeks, both editions have arrived at my home from the UK, and neither edition has a periodic table in the endpapers (although it is mentioned in the text). The fact that "Poor Metals" is not used as an element category in the endpapers of any textbook used in any educational program anywhere in the world is precisely why Wikipedia must use it. We must show that our editors are smarter than any textbook editors. This is because the purpose of Wikipedia has changed from serving the reader by modestly repeating the literature to serving the reader by proving to them that we at Wikipedia are smarter and better than the literature. That's why the fact that Theodore Gray uses the category "Other Metals" at his website is actually a reason why Wikipedia should not use it because it allows us to demonstrate our intellectual superiority to Gray. When Gray writes, "There should be a better name for Other Metals" on his website at http://www.theodoregray.com/periodictable/Elements/OtherMetals/index.s7.html , it is actually a plea for help from us smarter people. Gray is telling Wikipedia editors what we should do, and now that we've done it, we can all write fan mail to him saying that we have done what he said we should do. Maybe he'll give us free T-shirts out of gratitude, and in his next book, he'll use the term "Poor Metals," acknowledge Wikipedia, and write about just how smart we are. That's the best way to serve the reader. It goes without saying that we must try to show each other that we're the smartest editor here by telling brazen boldfaced lies to each other in order to misrepresent the educational literature. Flying Jazz (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC) ” Indeed, Flying Jazz was not being particularly civil. But his point stands: Sandbh makes statements about sources that do not correctly represent the sources. I do feel that it is a conduct issue as it lessens trust in what he writes on Wikipedia. And it inevitably raises questions about the discussion. Like I said at Talk:Periodic table, I am willing to follow whatever consensus results on this matter. But how much will a consensus based on one editor's misrepresentations of the sources be worth? That's why I saw no choice but to reluctantly go here. Double sharp (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Comment ​​ Another 1,200 words and we do not even have admin involvement yet. I object to Double sharp dragging up ancient history from six years ago. The simple fact is the IUPAC has a project looking at the issue. The project recently conducted a survey of nearly 200 textbooks and found the La form, which we show in our periodic table article, is the most popular form: "Dec 2019 update – A survey of about 200 university textbooks of how group 3 of the periodic table has been prepared by UCLA student Jonathan Wong in association with Dr. Eric Scerri. The survey is divided into searches for each decade starting with the 1970s. A final tab labeled “data” presents comparative graphs." Double sharp posted an rfc to change back to the Lu form, with a 7,000 word supporting statement, and then withdrew it one day later after a particular hostile response from a member of WP:CHEMISTRY. User: Michael D. Turnbull recently expressed an interest in the issue. His personal conclusion, which I support, is "…we should wait as the matter may well be settled by the IUPAC working group within a few more months." Sandbh (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC) I withdrew it because you suggested it at Talk:Periodic_table#Last_try_at_being_reasonable. I do not want a fight. I am forced into one because you constantly misrepresent and selectively represent reliable sources. You do this yet again in this post, claiming that the La form is the most popular form, without mentioning that the IUPAC data itself shows that its popularity varies strongly by decade. It dropped from 82% in the 1990s to 48% in the 2010s as more and more chemists heard about it. It only considers English-language textbooks. You don't consider the fact that simply searching for "periodic table" at Google Images gives a 2/3 majority for the compromise form * under Y. And you also don't consider how overwhelming the majority for the Lu form becomes if you count articles focusing on the subject. Advocates Lu Advocates La Advocates * Bury (1921) Shemyakin (1932) Landau and Lifshitz (1958) Seel (1961 and 1969) Hamilton and Jensen (1963) Hamilton (1965) Mathias et al. (1967) Merz and Ulmer (1967) Luder (1967 and 1970) Chistyakov (1968 and 1970) Mathias (1969 and 1971) Wittig (1973) Jensen (1982 and 2015) Holden (1985) Kulsha (1999?) Fang et al. (2000) Horovitz and Sârbu (2005) Wulfsberg (2006) Ouyang et al. (2008) Scerri (2012) Nelson (2013) Settouti and Aouragi (2014) Scerri and Parsons (2018) Alvarez (2020) Smith (1927) Trifonov (1970) Shchukarev (1974) Atkins (2006) Lavelle (2008) Restrepo (2017) Cao et al. (2020) Xu and Pyykkö (2016) This is something you have done throughout this whole year, and I dredge up six years ago to show that this is not a new problem. It is a chronic issue. I don't do that. When describing the issue, I admit that a plurality of textbooks show Sc-Y-La, a majority of Google Image results show Sc-Y-*, and most sources focusing on the matter show Sc-Y-Lu. You selectively try to refute the latter two by reading into them and using your own WP:OR analyses while noting nothing at all about the first one. And you called my cited additions to the periodic table article "hack work". I do plan to start a new RFC based on the IUPAC endorsement of 1988. But it will not be a productive one unless you start representing reliable sources correctly and stop questioning a clear statement by Eric Scerri that it was an endorsement. There is no evidence for when the IUPAC working group will settle anything. In the meantime it seems to me that the past IUPAC endorsement is the best place to start. Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @Sandbh: Forgotten ping, sorry. Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Isn't this more of a content dispute? This seems to be better suited to the dispute resolution noticeboard. There are volunteers there who can hopefully mediate the issues raised. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @Tenryuu: Indeed it's partly a content dispute, but there is also a dispute regarding misuse of sources. What's the the best venue for mediating the latter? Double sharp (talk) 05:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Double sharp, the link I provided in my previous comment will take you to the noticeboard. The arguments laid out here seem appear much more appropriate over there. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Context is important. Compared to the vast mass of the academic literature, effectively zero chemists have lost sleep over the group 3 issue since 1921. The periodic table on the inside cover of the 2005 Red Book does not form a part of the actual red book recommendations. In the preface it says, "Lesser omissions [from the 1990 edition] include…the several different outdated versions of the periodic table. (That on the inside front cover is the current [internal] IUPAC-agreed version.)" Even Scerri has acknowledged this. IUPAC endorsement of the Lu form did not occur. Fluck's 1988 mention of the Lu form was a 230-word afterthought in a 4,300 word paper. The report that the afterthought appeared in was neither expressed as a formal recommendation of IUPAC nor did it feature or include any form of formal IUPAC endorsement. The abstract tells you what it is limited to: "In 1985 the IUPAC Commission on the Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry circulated for public comment a proposed new notation for the groups of the periodic table. This gave rise to worldwide discussion in the chemical literature. This article reviews the historical process that led to the IUPAC proposals, and discusses them in relation to the response within the scientific community." His afterthought refers to the chosen *-** form as a compromise. That Scerri said, "Thirdly, I should also mention that figure 3 [Sc-Y-Lu, 32 column] that I call an optimal table, was already endorsed in an earlier IUPAC report, E. Fluck, New Notations in the Periodic Table, Pure and Applied Chemistry, 60, 3, 431-436, 1988" was a misinterpretation and an error of wishful thinking. Sandbh (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC) As we can see, Sandbh favours his own OR analysis over what the actual chair of the current IUPAC project says about past IUPAC decisions. He also claims *-** is the compromise Fluck refers to in the IUPAC report he prepared for publication, when actually the report never mentions *-** at all. At Tenryuu's suggestion I will head over to WP:DRN. I will start a new thread soon. Double sharp (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC) @Tenryuu: Started a thread at your suggestion at WP:DRN#Periodic table, so I believe this ANI thread may now be closed. Double sharp (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've had a request on my talk page from Double sharp [312] about this discussion which I closed. My response is here.
  Obviously, a NAC closure is an inherently weak one, so if any other editor feels this discussion has merit and should be re-opened, please go ahead and re-open it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Gouri G. Kishan Article recreated with a different name

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

---

Gouri Kishan - This subject article was moved to draft with consensus over here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gouri_Kishan

Now a user named The Anandu (talk · contribs) recreated the page with a variation of the name and created a redirect. I suggest this kind of behavior to game the system should be taken seriously. - The9Man ^(Talk) 15:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The system wasn't gamed at all. The article was indeed moved to draft space, however as with this edit here: [313], the article was approved for mainspace by User:Fences and windows. The pages histories were merged, hence why you see the original creation of the page in 2018. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I overlooked. The name change caught me here. - The9Man ^(Talk) 17:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The history was a bit messy, The9Man; I've added a note on the talk page to explain. Thanks for the ping and explaining, RickinBaltimore. As this is about an article I moved back to mainspace I won't close this myself. Fences&Windows 20:04, 5 August 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.

Malaysian IPs changing birth dates

We have Special:Contributions/115.134.228.186 and Special:Contributions/115.132.140.3 both on Telekom Malaysia. I don't see how this can be stopped but if anyone does, great. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

obvious spat between two users - Sapah3 and MistyfelSR

Sapah3 and MistyfelSR appear to be involved in some sort of argument re edit warring. Can an uninvolved admin take a look and investigate? They have resorted to using AIV and AN3 as a warring platform, after one accused the other of being a sock of an IP. Thanks. Nightfury 08:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I just got the message on my talk page that this was opened so I shall merge what I have published above with this. (Sapah3 (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC))

Sapah3 - My side of the story:

They are a new account and appear to be the same person as Special:Contributions/2001:8003:9008:1301:d966:b4c7:e4bc:8bc1 (an IP address that was blocked last week for harassing me on multiple occasions e.g. "You are such a turd", You are such a troll").

They have accused me of edit warring despite the fact that I have not used the "undo" function on every occasion I have edited a contested page. I have started discussions at the talk pages to dicuss the issues and get them to provide sources for the information they continue to reinstate. Despite warnings issued to them via their talk page to refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia and to engage in discussion, they have continued to revert my edits and have failed to engage in discussion. This whole time they have done nothing on Wikipedia except stalk me and revert my edits (even the ones that aren't supposed to be disputed e.g. 1, 2 - this second example clearly shows they have not read the source attributed to this information). It is clear to see that they are not interested in making worthwhile edits on Wikipedia - every single edit they have made since the creation of the account has involved me. (Sapah3 (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC))

You seem to be extremely defensive, impatient and offended that I reported you on the edit warring noticeboard. Why? Anyway, you only made a section on the talk page after reverting 4 times, and now you're talking about "engaging in discussions"? I'm not going to write long paragraphs but I'll just link this [314] and await what an admin has to say over there. MistyfelSR (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

MistyfelSR, without commenting on the sock allegations, can I ask you to explain your thinking when you made the two reverts linked in the previous post?

• Here you revert saying 'misleading edit summary'. Sapah3's edit summary said 'fixed error' and they did indeed fix a grammatical error (the missing 'have'). Why did you revert?
• Here you are reinstating an assertion that looks, on the face of it, like a sweeping generalisation, and which does not seem to be supported by the single source that paragraph has. Why did you revert?

Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 09:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, for the first revert, though they have added the missing 'have', there was also a discreet change from 'East' to 'Southeast' which wasn't mentioned in the edit summary. That's more than just a grammatical error. Throughout the article, there are a lot of mentions of Thailand being very much influenced by East Asian culture in many ways and it was a constructive addition made by another user a while back based on what I've seen in the revision history.

Second revert, I've checked the source [315] – the source is really detailed, but it's located in Results > Overview of Population Structure and Sino–Tibetan (I may have missed more links, but that's the general idea) – and Sapah3's claim in the edit summary that they "Removed information that is not in the source" was misleading. It goes into detail about the strong links that the different Asian peoples (Especially East & Southeast) have with each other, while forming a genetic cluster with Asians from other regions. That was removed even though it was in the source. MistyfelSR (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@MistyfelSR: Firstly, in regards to the first revert you need to look at the context. East Asian countries were not colonised by any European country. Thailand is located in Southeast Asia and the whole of Southeast Asia (excluding Thailand) was colonised by Europeans. Secondly, my edit summary which read, "Removed information that is not in the source" was not misleading. You need to make sure you read the key components of a source before you make any changes. Nowhere in the source does it mention "Central Asians" or "Siberians". The source is a genetic study focusing on the ethnic groups in Vietnam with a broader look at Southeast Asia too. They focus on the ethnic groups and divide them up into various language groups like Sino-Tibetan (note that this is not an ethnic group, it's a language group) and Austro-Asiatic for example. They compare Southeast Asian populations with Indian and East Asian groups. There is however no mention of Central Asians or Siberians. If you aren't aware, the topic of genetics on Wikipedia can be a divisive topic and quite heated at times. That's why sources are very important and the source does not support the information that I removed from the article, that is why I removed the unsourced information. (Sapah3 (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC))

@MistyfelSR: So, when you reverted the first edit, you re-introduced an error because you disagreed with a different part of the edit - that's not ideal. For the second revert, I cannot see anything in the source that would support an generalisation as broad as "East Asian people are all closely related to each other", which is also poorly phrased. Sapah3 did not remove the later assertion that South-East Asian people are closely related to East Asian people, which is relevant to the section. I don't see why you are reverting here, instead of suggesting and discussing changes on talk. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

No explanation in reverts

• Armantkb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Takab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Armantkb reverts my edits without explanation and I've both encouraged them to use the talkpage in the edit-summary and on their talkpage[316]. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Semsûrî! I'm not an admin. But I've reverted Armantkb, and also warned them using {{uw-editsummary}} and {{uw-disruptive1}}. Twinkle is handy for semi-automating the process of gradually dispensing increasingly-threatening user talkpage warnings. In one-on-one disputes, please try not to revert-war; please try to seek out an uninvolved third editor to help you instead. —Unforgettableid (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Semsûrî, an update: After some more disruption and warnings, Armantkb received a 31-hour block (applied by Materialscientist). —Unforgettableid (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have worked.[317] Semsûrî (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

109.197.152.21

• 109.197.152.21

Removes stuff mainly about Kurdish but other languages as well.

• They removed text from Kurdish phonology 3 times this year
• Removed from Kurdish phonology last year as well
• Removed a Kurdish occurrence in a IPA sound page
• Removed a letter from Kurdish alphabets page, edit survived 20 days.
• They have also removed correct stuff on ku.wikipedia
• At least they are blocked in Russian Wikipedia. (Removed stuff from Kurd-related pages there as well)
• Also done these kinds of things in other Wikipedias.
• More stuff removed/incorrect stuff added in other language-related pages.

Been warned multiple times. This IP appears to be only used for adding incorrect information or removing correct information. -- Guherto (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

IP personal attacks

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

---

174.115.100.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP has been involved in attacking multiple editors, spanning almost a year. They [replaced their talk page with expletives and calling another editor a "stalker" for giving them warnings for disruptive editing. In addition, they called me a "Zionist sage" on my talk page. The editor also has been warned for personal attacks in the past however they have continued with attacks on both article talk page and their own talk page. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Their contribs to talk pages is just a litany of abuse. Usually they mention Zionism or Hitler, but occasionally try their hand at regular abuse. This all looks like a static IP with a single user to me - I'm thinking that a lengthy block is probably necessary. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Still can't find the expletive I'm accused of having used. Maybe the block is in your head... 174.115.100.93 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for three months. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 6 August 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.

Hagia Sophia's relentless IPs

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

---

Hagia Sophia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been under attack from faceless vandals since its edit-protection wore off recently. I propose that swift action to protect the page would prevent further casual disruption. The issue I have already reported at the edit-warring noticeboard and at the page protection request list. If the page can be protected (and the present vandal blocked) then peace and stability can be restored. GPinkerton (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• C.Fred blocked them, I revoked talk page access--and then I removed the content which, IMO, is completely out of place. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Out of place? Why? The article is about the place ... GPinkerton (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is, but that content is not. It's an apocryphal story about a rape whose prime purpose in that article is to smear. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: "whose prime purpose in that article is to smear is not WP:AGF! The prime purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform, not to smear characters and events to which contemporary assessments and subesquent history have been unfavourable. Isn't removing that story alone (of all the apocryphal stories included on the page) more akin to whitewashing than is its inclusion comparable to smearing? GPinkerton (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, Its a turn of phrase meaning "it shouldn't be there". But I do agree with Drmies, an apocryphal story does us little good. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: What good, then, does the page Biblical Apocrypha do, if an "apocryphal story does us little good"? Apocrypha, believed true by millions, is notable and should be discussed in its proper context, not just blanked out all together. GPinkerton (talk) 20:41, 6 August 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.

92.19.171.132 and decades

92.19.171.132 (talk · contribs) is adding misinformation about decades faster than the 3 revert rule would allow me to correct. The editor is claiming, for example, the 1990s are generally considered to comprise 1991 to and including 2000. Editors familiar with past calendar-related issues may feel the location of the editor, southwest England, is familiar. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User:The Oriental Despot and User:HelpfulCaribbeanPrivateer

Edits to the Maram Susli article

I am referring to User:HelpfulCaribbeanPrivateer (who registered the account yesterday) and User:The Oriental Despot (who registered in February). The account's user pages are blank.

Edits made by these two accounts almost entirely include YouTube videos (including one from the deprecated RT) which seem to be intended as a promotion of the article subject rather than as an attempt to develop the article. One reliable source (The Guardian) has been removed twice as "fringe"; it mentions Susli's on air interview with a Holocaust denier. Philip Cross (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• The user WCE1986 is another new account whitewashing. Might be a {{checkuser needed}} situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • CU is kind of a wash. There's at least one proxy involved. Someone tagged a Josher8a sock on an IP range used by HelpfulCaribbeanPrivateer, and that IP range is full of promo editors. I personally think "Josher8a" is probably a paid editing ring, not an individual editor who's creating socks. The other two geolocate to a different country than HCP, for what it's worth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

    I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. I semied the article for 6 months. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

    I was checking at the same time NRP was (oops) and agree with their conclusion, except I have HCP simultaneously editing on two different continents (obviously using proxies). Also agree with semiprotection, I was already on my way to do that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. I knew this needed a few more tools than I have, I appreciate the thorough look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Targeting User:Philip Cross

(Have modified earlier headings to this section.) These two editors are now making minor edits, some useful and acceptable, some purely disruptive and POV, to articles which I have heavily worked on the past and mention on my user page. As I am not able to edit many of these articles because of a BLP topic ban on post-1978 British politics, these edits seem like a deliberate taunt, attempt at harassment and a personal attack. I have not added any of the appropriate templates to the user talk pages, because it is clear these two accounts ignore any warnings, quite apart from being directly involved myself.

Yesterday, before the tragedy in Beirut, the @partisangirl account on Twitter was re/tweeting attacks on me or against Wikipedia, though most of those from yesterday have been deleted. Philip Cross (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

User's topic ban

User:The Oriental Despot is now banned from editing the Maram Susli article. Yet this editor is still continuing to edit the article:

• diff
• diff
• diff

Philip Cross (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Accusations of off-wiki harassment (with links), an offwiki campaign to add antisemitic material, etc at Talk:Israel

To be precise, at Talk:Israel#Edit war attempts being made by Anti-Semetic Websites like 4chan. I'm not going to have a chance to deal with it. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that the relevant section on the article talk page gets hatted (and where necessary redacted) to avoid outing issues and the issue be passed onto Arbcom or T&S for dealing with privately.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I left an "only warning" note on User talk:TheEpicGhosty for the attempted outing. I suppressed the material. This is truly bringing out the cream of the crop, with usernames to boot. What kind of person sticks "88" in their username? I haven't had coffee yet so I don't want to start dropping blocks, and I can't see any evidence yet of an off-wiki campaign or whatever. (The material in the lead needs to be discussed. RegentsPark, I saw your revert in the lead in Saudi-Arabia; that's relevant here as well.) Drmies (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

User:4.78.42.18

There's a strange pattern of edits by User:4.78.42.18 to the article on Jan M. Ziolkowski that also appear to be spamming his published work in other articles. Should they be investigated? Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call it a strange pattern. The publications themselves are fine; whether they are relevant and necessary for the articles remains to be seen. I looked at the Ziolkowski article, and that needs serious work--it reads like a T&P document. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I appear to have gained an unwanted fan

After making this edit (sourced to the official Boxing Union of Ireland website, the reference is above the table) which removed an incorrect addition by HuntGroup, the user took exception to my correct and sourced edit and engaged in a brief edit war (seen here and here), of which their reasoning for restoring incorrect, unsourced information was "...If you are going to remove champions at least have the good grace to add to them to the list of former champions" (when they could have done that themselves instead of needlessly reverting lol). They echoed their illogical point with a borderline PA on my talk page (diff), I replied informing them that that is no reason to revert incorrect, unsourced information back in (diff), and left an edit war template on their talk page (diff), which appeared to have the desired effect as they stopped the needless reverting. Their response was this kind comment and to drop me a retaliatory template on my talk page (of which I removed). The user then followed me to a CfD discussion to cast a seemingly retaliatory vote (diff), followed by what I consider another PA on my talk page (diff), disrespect often manifests responses in kind, I replied and told them to no longer post on my talk page (diff). End of story? Nope. Following another person attack on the talk page I asked them not to post on (diff) they continued to stalk my edits to add a retaliatory comment at an article talk page that I'm guessing they've never previously edited before, just for shits and giggles (diff). I let them know in no uncertain terms that their behaviour isn't acceptable (diff) to which they responded with another personal attack (diff) and some more stalky behaviour; this revert, which I will revert as its blatantly retaliatory, and this pointless comment which again, is a PA. I'm guessing their antics up to this point don't warrant a block, but at the very least this user needs a few stern words regarding their disruptive, and to be quite frank, just outright weird editing behaviour. – ².O.^Boxing 11:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. User:Squared.Circle.Boxing has been editing in a bullying manner and is unwilling to edit in a collaborative manner. This is what drew my attention to his editing. I was merely mirroring his editing style and this he sees as problematic - well that proves my point. I tried to enter into a discussion with the editor but as you can see from the aggressive and abusive edit summary that this is not exactly easy. --HuntGroup (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

And the first edit this editor makes after making this report is to enter into an edit war. Honest, I think we have a serious issue with projection here and an editor who has a bad case of WP:Ownership.--HuntGroup (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

As for suggesting that I was making erroneous edit, my edits were sourced. I would have been happy to discuss the issue with the editor but User:Squared.Circle.Boxing prefers revert wars and has a long history of this, again pointing to issues of WP:Ownership.--HuntGroup (talk) 11:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Another example of his attempted ownership of articles can be seen here where the editor reverts every attempt to improve the simply because he does not like it. More discussion and less aggressive edit warring would be the solution here. --HuntGroup (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Tried to enter into a discussion? With a PA, after you were told not to post on my talk page due to your PAs? Funny lol and yes, I reverted your stalky, pointy, disruptive, retaliatory revert. Your edits were not sourced. The source for the list of current champions is the BUI's official website, which is directly above the table. And as seen in the diffs I provided, you were the first one to revert (Back to unsourced, incorrect information), so, fail. As for your final comment, I've already addressed my latest revert and the one prior is due to an unexplained reversion after apparent refusal to engage in discussion. Anything else? – ².O.^Boxing 11:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You deleted my comment from your talk page asking me not to comment there. Why not try and have a normal conversation elsewhere where others less bolshie or aggressive editors could contribute. No you would rather control issues. As for being unsourced, I already provided evidence that the edit I made were sourced not unsourced and that the BUI website have not been updated correctly. I cannot respect and editor who behaves in this manner.--HuntGroup (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Your first comment on my talk page was a PA (diff), your second addition was an immature, retaliatory template (diff), your third addition was yet another PA (diff). So yes, after that I told you not to post on my talk page and removed the next PA you left. I'm not discussing your unsourced edits again, they've already been addressed. – ².O.^Boxing 12:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that when you start revert wars with good faith editors and then place passive aggressive warnings on their talkpage then you are not building good faith or respect. I suggest you allow others to breathe, try discussing issues rather than edit warring and then join WP:KIND.--HuntGroup (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I would also suggest that it is actually User:Squared.Circle.Boxing that has been following my edits, as can be seen here and here and here and here etc etc. Simply provoking editors and displaying issues of ownership over articles.--HuntGroup (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

First diff – You were correct, I forgot about the BUI Celtic title, which is why I haven't reverted your revert.

Second diff – per MOS:BOXING.

Third diff – per various WP:MOS

Fourth diff – per MOS:NICKNAME

I have over 1,500 boxing related articles on my watchlist, if I see an edit that isn't an improvement or goes against an MOS, I'll revert or adjust where necessary. Unfortunately for you, there's an interaction tool which compares editors contributions on articles (I don't know where it is). If somebody (which they probably will) uses that, they will see that I have more than likely edited each of those articles before you. So no, correcting mistakes on articles I have previously edited that are on my watchlist is not stalky behaviour. – ².O.^Boxing 12:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You also have a long record of edit warring, warnings and even blocks relating to your editing of boxing related articles. Maybe you should just approach other editors with a bit more respect and you wouldn't constantly be getting yourself into bother and falling out with other editors. --HuntGroup (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not lol I've been blocked once (which was soon lifted) when I first started editing Wikipedia and was unaware of the various policies and guidelines, same with warnings for edit warring (one, maybe two?). This is getting desperate now. I have provided the necessary evidence and will respond to logical queries and comments from uninvolved people. – ².O.^Boxing 12:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You have a long history of revert warring and pretty much bullying and punching down. You placed a warning on my page to warning me about edit warring when in fact you were edit warring. I am a cool head, you are obviously a hot head and try to shut people up and shut people down when you don't agree with them. Again, I suggest you join WP:KIND and try and be nicer to fellow editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntGroup (talk • contribs) 12:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

And still at it. – ².O.^Boxing 16:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? I am asking you to stop with your personal attacks. You are not an admin, stop trying to act like one and bully other editors. For example referring to me as a stalker to other editors (who you were trying to bully) in the middle of a conversation is disgusting behaviour. And also stoop removing my comments. Again you are not an admin, stop trying to pretend you have the powers of an admin in order to coerce other editors who disagree with you. --HuntGroup (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Reinserting the PA after being removed. I smell a potential edit war brewing. – ².O.^Boxing 14:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Get it right, after YOU removed it. Again, you are not an admin, you do not get to push other editors around, you are a bully. I do not like bullies. You do not get to make personal attacks and then remove comments from editors asking you not to make personal attacks. It is extremely odd behaviour. --HuntGroup (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Again reinstating a PA of which the removal is covered by WP:RPA. I'm not sure if RPA is an exemption from 3RR so I'll refrain from another immediate revert, for now. – ².O.^Boxing 14:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So according to you it is a personal attack to ask another editor to stop making personal attacks? This is getting too weird. It's pretty obvious that you are just trying to game the system to get editors you disagree with blocked. Pretty petty and childish behaviour. --HuntGroup (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No, according to WP:WIAPA, accusations of a PA without evidence is a PA, not to mention the whole "mummy, this person is a bully!" behaviour lol It appears WP:STALKING is an outdated term, the appropriate one would be WP:HOUNDING. Stating you're following me to multiple discussions to bark like a WP:HOUND is not a PA, it's not even an unfounded aspersion, it's evidenced in my opening comment. You should try clicking some of these links instead of focusing all your unwanted attention on me (30+ of this "editor's" latest "contributions" are directly related to me), you might learn a thing or two ;) – ².O.^Boxing 14:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Obviously from your many dealing with admins over your aggressive and bullying behaviour you seem to have picked up a lot of buzzwords when it comes to reporting other editors and leaving warnings on their talk pages as of you are some admin. Every page I have been to that you are on I have seen editors accuse you of aggression, bullying and punching down. Can you not see a pattern here? It's time to grow up and start treating other editors who have differing opinion to you with some respect. --HuntGroup (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I haven't dived into this deep at all and did not review any of Square's work so I have no opinion about Squared's editing. I'm just dropping in because I noticed HuntGroup said the other ed has been editing in a bullying manner and is unwilling to edit in a collaborative manner. This is what drew my attention to his editing. I was merely mirroring his editing style... (bold added) In theory at least, it isn't supposed to matter how wrong the other editor may have been, we each stand on our own choices. Whether your characterization of the other ed is right or not, we can assume you believed it to be true and say you mirrored it..... that sure sounds to me like a confession you were engaged in WP:BULLYING yourself NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Well technically that is only is you consider User:Squared.Circle.Boxing's edits as bullying. SCB has instigated all of this, instigated all of this, trolling, following my edits, reverting me, placing warnings on my talk page. Personally, I am not really au fait with the workings and tactics used in ANI but SCB is well versed in this world. I merely placed the same tags on his page that he placed on mine. I genuinely want nothing to do with him.--HuntGroup (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, reverting edits that do not adhere to various MOS' and sourcing policy, reverting per BRD or boldly nominating a category for deletion (of which an experienced editor, who helped create the MOS of which the category related to, agreed with the nomination), is "bullying"...*epic rolling of the eyes*. – ².O.^Boxing 15:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Every page I have been to that you are on I have seen editors accuse you of aggression, bullying and punching down. Any diffs for this claim? Or is it yet again, another unfounded aspersion? You have been to four "pages" that "I'm on", one is my talk page, two are article talk pages and the other is a CfD discussions (all of which you have followed me to), and the only person crying about bullying, is, you, on all of them lol Give your head a wobble would ya. – ².O.^Boxing 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay here are some diffs if that was even needed? Here an admin warned you over punching down, here another admin warns you over bullying, another that you push your aggressive opinion, another calls you a super vandal one editor even went as far as to say you were Immature and with psychological or physical issues and I am accusing you of being a bully. This is all in the very recent past. Anyone seeing a pattern? No one has ever had an issue with me before except you. Again, are we seeing a pattern of disruptive and aggression behaviour?--HuntGroup (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And now for the context, which is key. This was a result of my misunderstanding of WP:GRAVEDANCING. The admin suggested I remove a comment, I thought he was insinuating there was a PA, there wasn't, I decided against removing it. This was not a warning for bullying, it was for the same issue, grave dancing. After explaining my misunderstanding of the matter, the issue concluded with this message. This isn't even my comment lol but that is a discussion (that you followed me to for some hounding) between me and another editor at CfD, literally no aggression between us, you're embarrassingly clutching at straws with that one. This is from a disruptive, ban evading editor (who regularly leaves similar such comments to multiple editors when his talk page comments are summarily reverted) whose disruption has resulted in the indefinite page protection of Rocky Marciano. This is from another block evading, disruptive editor who was having a big ol' paddy after being reverted multiple times (that sounds familiar) for introducing BLP violations to the article (which can't be viewed due to a revdel) of Billy Joe Saunders by calling the subject a woman beater with not an iota of evidence, followed by repeated vandalism of the talk page after the BLP violations resulted in PP. Your false accusations of bullying are just that, false accusations. Dig through my contributions as much as you want, you won't any evidence. There's nothing you can do to deflect from the evidence (most of which are your own comments in this report) of your repeated PAs. Happy digging! – ².O.^Boxing 18:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring by Zoozaz1

• Zoozaz1 violated WP:3RR rule: 1st revert on the "COVID-19 pandemic" article: [318]; after the consensual text was moved to the "Russian government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic" page – 1st revert, 2nd, 3rd, 4th --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Александр Мотин, The first one wasn't a revert. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Zoozaz1: WP:GAME --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  Александр Мотин, I changed something, and then an edit war started with three reversions by me and three by you. Now the standard procedure is to come to a consensus on the talk page. That's not gaming the system. Zoozaz1 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  I see you've changed your claim to an entirely different article. Of course, that means you violated WP:3RR as well, but seeing it was a different article and that would ultimately be just a distraction to get around finding consensus it would just be petty of me to try to get you blocked for that. We have an editorial dispute; can we please get back to trying to solve content and get consensus and not try to get people blocked? And I'm not going to be pulled into the morass of someone accusing me of POV pushing as any editor can look at the actual edits made and determine who, if anyone, is doing the POV pushing for themselves. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Also Zoozaz1 is POV-pushing too much violating WP:NPOV rule. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
• Blocked for the standard 24 hours. 3RR is very unambiguous. The rule clearly specifies that partially reversing another user's addition counts as a revert, thus the first edit is a revert and the 3RR was indeed violated. And, like the reporter says, even if they thought they weren't violating the 3RR, the fact that they attempted to edit war up to the limit is not actually an excuse. @Александр Мотин: In the future, please report edit warring to the edit warring noticeboard, WP:AN3. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Editor is being hostile towards edits they don't like and trying to give a hard time

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

---

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates&action=history @Martinevans123: is blocking edits done that add additional non-government sanctions for homosexuality in the UAE. The consensus among the editors who shared their opinion is that it can be added as info underneath not inside the punishment box itself. However, this user seems to disagree and block all edits adding this information, giving an excuse each time why he won't add it. The consensus has also agreed it can be added with the for mentioned condition that it is added underneath. Please talk reason into him and get him to stop his canvassing and add the agreed sources. Thanks. 91.197.129.74 (talk)

I see one user across two IP addresses (you) failing to get the message and spamming the same arguments over and over again. Oh, you're also evading a block, let me fix that. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 6 August 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.

Geo Swan and BLP related to Derek Chauvin

Geo Swan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following one month after the close here (Dennis Brown: I'm going to assume Geo Swan gets the point, and just close this. No need to summarize what should be obvious.) we have this deletion review. Evidently they have not gotten the point. I suggest that some kind of topic ban would be appropriate. --JBL (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly support this given more detail about a specific topic ban. Preferably as it involves BLPs. Praxidicae (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting undeletion at the DRV because "I'd like to compare the deleted article with the new article, to see for myself the extent to which it merited a G4.", without disclosing that the deleted article contains the same BLP-violating content that was the subject of that ANI thread, merits a TBAN from the subject matter at issue, if not all BLPs. This is "not dropping the stick" at the expense of BLP privacy, and it's not reasonable to expect the community to be constantly "on the lookout" for new blpvio attempts from the same veteran editor. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

agreed when combined with the incessant wikilawyering about it and extreme WP:TE. Praxidicae (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This is actually the second time they've tried that manoeuvre, see the discussion here. --JBL (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

in which case I would propose an outright tban from anything related to Chauvin broadly construed. If they continue to have BLP violations, that can be revisited. Praxidicae (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just noting that Geo Swan received DS alerts for BLP and AP2 topics back in June. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• It is way past time that Geo Swan dropped this particular stick. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• "I'd like to compare the deleted article with the new article, to see for myself the extent to which it merited a G4" Really?? I'm guessing that Cullen328's warning ("In my opinion, Geo Swan should receive an indefinite topic ban on any content relating to living people or recently deceased people if Geo Swan fails to drop the stick") wasn't clear enough... Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment from Deepfriedokra. The above linked ANI thread was preceded by this discussion on my talk page. Having been harassed and doxed, I'm very concerned about Wikipedia revealing PII about people who have tried to hide their PII out of concern for being doxed and harassed.(link) If I am to err, I'd rather it be on the side of not revealing BLP sensitive content. I suppose GeoSwan does not understand this concern. I suppose this all adds up to WP:TENDENTIOUS. WP:ADMINACCT is important, but this has become vexatious. No opinion on remedies as I am INVOLVED. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Can someone spell out what exactly the claim is? Are folks saying that GS was trying to get that name back into the history of the article? If so, to what purpose? Or are we saying it was an oversight not remind people about the issue? It all sounds like everyone here knows that the issue is but no one is really making it clear. Hobit (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Hobit: So it would appear. To what purpose? I cannot say. Just to bring you up to speed, this concerns info about someone who is not the subject in an article, which was revealed in more than one article and revdel'd. GeoSwan has been attempting to get this content back into the encyclopedia. Trying very hard. To get the full flavor, please read my talk page thread and the ANI. It will be clearer then. --Deepfriedokra (talk)

• Yes, the majority of the deleted revisions contain that information. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, Hobit, that's how it appears to me. (Like DFO I do not claim to understand why anyone would do this.) --JBL (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

edit conflict

1. JBL, doesn't the discussion you refer to concern a separate and distinct issue?
2. Levivich, you write I merit a TBAN because I started a DRV "without disclosing that the deleted article contains the same BLP-violating content that was the subject of that ANI thread..." I didn't edit the Derek Chauvin (police officer) article, and I have never seen that article. The arguments for deletion offered in the first AFD were BLP1E and CRIME - which I think we are all agreed aren't applicable now, and FWIW, wouldn't have been considered applicable, if anyone had done an effective web search on June 3rd.

   Levivich, you initially agreed to the restoration of the deleted material, and changed your mind when another contributor made two claims, first, that the deleted material violated BLPNAME, second, that I knew the deleted material violated BLPNAME.

   I am not aware of anyone claiming the deleted material violated BLPNAME up until the accusations you took at face value. So, if the first claim of a BLPNAME violation is true, I would have had no way of knowing that. So, your suggestion my request for restoration of the deleted versions was in bad faith is, well, extremely unfair.

3. I made 17 edits to Derek Chauvin, the first 12 were innocuous edits to more fully populate the article's references. On June 13th my last edits to Derek Chauvin did introduce new content - on his career prior to the killing, so, also innocuous and noncontroversial. Geo Swan (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

   In your DRV filing, you wrote: Fuzheado closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer), justifying a speedy closure due to unspecified BLP concerns, and A10. It didn't dawn on me when I first read that what the "unspecified BLP concern" was because I forgot about this whole issue. But you did not forget about it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

   And to be clear: I don't think for a second that your intent was to harass anyone or that you have any bad intent at all. It's not about intent for me; I think that you're strangely oblivious to the seriousness of this BLP privacy issue. It should have dawned on you that restoring something that was deleted for BLP reasons risks violating BLP policy. When you posted at REFUND [319], you wrote speedily closed, justified, in part, on an assertion BLP1E was a speedy deletion criteria without mentioning the BLP privacy issue. Thankfully, others caught it, but you're just not being careful enough about this, and this isn't the first or second or third time. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)

   • Levivich, the only BLP concern explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer) was BLP1E. Kire1975 and I both asked Fuzheado to explain their closure. He or she didn't do so, didn't reply at all, until told of the first DRV. Then they implied they would explain at the first DRV.

     I can't remember when I read anything about protecting that individual's name. It was long after I read the first AFD, and long after Fuzheado declined to offer a further explanation of their closure. Your suggestion I should have known what they meant by their phrase "the sensitive BLP issues" is unreasonable. The meaning you suggest never occurred to me, until I read your comment 15 minutes ago.

     Fuzheado could have said something like, "sorry kids, this is an instance where privacy issues preclude me from explaining my closure. See Meta:Office." They didn't say that at the first DRV, as they never showed. No one else did, either.

     Since then Fuzheado has been pinged numerous times. I honestly thought the reason they never tried to explain their closure was that they were embarrassed for claiming BLP1E was a speedy deletion criteria. Geo Swan (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

     • After you talked to Fuzheado about the close on June 5, and after you requested the REFUND and it was denied on June 14, a bunch of other stuff happened that culminated in the ANI thread, which was closed on June 30 [320], a little over a month ago, with a BLP warning posted on your talk page. [321] A month later on July 30 you started the DRV of the June 14 REFUND decline, without really mentioning any of this except as "unspecified BLP concerns". [322] The next day, you posted in the BLP warning user talk page thread from June 30 [323], and then you posted in the DRV (favoring undeletion) without mentioning the BLP concern. [324] [325] [326] The meaning you suggest never occurred to me, until I read your comment 15 minutes ago isn't credible when you posted in that BLP warning thread on your UTP four days ago. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

   My pointer is to the part of the discussion between me & DE (not you and DE), which involves the same issue that I've raised here. --JBL (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Hobit, Deepfriedokra, and Black Kite:, as I wrote, above, I never edited or read any of the deleted versions. I am not aware of anyone claiming the deleted versions mentioned the name of the individual we have decided not to name, prior to the DRV. No one should accuse me of using the DRV to trick the community into putting that individuals name in our visible history.

  I have never employed trickery, of any kind, at any point in my fifteen years here.

  Deepfriedokra, you ask "for what purpose". I can't imagine a more pointless exercise than tricking the community into burying it in revisions from months ago. Any mean spirited person who wanted to use that name to harass that individual would find it orders of magnitude simpler to find it using google. Geo Swan (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Assuming good faith here, there is no point in restoring any of the deleted revisions of the original article.

• Most of them would have to be oversighted anyway for the reason mentioned above
• A number of the others contained unsourced BLP claims and/or simple vandalism
• None of the content was re-used in the current article anyway, so there is no need for attribution.

• Hope this helps. Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Please, could we review the deletion at DRV and confine this discussion to user conduct?—S Marshall T/C 00:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• I've come across Geo Swan several times over the years. I recall his remarkable effort to produce an exhaustive series of articles on the inmates of Guantanamo Bay. I think Geo Swan's a committed, long-term Wikipedian who's interested in transparency as it relates to criminals who're of political interest in the US. I also think he's got a good faith belief that the public benefits of covering difficult topics on Wikipedia often outweighs the harm; and he's had lots of experience dealing with editors who want him to shut up. Personally, I've found he disregards threatening messages with red warning notices on them, and responds well to a civil and reflective conversation.—S Marshall T/C 01:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  I have extremely limited experience with Geo Swan. I am extremely puzzled by their behavior with regards to this matter. But I do not think the lack of civil or reflective conversation is the problem. For example, Geo Swan never responded to EEng's post here. --JBL (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  • JBL, correct me here, you started this review because you had the idea I knew some deleted versions of Derek Chauvin (police officer) included the name we have decided not to include. Correct me here, you regarded me requesting the review, knowing the deleted versions including that name, as me ignoring early discussions where it was decided not to include that name.

    But I had absolutely no way of knowing the deleted revisions included that name.

    I don't go looking for trouble. And I would not have started the DRV if anyone had let me know it contained that name. Geo Swan (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• So can we close the DRV and let this issue go now? That would seem to be the logical outcome. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe it's better to leave the DRV to run its course? Closing DRVs early is sometimes fine, but other times it makes a lot of drama.—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• @Black Kite:, as per your suggestion I returned to the DRV, and said I was satisfied by your assurance that Derek Chauvin (police officer) and Derek Chauvin didn't actually share any content, and that I was satisfied to withdraw the request and see the DRV closed.
• I am going to repeat I had no way of knowing Derek Chauvin (police officer) contained content we had decided we shouldn't make public, and I would like to extend my thanks to everyone here who extended AGF to me. Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• TBH, I did not know either, though the note of the closer at the AfD would give anyone pause. I just WP:AGF'd that the closing admin knew what they were doing. This is why I did not WP:IAR robo-undelete at WP:REFUND. The possibility of unforeseen problems. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

  At REFUND I wrote, Not done I don't see why we could not attempt a HISTMERGE, (I do now) but this might not be uncontroversial and this venue is not for AfD's. You would need to present your arguments at WP:DRV for full mulling. And now not only do we have mulling at DRV, but here as well! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions since that seems to be what this thread is seeking. Geo Swan's behaviour appears tendentious at first glance, but when you dig into this, pages were duplicated, deletions were bungled, discussions were fractured, and Geo Swan is just trying to get to the bottom of it and do the right thing. But that's enough now, Geo Swan - many administrators have reviewed this, information that needs to be purged has been (and as much useful content as we can has been preserved), attributions have been satisfied; but to paraphrase yourself: sorry, this is an instance where privacy issues preclude us from explaining our actions (substitute "BLP policy" for "privacy issues"). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions I'm not really sure what User:Joel B. Lewis is trying to accomplish here by tossing AGF completely out the window and proposing a wide topic-ban against a long-term editor with a 15-year uncontroversial history, making a routine request. Obviously there's something deeper in the edit history that most aren't privy to - but to imply there is "behaviour" here seems unnecessary. Nfitz (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions for what appears to be a situation where everybody was acting in good faith but not everybody had full possesion of the facts, but Geo Swan please drop this. To all non-admins commenting here, while usually any editor is welcome to participate here, this is one of those rare occasions where a non-admin who isn't directly involved can't make informed comments, as to understand the issues means reviewing material which for legal reasons can't appear in anything publicly viewable on-wiki. ‑ Iridescent 16:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Iridescent, as far as I can see, Geo Swan commented above yesterday that they'd not have started the DRV if it contained "that name" (and I haven't a clue what name that is ...). And hasn't contributed to the DRV for days. We were days into dead horse territory when JBL started this discussion. Both this discussion and the DRV should be closed. Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If you (or anyone) thinks this is just about the REFUND and DRV, you're completely missing the June 30 ANI and everything that led up to it. What you're missing is that this is the latest of multiple attempts to get this content into mainspace one way or another. That BLP warning wasn't just issued out of the blue. That said, given GS's statement that they wouldn't have opened the DRV if they knew the content was in that deleted page, I agree with BK that the DRV can be considered withdrawn (and thus closed) and we can all move on. ^Lev!v^ich 17:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would oppose sanctions right now, but Geo Swan, you really need to learn when to drop the stick. If you want to see deleted material, go apply at WP:RFA. There is typically a reason things get deleted like this. Asking an admin, one on one, is a much better use of your time if you *really* have to know. Whether you mean to or not, you have a way of generating drama here lately, and that is a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• I am at a loss here as there is no AGF on Geo Swan's part. This diff states [[327]] "If their relationship with Derek Chauvin were the only thing to say about them, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. It is far from the only thing to say about them, but the disruption of the revdel-happy prevents us having a meaningful discussion as to whether the obfuscation was appropriate, in the first place. Catch-22.". They knew the material was concealed and are blaming the admins for being revdel-happy. Geo Swan has zero business editing the BLP space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:6A1:86A7:C03D:E61F:B047:AAE7 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment There was another discussion that touches on this subject: Geo Swan argued at BLP/N that we should remove an edit filter covering the name of the person in question [328]. That was on 24 July, three weeks after the ANI thread and a week before the DRV request. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Geo Swan really needs to drop the stick. They have been arguing for weeks on multiple pages that this individual needs to be named and that admins are in error for revdeling because the individual's name has been "widely disseminated" while ignoring that BLPNAME also says "has been intentionally concealed."-- P-K3 (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Great Ghu. I like GS. I have to AGF that GS was not fishing at WP:REFUND. And I don't believe those in conflict with an editor should have a say in remedies. However, this all paints a concerning picture. My judgment on the need for a TBAN may be clouded, but I certainly cannot think of a good reason to not TBAN on Derek and his ex-wife. GS has done a lot of great work for a long time, and I remain puzzled by this inordinate interest. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You have to admit though, it's all very odd that even the married name of their independently famous ex-wife is censored, given that it's widely reported and WP:NOTCENSORED. If it was just a new name, I can see it ... but quite frankly, I'm completely baffled by this, and what the implications could be - and too wonder if we've missed something here. I have no idea what GS has been thinking (or why this discussion even continues) ... but I can see that such an odd contradiction in a nation with such poor governance and morals around the issues of racism, would start someone asking questions. We can't start TBANning everyone who starts asking questions when there's no explanation on why widely disseminated information isn't available ... or else we'd better start nominating members of the Censor Board! Though my bafflement doesn't extend to much more than scratching my head ... Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nfitz: There is an explanation: WP:BLPNAME. "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." (emphasis added). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: If indeed there has been intentional concealment of the married name and no loss of context ... then sure. I'm not sure if either is true. I read further into this bizarreness since yesterday ... and an improbable coincidence jumped out at me. Then looking at surnames, an even more improbable coincidence jumped out at me. And suddenly, I realised what's going on here, and why stuff is being hidden. But as far as I can tell ... it is indeed just a coincidence ... but no surprise the conspiracy theorists are going nuts. But that leads to where I think we've erred. The best thing to do with a nutty conspiracy theory is to shine the light on everything - and the worst thing to do is keep secrets and keep quiet ... because that drives even normal people to be suspicious. Here, we seem to have gone too far with BLPNAME, by completely avoiding highly accessible well reported information, rather than simply having one-sentence that blows the conspiracy theory out of the water with good sources ... you could even do so without naming surnames ... though I don't see what we are hiding, given many incidental references in the article explicitly reference past names. Surely the only thing that should be hidden is their new name ... which if it's publicly known ... I haven't come across (nor have I looked much or care ...). Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Spam still there from 2012

Of course those are not active spammers, but most of their links are still there so maybe some cleanup is required in the articles (that i’d rather not do myself). I believe each one of the links either violates copyright or can be effectively redirected to archive.org, yet they are dead anyway.

• Ralfbeert25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• New434 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Byieanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Linia1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Kate2323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Barbara2323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• LoraTgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Elyisia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Glory081997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Rootgty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Rootglory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Ann2409 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• SaraMrt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Kira742000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Kira1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Bulteris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Bella231990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• Kaite2301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• upd: BastrSf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• upd: Lyusiy23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done
• upd: Battyta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Done

and whoever added links to the same websites back then. — 188.123.231.32 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The first was adding links to public domain books (not copyvio), I've added links archive.org instead and marked that user as checked. Fences&Windows 20:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Glory081997 done: replaced tehnikaa.ru link with archive.org. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Barbara2323 / Bella231990 done: moflat.ru / f-sis.ru links are long gone. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Bulteris done: replaced f-sis.ru link with archive.org. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Kaite2301 done: moflat.ru link has already been replaced with archive.org. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Done All checked and .ru links are either already edited out or have now been replaced. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Bastun

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

---

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

Bastun needs to be topic banned from J. K. Rowling and from other BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. This is because of a persistent, ongoing issue involving WP:BLP violations because of Bastun's extremely negative feelings about Rowling, and their advocacy on the subject of transgender resulting in tendentious editing, which involves rejection of WP:NPOV, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (IDHT) behavior, and personal attacks.

Note that on 4 July 2019, they were given a DS (discretionary sanctions) alert for BLP: [329]

• Here they added material claiming some signatories saying they would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing it. None of the given sources support this BLP violation. I removed it. Bastun re-added it with another source that does not verify it. I took it to the talk page (my 17:34, 27 July 2020 comment). Five editors including myself agreed that criticism not specifically about Rowling should be removed. I later re-remove it on these grounds and am reverted by Bastun, who falsely claims that it's referenced material and No consensus on removal - clear IDHT. They then adjusted the statement to refer only to Boylan. This is again a BLP violation, since she never said she 'would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing'. [330] Bastun claimed on the talk page that they were Restoring per several editors including myself. [331] This is false. No other editors supported their material.

• The addition about Rowling's signing of the Harper's Letter was proposed by someone else at this discussion on the talk page. Bastun responds, Would this paragraph include analysis of, one the one hand, signing a letter claiming to support free speech, and on the other hand, suing a children's website that published opinions critical of her? Czello rightly points out, Depends, is this analysis covered in any reliable sources? If not us doing that would be WP:SYNTH. Then Bastun turns on a dime to instead argue, Oh, I'm aware of the policy. But you raise a good point. Would the signing of an open letter, where apparently the signatory did not actually stand over the content, be a case of WP:UNDUE? Guy Macon replies, Not covering the open letter -- assuming that it otherwise would be included -- because you don't like her behavior in ther areas would be a violation of WP:NPOV. It would also be WP:OR... We clearly see in this exchange Bastun's anti-Rowling bias and willingness to tendentiously argue whatever it takes for the sake of a POV.

• I then added the material about the open letter. Even though Bastun adds sourced material about people disagreeing with Rowling, they removed the sourced material about Rowling signing the Harper's Letter about open debate with 150 others, claiming "undue", even though this latter incident got more coverage in sources and even has its own Wikipedia article. This is a tendentious double standard. They claimed on the talk page, Removed. Per WP:UNDUE. It really is. And considering the other material you've previously removed on the same grounds, I'm assuming you're well familiar with the policy. Notnews, 10-year-rule, etc. [332] This is a case of WP:POINTiness. I discussed it on the talk page and again, consensus was to include.

• Because I used Reuters in the RfC as an example and said elsewhere it was a better source to show significance than the entertainment/gossip press per WP:NOTNEWS, Bastun mocks me repeatedly about it: Even Reuters has covered this. Imagine! Reuters! :sarcasm: [333] Wikipedia is not censored. The Guardian source even cites Reuters!!! [334] it's even used in a Reuters explainer! Reuters - imagine! [335]

• Making the same attack on me on two different pages. [336][337] They say, you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news. That goes to show they never actually read WP:NOTNEWS despite me linking to it several times. They then go on to attack, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. I responded, warning them not to attack me and not accusing them back of serious POV issues - although I certainly am now, in the proper forum for that.

• Bastun using the talk page as a soapbox/forum to complain about Rowling, again revealing their strong bias: It's Maud Flanders levels of "Think of the children!" and - just personal opinion now - points to her poor writing ability (anyone can get lucky, and every generation gets a Hero's journey retelling.) [338] Yes. She's a self-admitted TERF. [339] (She did not say that, and the label TERF is not to be thrown around casually for BLPs. [340])

• Autumnking2012 stated on the talk page, I am endeavoring to avoid the toxicity of this talk page as much as possible. Why is the talk page toxic? I submit - and Autumnking2012 may be willing to comment - that it is mainly because of Bastun's tendentious behavior, some of which is detailed above. I certainly consider it toxic for that reason.

• At their talk page, regarding another BLP in June, Girth Summit had to admonish Bastun about not engaging in personal comments. Bastun repeatedly and falsely called Lilipo25 a WP:SPA, as well as falsely claiming Lilipo25 said anything about SJWs/social justice warriors.

• They claimed that voting in my own RfC was scandalous: where one of the options presented by the person who drafted the RFC is shot down by that person. How odd. Almost as if a certain conclusion was desired and being orchestrated... They added notifications to the two pages about the RfC that were non-neutral, while ironically and baselessly claiming with a weaselly some editors have expressed concern that the RfC was non-neutral. [341][342]

There is no shortage of helpful editors who seek to follow NPOV on these pages, adding positive and negative material. Bastun is acting as an obstacle and actively drives good editors away. I have therefore come here to seek a topic ban from BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds a bit hard to enforce, perhaps broaden the scope to BLPs in general? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Note: DS alerts are only good for a year. I've notified them of the gender-related and BLP sanctions. ---22:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I support this proposal. Bastun has a long history of posting negatively-biased material on BLP pages about those who have expressed gender critical views and reverting all attempts to make the pages WP:NPOV. Attempts to discuss edits on the Talk page are futile; even when an RFC has just begun, Bastun will simply refuse to wait for discussion and continue reverting to the biased changes they want in the article and declare it consensus. In addition, they routinely revert edits that remove unsourced, defamatory claims in BLP articles of subjects who have criticised transgender activism, often with sarcastic edit notes [343]. They also make sarcastic and hostile comments to other editors on the Talk Page itself [344]. This is very unhelpful in fostering an environment of cooperation and civility among editors.Lilipo25 (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

An example of Bastun reverting attempts to remove negatively-biased content is on the Graham Linehan page. The RFC that can be found on the Linehan Talk Page followed numerous attempts by other editors to change Bastun's biased section heading "Antitransgender activism", only to be immediately reverted by Bastun. Some of the times this occurred include (but are not limited to):

1. April 2019, changed to "Transgender Issues" by Onetwothreeip, reverted by Bastun [345]
2. April 2019, Bring back Daz Sampson removed the section altogether and summarized and integrated the information into an existing section, reverted by Bastun [346]
3. August 2019, changed to "Pro-feminist ally activism by Planted Kiss, reverted by Bastun [347]
4. August 2019, changed to "Activism" by Forty 4, reverted by Bastun [348]
5. October 2019 changed to "Gender critical activism" by an IP, reverted by Bastun [349]
6. April 2020 changed to "Transgender Controversy" by me, reverted by Bastun [350]

While the RFC on the subject heading was still underway in June 2020, Bastun once again reverted it to "Antitransgender activism" [351] and although no consensus approving that was reached, it remains in the article as everyone eventually just gave up trying to improve it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I support the proposal. I noted before (in a recent BLP noticeboard discussion about Rowling) that I have purposely been keeping out of the Rowling stuff. But having taken the time to look over all of this (that's a lot of diffs to analyze), I must agree that Bastun is a serious problem in this area. A topic ban appears to be needed. If not that, then some sort of other sanction. This can't be allowed to continue. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. After viewing the diffs provided by Crossroads and User:Lilipo25, it would be in the best interest of the Wikipedia community and its readers if User:Bastun was topic banned. Some people don't pay attention to WP:BLP, and other Wikipedia policies, until their arrogance pushes the envelope off a cliff. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my analysis. It was intended for respondents to say things like "edit N was out of line." Instead it has become one more battleground. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I just put together a couple of timelines. Sorry for this being long. The only substantive change between the 16:25, 24 July 2020 revision and the latest revision as of 09:01, 28 July 2020 is the addition of a "Open letter on justice and open debate" section.[352] During this period there was a lot of talk page discussion here: Freedom of speech#Freedom of speech Freedom of speech#Bias in section "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate" I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise: 16:29, 24 July: Crossroads adds section.[353] 17:34, 24 July 2020 Bastun reverts.[354] 00:25, 26 July 2020: Crossroads adds a different version.[355] ("Re-add Harper's Letter, with adjustments, per agreement on talk page.") 11:32, 26 July 2020 Bastun adds to the section.[356] 18:39, 26 July: Crossroads removes a smaller portion.[357] 05:32, 28 July 2020 Crossroads removes a section[358] ("Removing stuff not about Rowling per 5 editors including myself on the talk page.") 08:51, 28 July 2020 Bastun reverts[359] ("Restore referenced material. No consensus on removal. Discuss on talk.") Bastun's talk page comment as of 08:50, 28 July[360] included these words: "And I see we got a whole 12 hours to debate that and it got done in the early hours of the morning. (By my count it was 10 hours) Looks like I need to create another timeline: 13:30, 26 July: IP 2a02...6582 opens section "‎Bias in section 'A Letter on Justice and Open Debate' "[361] 14:23, 26 July: Bilorv says keep.[362] 14:25, 26 July: Bastun says keep.[363] 15:00, 26 July: 2a02...6582 says remove.[364] 17:21 26 July: Ward20 says modify and expand.[365] 18:37, 26 July: Bastun agrees with expansion.[366] 18:53, 26 July 2020: Crossroads mentions his 18:39, 26 July[367] edit that removed a smaller portion, then writes "Lastly, as a reminder to all, WP:BATTLEGROUND editing, inconsistent application of policy to promote a POV, antipathy-motivated WP:BLP violations on any Wikipedia page, and/or toxicity are all actionable at ANI."[368] 20:20, 26 July: (I am going to disregard this one. Nothing that is in The Daily Mail can be trusted for any purpose. The poster later retracted the comment for the same reason.) 21:23, 26 July: Ward20 comments. Can't tell it it supports keeping or removing.[369] 09:59, 27 July: Bastun continues arguing his position. [370] 17:34, 27 July: Crossroads continues arguing his position, pings Bilorv, Czello. Guy Macon, Autumnking2012, Bodney, and Ward20.[371] 17:44, 27 July: Guy Macon says remove any criticism of the letter that does not mention Rowling by name.[372] 17:49, 27 July: Crossroads agrees.[373] 18:44, 27 July: Czello agrees.[374] 18:56, 27 July: Ward20 agrees. [375] 19:33, 27 July: Autumnking2012 agrees.[376] 05:32, 28 July: Crossroads removes. See timeline above. 08:50, 28 July: Bastun posts his "I see we got a whole 12 hours to debate that and it got done in the early hours of the morning." comment, says he is "Restoring per several editors including myself. Not least because some of the removal is directly related to Rowling."[377] 08:51, 28 July: Bastun reverts. See timeline above. 08:58, 28 July: Ward20 makes thoughtful comments too hard to summarize. Please read the diff.[378] 09:14, 28 July: Bastun agrees with Ward20.[379] 05:32, 28 July: Crossroads removes a section[380] ("Removing stuff not about Rowling per 5 editors including myself on the talk page.") 08:51, 28 July: Bastun reverts[381] ("Restore referenced material. No consensus on removal. Discuss on talk.") Questions: Is the claim "some of the removal is directly related to Rowling" true of edit [382]? Was ten hours after several editors agreed too soon to make the edit? My conclusions: No evidence of wrongdoing that would justify a topic ban for Bastun alone. A one month topic ban for Bastun and Crossroads might be worth considering. Restoring the 16:25, 24 July 2020 revision, rolling back in the 50,000 to 60,000 correction, and fully protecting the article for a month is also worth considering. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Struck out last paragraph. Best to let the reader look at the timeline and come to their own conclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)>

Seriously? Acting like I am equally at fault? As for "I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring", that was right after an/maybe more than one (I don't remember) SPA had turned up, added a bunch of stuff, edit warred, and (one of them) got blocked. I never thought that strict formality we had been doing was meant to be permanent (indeed, it really isn't standard Wikipedia procedure) and I thought maybe you had stopped watching. And you ignored all the problems I pointed to above in favor of focusing on the "when" of edits. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And your first timeline is extremely misleading. You begin, I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise, and then state, 16:29, 24 July: Crossroads adds section. But I did not do that out of the blue; it was based on the 2 comments that already existed in support of doing so (and no comments rejecting it) in this section of the talk page: Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling#Freedom of speech. Further down that timeline, you say, 00:25, 26 July 2020: Crossroads adds a different version. But this again was after further discussion on Talk in that section I just linked to. I was making every effort to engage on Talk and follow WP:BRD. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if I implied that you were equally at fault. I thought that the timeline spoke for itself. I think it is fair to say that

[A] the first edit I put in the timeline was the first edit in the dispute (which in itself says nothing about whether it was good or bad, for or against consensus), Being first is simply a fact. It doesn't imply anything. There is no implication that the first edit in the dispute was in any way wrong. Many times it is the second edit where you start to see a problem. occasionally it is the seventh.

[B] When I say "I thought that we had all reached the point where we would hash things out on the talk page instead of edit warring, but the page history suggests otherwise", I am saying the you made an edit when you knew that someone would disagree and most likely revert. No matter how tendentious the revert, that's how edit wars start. What you should have done is post something like this on the talk page: "Bastun, by my count X number of editors agree with A, and Y number of editors agree with B. Can we agree to change it to A without edit warring?" Just going ahead and making what looks like a good edit to you is usually fine, but when a topic is generating a lot of strong feelings and the page has recently been protected because of edit warring, you really need to at least try to get everyone to agree before making the edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You implied I was equally at fault by proposing equal sanctions for me and for Bastun. And I didn't think that Bastun or anyone would necessarily be tendentious enough to revert. The order people normally follow is WP:BRD. Discussion does not have to come first, although there had been discussion. And there is no need to go to extreme lengths on Talk to try to get unanimity of some kind first. Consensus is not unanimity. And lone editors do not have infinite veto power over the larger group. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I've thoroughly analyzed the matter, and that includes Lilipo25's analysis above, and I really can't see that Crossroads has done anything wrong here. He's an editor who staunchly follows the rules, including in this case. I see that he's had to put up with a lot regarding Bastun, who has been significantly disruptive in this area. Crossroads has been one of the voices of reason at these difficult articles. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Did I say that Crossroads did anything wrong here? Did I say that Bastun did anything wrong here? Or did I just post a timeline? I have my opinions about who is mostly at fault here, but I was careful not to express those opinions. As for my advice, Wikipedia administrators only have a few options t deal with a page where edit wars keep breaking out. They can stop one or more editors from editing Wikipedia (blocking). They can stop one or mare editors from editing a certain page or on a certain topic (topic ban) or they can stop everybody from editing the age (full protection). They can identify when a policy or guideline is being violated and use warnings and blocks to stop that behavior. What Adminisrators are not allowed to do is to decide who is right and who is wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in getting into some tit for tat with you. You implied that Crossroads did wrong, which is why Crossroads took offense. I'm sure he can clarify his feelings on that. And, yes, admins decide that editors are in the wrong all the damn time. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

My report has little to do with edit warring. The issue is POV-motivated tendentious editing. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators decide that editors are in the wrong all the time. As in "the editors conduct was wrong." They are not allowed to decide that editors are wrong. As in "issuing decisions on content disputes". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semantics. I can ping multiple admins right now who would state, "Yep, Flyer is correct. As seen on ANI and elsewhere on Wikipedia, admins decide that editors are in the wrong all the damn time." But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to move on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

One can only hope that in moving on you will eventually learn that the difference between "this editor is in the wrong" and "this editor is wrong" is a matter of lexicology and not semantics. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm humored by this. Our past interactions have shown times over that I am one editor you cannot school, and yet you pull this. I don't even think you've read the articles you linked to. No matter what you want to call it, the fact remains that admins have stated "this editor is in the wrong" and "this editor is wrong" times over. And will continue to do so. And they are not wrong for using either wording. They, like me, would see you distinguishing the two as some silly word game. But I suppose you have to seek your wins where you can, even when you fail to win anything. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Support. I really regret to say that I'd support the topic ban as OP suggested. I wish it wouldn't have come to this but I fear bias has crept through to the point of tendentious editing. — Czello 08:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I've been pinged above, so just wanted to make a quick comment to say that I've seen this thread, but will be on mobile until tomorrow at the earliest - I would need to be at a computer to read through these diffs properly. I have been aware of some issues in this subject area in recent months, but will reserve judgment on this particular report until I've had chance to investigate properly. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment re Crossroads. Personal agendas have been a persistent problem in the editing of all LGBT-related articles. Editor Bastun has been brought to ANI after the whack-a-moling of their edits have exhausted those who are here for the promotion of encyclopedic values, and not for the manipulation of information, censorship of information, and POV belligerence. Crossroads' history as an editor is a completely different universe than that of this problematic editor. There is no comparison. To conclude that topic-banning him should also be considered is to say that Crossroads is on the same level as Bastun. That is utter rubbish ... and a back-handed intimidation tactic. An attempt to punish Crossroads for possessing the boldness and fearlessness to tackle a problematic editor and to call them out, is simply an attack against any editor who has the brass to do what is best for Wikipedia and the general public that it serves. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Bastun T-ban. As for Crossroads, Pyxis Solitary immediately above me says all I would have, more concisely; Crossroads is clearly not the problem here or part of the problem. The amount of "this person is transphobic no matter what!" PoV pushing at articles like this is just running off the rails, and it needs to stop. When numerous TG/NB people (note the difference between that and "cis-gender, hetereo, privileged 'allies' speaking in loco parentis on behalf of TG/NB people, who are telling them to STFU because they're being terrible allies") very publicly leap to the defense of Rowling (as not transphobic for simply observing that her biological womanhood has played a formative role in her life and is a different experience from that of transwomen) – yet our "encyclopedic" coverage is very WP:UNDULY dwelling on labeling her transphobic, with cherry-picked sources that support that extreme, echo-chamber, activist viewpoint, and suppressioin of material that does not support that narrative – then we clearly have a problem and need to act to resolve it. If this were confined to a single page, that might be a momentary blip, but Bastun's PoV-pushing crosses multiple related articles, and can be found in others like the Linehan one. As someone below put it, "BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics" seem to be the flashpoint for Bastun, among others who'll likely end up here eventually. (About two weeks ago, I felt compelled to leave four {{Ds/alert|gg}} templates the same day, due to the frequency with which I was running into highly personalized attacky behavior surrounding TG/NB topics and the sourcing for them. And all of the incivility was coming from the "TERFs must die, and anyone who disagrees with my dogma must be a TERF" sector, not the other side, or the middle). I take the same position about this as I do about everything: WP is not the place for your activism, on anything. If you can't act as a neutral-minded encyclopedist in a topic area, only a biased advocate, then you simply have to be removed from that topic area, no matter the subjective nobility of your intentions, or your ability to be constructive in other topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  With all due respect, SMcCandlish, the claim that all of the incivility was coming from the "TERFs must die, and anyone who disagrees with my dogma must be a TERF" sector, not the other side, or the middle seems EXTRAORDINARY, or at least hyperbolic. For your intervention to be relevant, I think the expectation at ANI is to provide diffs. Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish - I echo Newimpartial that you need to provide diffs here, I think. (Or better, strike comments that are not related to this editor) Darren-M talk 16:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  That's a silly trap. You're declaring my concerns about Bastun's behavior being part of a broader activism/PoV problem to be supposedly off-topic, then asking me to add actually off-topic diffs regarding other editors exhibiting related patterns, to an ANI that isn't about them. I decline that bait. If the other editors cross the lines again, it'll be a WP:AE or WP:RFARB/WP:ARCA matter, since they have received Ds/alerts; ANI is not the appropriate venue for them any longer. Whether they have individually done anything ANI would take action about is not pertinent. My very point was that the overall pattern of TG/NB-related PoV pushing against various BLP subjects is being generated by more than one editor; one of them is before ANI right now, while the others (if they keep it up) are destined for another venue's examination.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Um, yeah - most of what you've written about there? To quote Shaggy: "It wasn't me." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW, I am agreed with SMcCandlish that articles related to this topic suffer from a lot of POV pushing, especially from the advocacy side. Opposite-side POV pushing happens occasionally too, but is quickly shut down. This ANI report was meant to focus on a particular case that became so severe I considered it reportable. But it isn't the only activism that occurs. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  From an empirical standpoint, I question your assertion that the POV pushing happens especially from the advocacy side, and that Opposite-side POV pushing happens but is quickly shut down. For example, on Talk:Graham Linehan you made one particular POV assertion here that you subsequently repeated precisely the same assertion here, here, here, and here with no more support than an illicit appeal to the colour of the sky, in spite of polite requests for some kind of justification in policy or precedent from several editors. If that is what your POV-pushing is like when it is "quickly shut down", Crossroads, I would hate to see it fully unleashed. Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I'm glad you posted those because they show me rebutting your implausible POV assertion that "anti-transgender" is not value-laden such that WP:LABEL does not apply, you pushing to apply that label to a WP:BLP, and you baselessly equating me to white supremacists and the alt-right. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  No, they show you repeatedly asserting, without evidence or the agreement of most participants in the discussion, that "anti-transgender" is value-laden such that WP:LABEL applies. A previous RfC had affirmed that the section using "anti-transgender" in both the title and the body was appropriate for the article, and no noticeboard discussion has ever applied LABEL to "anti-transgender" or any other "anti-" label as far as I know. However, you did not even deign to rebut the previous discussion or address your novel interpretation of LABEL, but only made a BLUESKY argument while most participants in the discussion were not in agreement with you about the colour of the sky. I did not "equate you to white supremacists and the alt-right", I addressed the form of evidence-free argumentation you were using in that discussion and continue to use. Which rather illustrates my point that here at ANI you are engaged in continuing a content dispute by other means, although you do not see it this way because the arguments of those who disagree with you, no matter how well-sourced and policy-compliant they may be, simply do not fit your worldview so you dismiss them out of hand. Newimpartial (talk) 03:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody needs your characterization of the previous RfC. And anyway, my comments were at a new and much bigger RfC at which consensus can change. As for your last sentence, back at ya. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  Of course WP:LABEL applies. The entire purpose of the guideline is addressing such labels. Newimpartial appears to be engaging in the fallacy that the example terms listed there are an exhaustive list of those that qualify. It simply is not true, as even a few minutes on the guideline's talk page will show you. Proposals to add additional terms are almost always rejected, specifically because the examples are not an exhaustive list (which would just grow indefinitely), and the extant samples are already broad enough to get the point across (to everyone except Newimpartial and a few others, I guess). However, if someone wants to propose adding an example like "anti-transgender" (since the list doesn't include any "anti-foo" illustrations), I would support adding a new example for the first time in a long time. If a misinterpretation of guideline wording becomes recurrent, the solution is to write around the misinterpretation so that it stops recurring.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish, this isn't the place to re-litigate the RfC, either, but I never made the straw man argument you just attributed to me, that the list in LABEL is somehow exhaustive. The argument I actually made is that "anti-x" labels are used in Wikivoice all the time, and that I didn't see any policy-relevant difference between "anti-transgender activism" and say "anti-black violence" or "anti-Jewish rhetoric". That was the argument made by myself and others at the RfC. Now it is fine for you to disagree, but it is not fine IMO for you to strawman the actual argument and then insist that there is some "silent majority" consensus about "anti-transgender activism" without providing evidence.

  But really, my point here is that SMcCandlish has not shown good judgement in this subject area since The Signpost fiasco, and that in spite of their superficially measured words, their perception of the actions of other editors in this subject area is deeply affected by what seems obvious to them based on their POV, a POV previously expressed in the current Graham Linehan RFC, as I recall. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Please do not ping me about this comment. Strong oppose: "BLPs who have commented on transgender topics" is not clear enough to enforce (does Bastun have to research whether a BLP has ever spoken publicly about transness every time they edit a BLP on any topic?) and "all BLPs" is certainly unwarranted. Rather than suggesting a topic that would fit better, I will say that I do not see evidence that Bastun has behaved in a consistently reckless manner worthy of a topic ban. I do seem some protracted disputes, in which Bastun does engage in discussion. A number of the users participating in this discussion have engaged in similar ways but with opposite points of view, so it is not the conduct they are objecting to but the beliefs. Lilipo25 presents the situation of Graham Linehan incorrectly in that the section heading was not "Bastun's biased section heading" but a long-standing heading which has received support from many users. — Bilorv (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The section heading was originally "Controversies". It was created by OCuin on January 20, 2019 [383]. You changed it to "Transgender Issues" two days later [384]. It then went through a series of different headings ("Transgender Rights", "Transphobia", etc.) before Peter the Fourth first inserted the "Anti-Transgender Activism" heading [385]. It was changed again numerous times after that by different editors ("Gender critical activism", "Anti-transgender activity", "POV", etc.) and on April 19, 2019, the heading was back to the one you put in: Transgender Issues. At that point, Bastun changed it back to "Anti-transgender activism" with an edit note declaring that to be "accurate and neutral" [386]. Since then, as demonstrated above, Bastun has held control over the heading and reverted every change. While there are certainly those who support their wording, there are many who have not, and the RFC was unable to come to any kind of consensus. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

So your contention is that Bastun should be banned from an area because their contribution is the one that, after much discussion and debate, remains? The way you discuss this makes it clear you view the situation as a game of capture the flag. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Additionally, you have the facts wrong. I did not change the subject header. What I did was to insert a full stop in prose. Please do not say untruths about me again. I suggest you check your other comments for factual accuracy because the diff about me was literally the only one I opened and it does not say what you claim it does. — Bilorv (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

That is most definitely not my contention; I was trying to demonstrate that Bastun's edits on the example I used are not to an agreed-upon heading. But you are correct that I misread your edit and for that I apologise and will strike it through once I look up how to do that again, as I've forgotten. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose t-ban: Bastun's edits and interactions with other editors on the JK Rowling page specifically appear to have been part of a completely ordinary content dispute. Crossroads' characterization of that dispute as sanctionable seems pretty dubious based on the timeline provided by Guy Macon above. However, it does seem, at least based on the evidence provided above, that Bastun has been pretty unreasonably combative on other pages. For this reason I'd support a warning and maybe an interaction ban, but a topic ban seems very poorly tailored to what actual misbehavior there is. Loki (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support - I was mentioned above and I well remember the dumpster fire that Bastun (and some others, to be fair) presided over at Graham Linehan. I haven't been active at JK Rowling although I'm sure it's more of the same WP:NOTHERE, WP:UNCIVIL carry on. SMcCandlish summarises this unfortunate situation better than I can. I'd only add that I think part of the problem is that these 'advocates' work themselves up into a frenzy in their little online echo chambers on Twitter / forums etc. Think 'cancel culture', or online 'pile-on' tactics. Then when they come on here looking to do likewise - essentially bully and/or push unreality on us - they respond with incredulity and disproportionate hostility at those of us who are only looking to try and keep things encyclopedic. Unchecked it sometimes boils over into edit-warring, POV-pushing, coat-racking and so on, like it sadly has in Bastun's case. In fact unless Bastun can point to some sort of worthwhile contribution in other areas I wouldn't be averse to supporting a block rather than a topic ban. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  With regard to the preceding intervention, please see this remarkably self-aware comment by the same editor. Based on their own experience on this same issue at ANI, this looks to me like a pot::kettle situation, and the allegation that the allegation that these 'advocates' work themselves up into a frenzy in their little online echo chambers on Twitter / forums etc. Think 'cancel culture', or online 'pile-on' tactics. Then when they come on here looking to do likewise - essentially bully and/or push unreality on us must be regarded as unproven (without evidence) and set aside. Newimpartial (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Cancel culture is when you express your opinion on a topic, whereas opposition to cancel culture is when you forcibly prevent someone from expressing their opinion on a particular platform. Given your self-admission of not having done due diligence in research before making this comment, I trust the closer will give this as little weight as it warrants. — Bilorv (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: topic ban from J. K. Rowling. I'm discussing that article because I am familiar with the TG topic editing there. J. K. Rowling has increasingly made politically controversial comments about TG topics. It has now branched out into "cancel culture" vs. the rights of disenfranchised or oppressed groups to exercise their political power. Her fame has brought widespread coverage of the issues, and cherrypicking sources can badly distort the neutral view. It's a difficult topic. Editors bring opposing views, but when the editors have worked together there the article benefited. There are so many sources to sort through[387], the more editors doing good research the better. I would rather see a sanction on the article using zero reverts for a period, cautioning editors to achive consensus and WP:AGF rather than banning editors from the article. Ward20 (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, support a 1RR restriction for all editors on Rowling-related and Linehan-related articles (Non-administrator comment) (At least not yet 😛) This discussion seems to be a proxy fight about how Wikipedia should cover JK Rowling. That fight is best conducted on article talk pages. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, based on the totality of diffs provided in the thread above (which took half an hour to read through; I would like my time back >.> ), I don't think a topic ban would be appropriate at this time, though I do think the editor in question (and editors in general) should be reminded to avoid being confrontational or becoming heated in discussions of these topics. (I am troubled by the extent to which comments in support of or opposition to such a ban seem to line up with the commenters' opinions with regard to the content on transgender topics, and in general, as another commenter touched on, by the amount of battleground-ing that goes on in multiple directions in this topic area.) -sche (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose: As per Bilorv, Loki, Ward20 and others. This is rushed as I am packing and travelling the next few days. Everyone knows that JK Rowling has made a number of highly controversial political statements about Trans People. All Wikipedia Editors including Crossroads and Bastun have a political view points: when the are strong opposing views, things can get a little heated, both sides have been equally combative. I have not seen any clear evidence of consistent poor behaviour by Bastun towards other editors, Bastun has simply engaged in the discussion from a different political standpoint from Crossroads. As a trans person myself I am very grateful that I see at least one other editor is standing up for a minority group and against discrimination both intentional and unintentional, and the overal systemic bias that naturally exist in Wikipedia. Bastun's interactions with other editors in the protracted disputes on the JK Rowling articles has been part of a completely normal content dispute in a contenious area. The is no solid evidence that Bastun has espicially behaved in a Un-Wikipedian like manner to warrant any topic ban whatsoever. I agree also with WanderingWanda that this appears to be a proxy fight about how Wikipedia should cover JK Rowling. That fight is indeed best conducted on article talk pages. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: We need more uninvolved, unbiased commenters. So far all of the support and oppose !votes are from people who are in some way involved, either editing the Rowling articles directly, or else heavily involved in transgender related articles. As -sche stated, there is the extent to which comments in support of or opposition to such a ban seem to line up with the commenters' opinions with regard to the content on transgender topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is going to get involved, if they are not already, in such a bitter, vitriolic, hate filled topic area? I only notice it when it appears on one of these boards, I am staying far away. Admins really need to take some action to make the topic area one uninvolved editors feel comfortable participating in. Smeat75 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This, I think, is really the important question. 1RR limits seem to help (q.v. Terf and what might help even more would be an approach to relevant, reliable sources (or even basic evidential standards) more in line with the rest of the project (the constant re-hashing of issues on Talk:Trans woman is exemplary here).

And some of those frequently INVOLVED in related discussions - notably Crossroads, Pyxis Solitary, Bastun and myself - have a tendency to become dismissive or waspish in these discussions. Additional efforts at civility (and avoidance of microagressions) might go a long way. Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the editors "re-hashing" issues at Talk:Trans woman are not the editors here. It's not those of us interested in neutrality repeatedly complaining there. It's new users. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

While that is true, I would venture that a respect for evidence and process over self-certainty and personal conviction would make an improvement to the discussion at Talk:Graham Linehan just as much as it would at Talk:Trans woman. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"And some of those frequently INVOLVED in related discussions - notably ... Pyxis Solitary ...." If there's one thing I've stayed away from for a long time, is being involved in the editing of trans-related matters. Editing trans-related subjects is a snake pit. As for becoming involved in a discussion such as this one, well ... that's one of the privileges granted to all Wikipedia editors. Now, I know from experience that you're into baiting and turning discussions into arguments. But I just want to assure you that whatever cork you blow after this, I have more productive things to do than to respond to anything you have to say to me. Don't spit in the wind. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

And there it is. Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: First... Regarding votes aligning with editors' POVs. My "support" vote is not about any personal POV I have on trans issues. I only saw this thread because I looked at Crossroads's contributions. And editors have noted that I do look to follow Wikipedia's WP:Neutral policy and other rules on these (and other) topics. Second, except for one or two others who may have followed Crossroads, it appears to me that WP:Canvassing has taken place. I could understand if certain editors voting "oppose" frequented ANI, or this thread about Bastun was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Talk:J. K. Rowling, or Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling (although it shouldn't be). But for a number of editors involved with trans topics to show up here out of the blue, and when a couple of them haven't been editing frequently lately (such as being absent from Wikipedia for two days)? No. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  To be clear, I didn't mean to suggest anything like "both sides are POV and equally bad". It's not like that. The evidence - actual evidence - speaks for itself as to what is neutrality and what is activism, and it is also clear what is supported by evidence and what is based on ignoring evidence. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  That CANVASSING accusation is so oblique that I can't really tell who is being accused of canvassing or being canvassed, but I will volunteer that I followed Crossroads's contribution history here, like a normal person. I have studiously stayed away from Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling, but when I saw what was going on here I had a feeling there was a desire to re-litigate the Talk:Graham Linehan RfC, which is not even closed - and I certainly do not seem to have been mistaken in that apprehension. If editors are going to use one-sided behavioural accusations (accusations not accompanied by a degree of self-awareness) to gain an advantage in content disputes - which certainly seems to be the case with Crossroads here - it should not be surprising that the potential targets of such strategies become wise to them. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  I do not normally watch this noticeboard, who does? Like other editors on both sides of this current dispute i was simply mentioned on this very page, so I came, nothing more. I am extremely saddened to find that some very experienced editors seem to be playing Wikipedia politics here, to shut down (or to induce doubt about) fair and reasonable contributions of opposing editors and viewpoints. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 05:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: per User:Bodney. Bastun is simply an avid editor, a trait encouraged by wp:bold. It's normal to have disagreements followed by some reversions on controversial topics. At least from that editor's part, the confrontation of different points of view is being maintained healthy, productive, and is helping to improve the articles mentioned here. There's nothing out of ordinary on your accusatory diffs. We can see that Bastun is very active on talk pages; edit history of articles show that that editor frequently avoids escalating unproductive edit-wars, turning those into talk page discussions and subsequently abiding by established consensuses. daveout ^(talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Another highly involved editor whose defense is founded upon denial. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • To be fair, I also think that your contributions have a positive side to them and that they are helping to improve those articles (in a way). But those "evidences" you are bringing here simply aren't grievous enough in order to justify banning someone. They look like just any other editorial dispute (honestly). Suppressing disagreeing voices isn't the way to go. daveout ^(talk) 06:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Mostly per what the other opposers said. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Crossroads has accused Bastun of advocacy, but is there anywhere a text where Bastun actually voices a personal opinion on transgender issues? Most of the above examples seem more like content disputes and disagreements over sources. Dimadick (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  To be clear, Bastun's personal opinions in and of themselves are not relevant if they were to edit in accord with NPOV, NPA, etc. My point is that Bastun's editing, however, constitutes POV pushing/activism, resulting in tendentiousness, BLP violations, personal attacks, and WP:IDHT, causing disruption and driving away other editors. I believe my evidence and that of others (especially here) shows that. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as per sche. It seems like a content dispute with a bit of the usual argy-bargy that these topics attract. Crossroads has been just as involved in the argy bargy, though it should be noted that thay have been more civil than Bastun. IMO Crossroads is throwing bad faith and battleground accusations around as a way of "winning" content disputes. I also noted a claim of canvassing above without any evidence of said canvassing being provided. Bacondrum (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This editor is highly involved when it comes to me personally and is not an unbiased observer. [388] Crossroads ^-talk- 02:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Highly involved? How so? Another unwarranted bad faith accusation, this report is full of them. Crossroads is bludgeoning the debate and making numerous bad faith accusation throughout. Bacondrum (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies for the delay in replying. I was away for just over four days with just a phone, and came back to a heavy workload and a lot of bytes on this page. I've already responded to Lilipo25's contribution. I wasn't entirely sure where to place this response, or how best to format it, but I think I do need to respond to the original "charge". I've responded below by copying most of the points in the original post and responding to each. I hope that's ok. Crossroad's points should be indented, mine are bulleted.

• Here they added material claiming some signatories saying they would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing it. None of the given sources support this BLP violation. I removed it. Bastun re-added it with another source that does not verify it. I took it to the talk page (my 17:34, 27 July 2020 comment). Five editors including myself agreed that criticism not specifically about Rowling should be removed. I later re-remove it on these grounds and am reverted by Bastun, who falsely claims that it's referenced material and No consensus on removal - clear IDHT. They then adjusted the statement to refer only to Boylan. This is again a BLP violation, since she never said she 'would not have signed it had they known anti-trans activists were signing'. [389] Bastun claimed on the talk page that they were Restoring per several editors including myself. [390] This is false. No other editors supported their material.

• This is a content dispute, not appropriate for AN/I. But if Crossroads does not like the reference I supplied, there are more: one, and two, for example. Certainly happy to include a "likely", but Rowling herself seems happy that Boylan was referring to her.

• The addition about Rowling's signing of the Harper's Letter was proposed by someone else at this discussion on the talk page. Bastun responds, Would this paragraph include analysis of, one the one hand, signing a letter claiming to support free speech, and on the other hand, suing a children's website that published opinions critical of her? Czello rightly points out, Depends, is this analysis covered in any reliable sources? If not us doing that would be WP:SYNTH. Then Bastun turns on a dime to instead argue, Oh, I'm aware of the policy. But you raise a good point. Would the signing of an open letter, where apparently the signatory did not actually stand over the content, be a case of WP:UNDUE? Guy Macon replies, Not covering the open letter -- assuming that it otherwise would be included -- because you don't like her behavior in ther areas would be a violation of WP:NPOV. It would also be WP:OR... We clearly see in this exchange Bastun's anti-Rowling bias and willingness to tendentiously argue whatever it takes for the sake of a POV.

• And I answered Guy Macon just 20 minutes later, and clarified my statement.

• I then added the material about the open letter. Even though Bastun adds sourced material about people disagreeing with Rowling, they removed the sourced material about Rowling signing the Harper's Letter about open debate with 150 others, claiming "undue", even though this latter incident got more coverage in sources and even has its own Wikipedia article. This is a tendentious double standard. They claimed on the talk page, Removed. Per WP:UNDUE. It really is. And considering the other material you've previously removed on the same grounds, I'm assuming you're well familiar with the policy. Notnews, 10-year-rule, etc. [391] This is a case of WP:POINTiness. I discussed it on the talk page and again, consensus was to include.

• I genuinely didn't - and don't - believe that the mere fact of signing an open letter with 151 other people merits a whole section in a BLP. A sentence? Maybe. Yes, the letter got coverage - mostly because of the subsequent controversy. As of now (16:00, 6 August), the article we have on the open letter isn't linked to from the biographies of any other signatory, with the exception of Jennifer Finney Boylan (two sentences) and Thomas Chatterton Williams (one sentence). The other, more famous signatories, such as Margaret Atwood and Noam Chomsky? Does not even merit a mention in their BLPs.

• In any case, at the time of this addition, we had been discussing controversial additions and removals under the unofficial mentorship of Guy Macon, and it had been working well. When you asked who supported your addition, pinging four editors including Guy, only [one responded. (And that section still doesn't adequately cover what the open letter was actually about - one still needs to go to the main article to read that it includes "denouncing President Donald Trump as "a real threat to democracy", for example).

• Because I used Reuters in the RfC as an example and said elsewhere it was a better source to show significance than the entertainment/gossip press per WP:NOTNEWS, Bastun mocks me repeatedly about it: Even Reuters has covered this. Imagine! Reuters! :sarcasm: [392] Wikipedia is not censored. The Guardian source even cites Reuters!!! [393] it's even used in a Reuters explainer! Reuters - imagine! [394]

• Yes, I'm guilty of salty sarcasm at times. But as I mentioned at the time, "I'm very aware of WP:RSP. It quite often makes subtle distinctions for specific outlets, but y'know what? It's perfectly valid to use sources other than Reuters, especially when they're listed on WP:RSP as reliable." Rab V, in the same section but 4 days earlier, had said "Also Reuters is not a superior source necessarily, we have to decide which parts of this story are featured prominently across RS in general to figure out what is appropriate to share and what isn't WP:DUE."

• Making the same attack on me on two different pages. [395][396] They say, you're just cutting the addition, because 'notnews'? It's literally news. That goes to show they never actually read WP:NOTNEWS despite me linking to it several times. They then go on to attack, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for excision or excluding very relevant, referenced material content. You need to seriously address your POV issues. I responded, warning them not to attack me and not accusing them back of serious POV issues - although I certainly am now, in the proper forum for that.

• Sorry, but I'm going to have to request that people read that full section for context, which followed removal of sourced content (Daniel Radcliffe's Trevor Project statement, which generated more news than, for example, the open letter).

• Bastun using the talk page as a soapbox/forum to complain about Rowling, again revealing their strong bias: It's Maud Flanders levels of "Think of the children!" and - just personal opinion now - points to her poor writing ability (anyone can get lucky, and every generation gets a Hero's journey retelling.) [397] Yes. She's a self-admitted TERF. [398] (She did not say that, and the label TERF is not to be thrown around casually for BLPs. [399])

• Rowling herself linked to her own essay, with a heading of "TERF wars." Yes, guilty of a half of a sentence breach of WP:NOTFORUM, less than 1% of what I've contributed to talk pages on improving the articles. Apologies.

• Autumnking2012 stated on the talk page, I am endeavoring to avoid the toxicity of this talk page as much as possible. Why is the talk page toxic? I submit - and Autumnking2012 may be willing to comment - that it is mainly because of Bastun's tendentious behavior, some of which is detailed above. I certainly consider it toxic for that reason.

• Your personal opinion? I find the pages toxic at times due to the unrelenting removal of relevant and pertinent, due, reliably sourced material and the resulting necessity to rehash the same arguments over and over on those talk pages - recently, e.g., removal of mention of the spat between two of the world's most successful authors, removal of mention of Mermaids, GLAAD and the Trevor Project. Anything that could possibly be deemed negative coverage of Rowling or her approach to transgender issues. While signing an open letter is due?

• At their talk page, regarding another BLP in June, Girth Summit had to admonish Bastun about not engaging in personal comments. Bastun repeatedly and falsely called Lilipo25 a WP:SPA, as well as falsely claiming Lilipo25 said anything about SJWs/social justice warriors.

• At the time I made the WP:SPA comment, Lilipo's only contributions to WP for more than the previous month had almost exclusively been to transgender issues, from one POV. Girth Summit agreed that "this subject has been her sole area of editing in the last couple of months", but GS obviously checked back further than I did at the time. I acknowledge now Lilipo's account is not a SPA and she has made many positive contributions to WP. I should have done so at the time. A reminder, though, that GS concluded "Both: I believe you're both editing in good faith about a subject you're approaching from different positions."

• They claimed that voting in my own RfC was scandalous: where one of the options presented by the person who drafted the RFC is shot down by that person. How odd. Almost as if a certain conclusion was desired and being orchestrated... They added notifications to the two pages about the RfC that were non-neutral, while ironically and baselessly claiming with a weaselly some editors have expressed concern that the RfC was non-neutral. [400][401]

• Re voting on one's own RfC: bullshit, and called as such at the time. I don't know what's unclear about "Bullshit! Of course you'd vote in your own RfC, you'd be mad not to. That's not the point I made." "Weaselly?" Writing "I believe that the RFC is worded non-neutrally, come please comment" would have been non-neutral.

• There is no shortage of helpful editors who seek to follow NPOV on these pages, adding positive and negative material. Bastun is acting as an obstacle and actively drives good editors away. I have therefore come here to seek a topic ban from BLPs that have commented on transgender topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• I add and remove material as I see fit, in accordance with our policies, including those on WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV. Additions I made to the Rowling articles and the Linehan article were made in accordance with those policies. Many of those addtions were removed, at one stage or another, by Crossroads, and others, as outlined above and as identified by other contibutors elsewhere on this page. Some of those who removed large additions by me and others, elsewhere on this page, claim they are editing neutrally and others aren't, even where they replaced a whole section with a single POV sentence. Talk page discussions generally followed, and in most of those cases, additions that I had made, or deletions I had reverted, were subsequently re-added (sometimes with further editing, as is WP's way).

• I currently have 2,780 pages on my watch list. I have no idea how to check which of those are "BLPs that have commented on transgender topics", but that's obviously going to include everything from Tuppence Middleton to Donald Trump and taking in Chelsea Manning, Barack Obama and Stephen King on the way. Oh - and Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Eddie Redmayne. The call for a topic ban is, in my opinion, ridiculous. But if one were to be applied, it clearly needs to be applied to more than one editor from more than one side.

• There are certainly issues over how we are dealing with transgender-related articles and BLPs on Wikipedia, and a discussion on how best to proceed is timely.

• Personally, though, I stand over my 15 years editing, block free, with 98% "live" edits. That includes editing in such contentious areas as "The Troubles" (broadly construed). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Question of Scope

The evidence-based discussion here has been largely confined to the (highly sensitive) J.K. Rowling article, but those seeking sanctions have suggested a much broader scope for a topic-ban. Is there evidence from any other page suggesting that problems extend beyond the single page? Newimpartial (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. A great deal of my evidence has to do with the Politics of J. K. Rowling article. But Rowling isn't the only BLP either. My 8th bullet point (second to last) clearly stated, regarding another BLP. That is the Graham Linehan BLP. Lilipo25's comment also specifically referred to that page. Clearly the issue is with BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 13:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I had wondered if there were a desire here to re-litigate the Graham Linehan article text; if so, I would direct interested admins to Talk:Graham Linehan, particularly the ongoing (?) RfC at that location. I have seen some dubious accusations there, but no actual problems with Bastun's editing on that page. But I would encourage everyone to review the evidence for themselves.

As far as "clearly the issue is with BLPs generally who have commented on transgender topics", that is the question I was asking in opening this section: is it? So far I have seen mention of one other page, and a rather minute examination of its edit history hasn't shown me any inappropriate editing on the part of Bastun. But I would be happy to look at anything I missed. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial should not be at this discussion. They were warned by El C: Newimpartial, you should not have responded to Lilipo25, anywhere, for any reason. Monopoly of pages or discussions do not usually accompany an WP:IBAN. If you address Lilipo again you risk imminent sanctions. There is unlikely to be another warning about that (should be taken as a final warning). Above you can see clearly they are effectively responding to/addressing Lilipo25. It is a case of mak[ing] reference to or comment[ing] on each other anywhere on Wikipedia...indirectly. They obviously saw where Lilipo25 talked about the Graham Linehan page - there was no need to ask about evidence beyond the Rowling page. Newimpartial's I have seen some dubious accusations there is also a backhanded reference. Sure seems like a violation of El C's clear direction to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC) expanded Crossroads ^-talk- 18:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I have not addressed Lilipo in any way in this discussion, upon due consideration of El C's comment. I have been very careful to do so. I have responded to comments by three highly INVOLVED editors in this ANI report: yourself, SMcCandlish, and Daz. I am not under any form of topic ban or Iban, and as El C said above, Monopoly of pages or discussions do not usually accompany an WP:IBAN, even if there were one. So it seems to me that a BOOMERANG sanction for Wikilawyering may be appropriate here; it reminds me of the time Crossroads flagged me for a (dubious) 1RR violation in reprisal after I refrained from reporting them for a clear 1RR vio, opting instead to a notice on their Talk Page. GAMING the system really ought to be taken seriously at ANI, IMO.

And the policy-relevant consideration I raised was whether there was a basis to extend the proposed sanction to Bilorv beyond the J.K. Rowling articles. You mentioned the Graham Linehan page, and so I asked whether there was an intention to re-litigate the current RfC at Talk:Graham Linehan, without naming names or casting aspersions. It seems pretty clear that there you do intend to re-litigate, in which case I would point to this 2019 RfC, the one that brought Daz to his aforementioned "up before the beaks" and which you, Crossroads, have introduced POV edits to overturn (q.v. slow motion edit war) without any Talk page resolution, almost as of you did not accept the result of the 2019 RfC. [402] [403][404] Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are not technically under an IBAN then I am in the wrong about that, but El C's language is clear regardless. But anyone inclined to believe Newimpartial's version of events should check their links. Yes, I did report you for a 1RR violation within 26 instead of 24 hours, as WP:GAMING, and for which you were warned by El C who considered it a violation. My supposed violation of 1RR, as I said there, involved two completely separate edits involving content by different people. As for the 2019 RfC about Graham Linehan, I don't remember ever hearing about it before, although maybe I forgot, and was not aware of it for those edits. In any case, it does not appear to be about the heading itself.

As for "INVOLVED", readers should know that Newimpartial is in no way an uninvolved, unbiased observer. We have debated each other for ages. And despite their nom-de-plume they are in no way impartial on LGBT matters. Check their contribs and the above discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify that I was up before the beaks on a completely unrelated matter (for which I was exonerated). During that kerfuffle I had to apologise and redact an instance where I'd mistakenly used the word 'transvestite' and inadvertently caused some offence. It was totally unintentional but unfortunately was portrayed as evidence of my bad character, which I obviously regretted. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

In the aforementioned Rowling BLP noticeboard discussion, Bodney repeatedly used the word transsexual even though so many trans people object to it. So you're forgiven. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I normally see myself as me, sometimes as a woman, sometimes third gender, an individual, but also as a transsexual woman who was bullied out of job and became homeless I was rescued by a women only charity and given shelter for two years in a shared single sex female only accommodation, four years of single sex group counselling and support. After my sheltered housing, they rehoused me permanently. That is why I was interested in that BLP RfC because Rowling is tying to bring to an end the very same safety net that came to my own rescue. I am not sure what is your objection to me using the term transsexual? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 06:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, I did not state that I object to you using the term transsexual. I stated that "many trans people object to [that term]." This is made clear in both the Transgender and Transsexual articles. It's made clear by IPs and registered editors (especially newbies) removing the term transsexual as offensive (or, as some of them say, "outdated") and replacing it with transgender, including in cases involving people who identify as transsexual...such as Buck Angel. It's made clear by various other cases. It's often that when people use the term transsexual, they are accused of bigotry and/or ignorance. Never mind the fact that the person using it may be transgender. So I do avoid that term unless the text on Wikipedia calls for it, such as a person who identifies that way or researchers using that term to specify a type of transgender person. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh Wow apologises I must be an ignorant self hating bigot. Thank you. Point scored. It is a long time since I was actively and productively involved in trans politics or civil rights campaigns, so please hang me for not using the terminology that some of my fellow trans folks prefer. I humbly suggest even amongst trans folks we do not all agree on terminology, as we are such a fragmented minority. But for the point of this thread I am happy to bow down to your obvious greater knowledge in this matter. Gosh you are sooo right. You got me. Everything I have written must be wrong. I shall now disappear in a puff of trans terminology smoke. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, serious question - do you think that was a helpful interjection to this discussion? Flyer did not criticise you anywhere in her post - she expressly said that she doesn't object to you using that word, and then explained why she doesn't use it. Why did you feel the need to be sarcastic? This is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about below - discussions about this subject rapidly descend into the gutter, and it's very hard to drag them out again. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see at all that Flyer22 Frozen meant to 'score points' or lord over greater knowledge. Rather, she is making the same point which you now made: even amongst trans folks we do not all agree on terminology, as we are such a fragmented minority. This is the same point that me and numerous other editors are making. What happens at these articles is that a few editors tend to want to present only or nearly-only one POV (e.g. one set of sources that present that POV) because that POV is treated by some people (most of whom are cisgender) as though it were the one and only trans POV, and hence the only right one, morally and in terms of WP:Due. All other sources presenting another POV, even though such a POV is held by trans people like Buck Angel, Dana International, and so on, are minimized or rejected. This is the activist approach to editing that, ultimately, leads to disruption, and thus led us here to ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Girth Summit,Crossroads and apologises to Flyer22 Frozen. Happy to strike through the offending parts of my reply, even though I was not sure of the tone being directed towards me, I was thinking myself that my reply was a bit rushed, flippant and not productive. I was hoping to delete/modify my reply, but its been exceptionally busy half a home moving day. I would suggest that views held by individuals like Buck Angel & Dana International are simply minority points of view, compared to all the trans organisations that have responded to Rowling's tweets and Essay. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 19:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, thanks for this gracious apology. I genuinely feel that if everyone editing in this topic area were to follow this example of self-reflection and moderate how they interact with other editors, people from different viewpoints would be able to work together in a more collegiate manner. Sincerely, thank you. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology too. Regarding the views expressed by Buck Angel and Dana International, WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We do give WP:Due weight to advocacy organizations, but we also are to give due weight to other views represented or described in the reliable sources. WP:NPOV: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

As seen here, Crossroads is correct that I was noting that not all trans people think alike. I've noted this more than once. As for the trans people who partly or fully agree with Rowling being in the minority, I don't consider voices that are louder necessarily the majority. As various people have noted, a lot of trans people on social media have agreed with Rowling...at least in part. They just don't get any, or hardly any, media attention because certain viewpoints have managed to get deemed transphobic so often by the newer generation. I have often seen that younger trans people's views conflict with older trans people's views, and older trans people like Buck Angel have talked about this. But there are enough young trans people who share Angel's views on trans matters. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to say that whoever Crossroads is talking about, who present one or nearly-one POV ... as though it were the one and only trans POV, that isn't a thing I do, and I don't think it is a thing Bastun does either (though I havent reviewed their entire edit history). Without diffs being provided, I wonder whether this is idle speculation on Crossroads's part or more some deep intuition. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"Without diffs being provided". The diffs I already presented show it. The diffs you already presented show it. The diffs and discussions presented by others show it. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Crossroads, you say a thing, and you handwave (this time to already presented diffs), and you have exactly no evidence for the thing you claimed. This time the thing is that Bastun, or I present one or nearly-one POV ... as though it were the one and only trans POV. I know my own diffs, and I just wasted my time going through all the Bastun diffs from your original filing and found nothing at all that meets that description. The closest thing to it that I found - and I looked at every last one - is Bastun's use of the impersonal "some signatories" rather than naming Gabrielle Bellot and/or Jennifer Boylan. And whatever error that might have been, it did not take the form of presenting the one and only trans POV. His edits on the letter don't direct the reader to any Trans POV at all, as far as I can see.

Perhaps readers here will come to recognize that the imprecision and merely assertions nature of your blanket accusations here is entirely of a piece with your behaviour at the PinkNews RfC and the Linehan RfC, in neither of which do you seem to listen to your interlocutors. Newimpartial (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. I already explained above that the issue is maximization of coverage of the activist POV and minimization of coverage of any other, in violation of NPOV. People can judge for themselves if my presentation is accurate. Certainly no one needs your heavily involved and biased characterization of me at other discussions in which I, for my part, would say you engaged in the same WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT behavior as you have here. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Crossroads, how can you still insist even now that you were in the right about the matter discussed here? WP:3RR reads An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period (emphasis added). Nobody should let their battleground tendencies overcome their respect for process and consensus, and consensus about process. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Show me the diffs. Were they even reverts? Even if it were a violation, I made a mistake in good faith and had said I would have self-reverted. [405] You, on the other hand, have twice gamed the system by reverting twice within 26 hours on a 1RR page (1st time: [406][407] 2nd time: [408][409]), been warned by an administrator as a result, [410] been blocked for edit warring, [411] and just earned a one-way IBAN. [412] "Battleground tendencies". You are not in a position to condescend to me about anything. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

This edit and this edit were made 12 minutes apart, in a 1RR page, and are both labelled as reverts. Are you questioning your own edit summaries? And you know why I was so well aware that 3RR/1RR can be violated without reverting the same material? Because that's what I was blocked for. I learned my lesson from that, thanks. How does your "mistake in good faith" argument now fit with your "supposed violation" comment two hours earlier? Either you have learned from your mistake or you haven't, and honesty and directness are better approaches than defensiveness and deflection, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as the edit war warning and the (very recent) 1-way IBAN are concerned, they are both cases that you filed/instigated and were both placed by the same admin. And since you want to talk about GAMING, this is clearly GAMING, as well as a misreading of the Talk page discussion that it repeatedly distorts through selective quotation. Newimpartial (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

---

I was pinged by Crossroads in the above comment. I didn't even bother reporting this, even though I can see it is meant as a reply to me, because the user was careful to avoid addressing me directly. But they also went through my User Talk page to find comments to use against Bring back Daz Sampson, below, so I did report that to El C. Thanks. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So I'm in work today, then travelling with just my phone until Tuesday (it's a bank holiday in Ireland), and likely patchy coverage. I will be responding, but not substantively until next week. What I would say in the meantime is:

a) Anyone commenting here needs to have read the Linehan RfC in full (yeah, sorry), and in particular this contribution, which addressed most of Lilipo's points from above, almost a month ago.

b) Yes, WP:BOOMERANG is a thing. I had been wondering about the merits of seeking a tban for Crossroads from the Rowling articles, as they seemed determined to remove or minimise anything that could be deemed negative, citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, and to include or highlight anything that could be deemed positive, for quite some time. I hadn't gotten around to anything like recording diffs or quotes, but a scan of the talk pages Talk:J. K. Rowling and Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling will show what I mean. E.g., I include coverage of two of the largest HP fansites, MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron, jointly announcing that they would no longer link to the Rowling's website, use photos of her, or write about achievements outside her HP fiction; this gets reverted as WP:NOTNEWS. Similarly, removal of mention of The Trevor Project from the Politics of... article; removal of mention of a U.S. Senator quoting her essay prior to a vote (NOTNEWS, apparently, and a strawman about inferences); arguing against inclusion of mention of the Stephen King issue, because NOTNEWS. Yet, at an RfC at the BLP noticeboard, the same user proposes including mention of support from Dana International (suddenly NOTNEWS doesn't apply?); and, at the Politcs article again, adds a new section on the fact that Rowling was one of 150 signatories of an open letter - while debate was ongoing. Again, NOTNEWS and UNDUE stopped applying?

So there's that, and that too needs to be considered by the community. I would point out the absolute irony of championing that particular open letter, on the one hand, and attempted cancel culture of someone whose views you don't agree with, on the other.

c) Crossroads mentioned quite a few editors. I'd be interested in hearing from some, too, involved in the Rowling and Linehan pages, who may or may not be aware of this particular AN/I, and may or may not wish to comment on my and/or Crossroads' editing: YuvalNehemia; Licks-rocks; -sche; Bodney; Ward20; Bilorv; Wikiditm; JzG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Thanks for the ping; ironically, I posted above in the exact same minute as you, requesting no further pings to this discussion. No harm done but pretty amusing timing.) — Bilorv (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

And all of those things ended up in the article anyway. I followed WP:BRD and accepted when consensus was against me. And many other things, especially lately, I have not reverted, even though it's a continual pile-on of negative material. WP:NOTNEWS is a valid argument and WP:ONUS does favor discussion before inclusion. And those discussions show I was not alone in my views. For example, regarding the US Senator, inclusion was opposed by Zedembee, Autumnking2012, and others. Much the same views were expressed by many at the RfC at BLPN, including by SMcCandlish, CactusJack, and Zaereth, about limiting excessive ephemeral Twitter drama. I mean, nobody's perfect, but we're not going to have a false balance between me and you. I made every effort to follow policy. Trying to prevent POV pushing is not the same as actual POV pushing and advocacy. I am all for WP:Due and substantive criticism of Rowling. My comments and discussion behavior shows that. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, I don't mean to intrude, but your claim that you make every effort to follow policy is somewhat undermined when you have engaged in a slow edit war to reverse the outcome of a previous RfC without any kind of mandate to do so from a new RfC. [413] [414][415] Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to intrude - you clearly do. Where does that previous RfC discuss the heading itself? Where was I made aware of it before I made those edits? I did not willfully reverse any RfC. False accusations don't reflect well at ANI. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is that the "Anti-transgender activity" section is fine in its current form was the RfC close. That is quite clearly includes the section title, including the term "anti-transgender" that was discussed in the RfC. As far as your not being made aware of it, BastunAutumn King referred to the this edit - which was on the Talk page before your edit warring and is still on the Talk page now - explicitly acknowledged that the editor in question changed a section title. I now realise that this last action was counter to a Talk page discussion, for which I apologise. No, the word RfC wasn't used in that case, and I didn't use it when I referred back to the same consensus, but it isn't my referring to a previous discussion as "an RfC" that makes it one, or that makes Edit Warring against it against policy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Obvious WP:WIKILAWYERing. The RfC never discussed the heading itself, nor did the closure specifically mention it. When it was referred to here (actually by Autumnking2012), on 6 June, I never read that discussion; I didn't join the talk page until 2 weeks later, here, at a higher discussion that had picked up again. And as for this, you never even linked it. So, no, I am not at fault for going against an RfC I did not know about and that did not address the heading. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry; I have now corrected the name of the actual author of the diff, above.

It seems obvious to me that the close, The consensus is that the "Anti-transgender activity" section is fine in its current form, includes the section heading itself; the RfC did explicitly discuss the appropriateness of the term "anti-transgender" in the text, which was the object of your edit warring on the article (as well as your BLUDGEON and IDONTHEARTHAT in the current RfC). So I'm not sure that "I was unaware that the previous discussion people keep referring to was actually an RfC" provided a valid justification for the slow edit war. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment I was pinged a couple of days ago, apologies for not replying sooner. In all honesty, I have avoided getting too involved in all this. However, I do strongly feel that there is a major issue at present with the editing of transgender related issues on Wikipedia, in particular with certain WP:BLP’s. The talk page atmosphere has become unhelpful and unconstructive, largely due to users’ insistence of casting aspersions on the motives of other editors. Unfortunately, this is something Bastun appears to do on a frequent basis. For what it is worth, I will add my experiences:

• The first was on what I believe was my first interaction with Bastun. Following an editing disagreement at J. K. Rowling, I took the matter to the talk page as requested. Bastun’s first reply to me contained the following [416] Minimising coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues and activism seems to be a particular interest of yours. It is my opinion that this type of response is not only unnecessary and against WP:UNCIVIL as well as going against WP:AGF, but that it is also an attempt to discourage editing by those who disagree with them. When I responded asking that editors refrains from throwing aspersions at others motivations, Bastun’s response was to double down [417] Your contributions speak for themselves and appear to be aimed at minimising, specifically, coverage of negative opinions of transgender issues. That is contrary to Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. You could of course prove me wrong by supporting the inclusion of coverage "the subsequent coverage they have generated", which you say above that you support. which is pretty much agree with my edits or you are wrong/anti-transgender. I strongly dispute the allegation thrown at me here, and am confident that my editing supports that. Like many editors, my editing has periods where it tends to “go down a rabbit hole”, following linked articles/issues to make subsequent edits. However, my aim has only ever been to insert balance, especially in BLP’s, something which is often severely lacking in this topic. If by “minimising” we mean attempting to present balanced opinion, using reliable sources as opposed to conjecture and opinion pieces, using neutral language for WP:WikiVoice and avoiding contentious WP:LABEL’s, then I will happily admit to such.
• During the somewhat protracted and unproductive RFC at Graham Linehan regarding the section title “Anti-transgender activism”, Bastun saw fit to make the following comment [418] This was very clearly aimed at myself, and again was totally unnecessary and unhelpful and felt simply like another attempt to discourage my input.

This should not be the way Wikipedia editors treat each other. Assume good faith should always come first, and seeing Bastun’s interaction with others as well, I do not feel that is how they are acting. Additionally, the Linehan RFC very clearly illustrates the problems in this area. I originally took part in it, but then had to step away from Wikipedia for several days for a variety of reasons. When I came back, the descent of the RFC made further involvement seem pointless. There is an utter refusal on the part of some editors to attempt consensus. There is a section title which multiple editors agree is contentious, which many are concerned violates standards for a WP:BLP and in particular of WP:LABEL and which is not widely supported by sources. Various alternate options have been put forward. A group of editors disagree that it is contentious and therefore refuse to discuss alternatives, and continually insist that the current section title remains. This should not be how Wikipedia works. If multiple editors feel there is an issue, the resolution is to find a compromise not to double down. It is pretty unacceptable that the section heading still remains. I am unsure as to whether a topic ban for Bastun would be the solution, he is not the only editor behaving in this manner. But something really needs to be done to resolve these issues. AutumnKing (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• I think it might be helpful to discuss, not the Bastun part of this comment, but Autumnking's characterization I originally took part in it, but then had to step away from Wikipedia for several days for a variety of reasons. When I came back, the descent of the RFC made further involvement seem pointless. There is an utter refusal on the part of some editors to attempt consensus. I don't think this accurately summarizes either the RfC or AutumnKing's part in it. Their concluding attempt to add evidence to the discussion - for which I expressed appreciation - was this. Both I and other editors suggested alternative readings of that evidence, additional evidence, and additional policy considerations. From that point, the evidence-based discussion simply stopped on that subthread and the BATTLEGROUND resumed over what the stable heading had actually been. From there to here, I see very insistent doubling down on the part of those who are more interested in discussing their internal conviction of NPOV than actual evidence and policy on the matter, and a willingness to continue the POV dispute by other means which led directly to this filing. Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

  And these replies were themselves replied to, there were multiple editors on each side, and there was no official closure. For those who want to see the entire discussion in context: Talk:Graham Linehan#RfC on heading on Linehan's activities in relation to transgender causes and people. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions?

• May 2020 ANI thread
• July 2020 ANI thread
• Thread on my talk page
• Fred Sargeant talk page thread
• Bastun's talk page thread

Let me start for apologising for what will be a lengthy post - I feel it is necessarily so. I also want to stress that in writing it, I am accusing nobody of acting in bad faith, but I do think that there is some seriously problematic editing going on in this topic area.

I have been taken part in a number of discussions involving some of the editors mentioned and commenting in this thread. Some of them are noted above, but there have probably been others that don't jump so readily to mind. I've come to the conclusion that there are some issues that seem to make editing in this area particularly contentious, and make it difficult for some editors to truly follow the old WP:AGF maxim; discussions often become uncivil rapidly, quickly descending into sarcasm, personal commentary and accusations of improper conduct. There are numerous examples in the threads I've posted above, and many more can be found by checking the contributions histories of some of those commenting here.

I don't pretend to be in a position to comment on why some people find it so hard to collaborate constructively in this area with people who they disagree with. I think that Bodney's moving explanation above about how they came to edit J. K. Rowling is interesting though. I don't intend to single Bodney out for criticism here, but if an editor is coming to a BLP because the subject has spoken out on an issue that is so close to the editor's heart, I think that it would inevitably be exceedingly difficult to avoid editing, unconsciously perhaps, with a RGW attitude, and it would perhaps be unusually difficult to see avoid seeing editors who are coming from a different viewpoint as being 'enemies', rather than collaborators.

I'm not sure that a topic ban for Bastun would do anything to solve the over-arching problems here; I wonder whether a more widespread approach is needed. BLPs are already covered by discretionary sanctions, which might need to be enforced more actively in this area, but I'm not sure whether that is in itself sufficient. Here is an example of Newimpartial telling an editor with whom they disagree that they are talking out of their arse. That sort of confrontational approach is not civil, it is a barrier to effective collaboration, but it is not on a BLP talk page. I'm starting to wonder whether 'Transgender issues' needs to be covered by its own discretionary sanctions, targeted at enforcing civility and cooperation. I'd welcome others' views on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girth Summit (talk • contribs) 10:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit it is OK I have no personal WP:RGW issues :) (I expect that will now be held against me for ever), prior to the current Rowling disputes i have done comparatively minor and infrequent amount of editing on trans issues (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Bodney/1 ) I am in fact passionate about all civil liberties and Human Rights, and I simply support the standing up against inequality & discrimination everywhere. Should anyone of any 'minority' be banned from taking part in articles that affect them, should Jewish or Muslim editors be banned from topics to do with their faiths or the Middle East, black editors from black lives matter etc , female editors from feminism etc, differently abled people be banned from issues relating to their impairment, .... etc etc I really do not think so. Its also one sided, every single editor who contributes to wikipedia everyone has their own political bias, both sides (and more sides) all have biases, but we all try to be neutral. If we removed everyone who spoke in support of a minority just because they might be linked to that minority, Wikipedia would be left with an enormous systemic bias. What matters is how we act. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bodney, I certainly hope you didn't get the impression that I was saying that trans people shouldn't edit trans articles - that is very far from my position. I was speculating on why it is such a contentious area, and I thought your comments might shed some light on that. Having said that, I would observe that the distinction between 'speaking in support of a minority', and 'righting great wrongs', is subtle. We're not here to advocate for any position, we aim to be genuinely neutral. If one has strong feelings about something, one might be well advised to avoid it as an editing interest. I do not direct this at you, and I have not looked into your contribs in detail - it's a general observation, not a criticism. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Discretionary sanctions are desirable, although as you said, BLP sanctions are already available. The problem however is that a group of motivated activists can manipulate Wikipedia in order to portray their favored version of history and the small number of neutral editors can be overwhelmed, as seen above. I support community general sanctions for transgender topics per Girth Summit. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• I strongly agree that topic-specific DS are desirable. I have definitely had my lapses, which usually come late in a long interaction with editors who violate editing and/or talk page norms, as illustrated by the diff provided by Girth Summit above (the editor I addressed was banned for edit warring before the comment was made, as it turns out, but I shouldn't have let them get to me).
• So I do think that more active enforcement of WP:NPA in this area would help, but this should also address the persistent tendency for editors in this area to engage in civil POV disputes, complete with moving goalposts and Lucy's football, and also the remarkably consistent WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behavior whereby editors refuse to condescend to provide evidence (whether diffs or sources or whatever) because of course their position is self-evidently correct. Strawman arguments and slippery slope fallacies thrive in this environment and make policy-based consensus almost impossible to achieve. Newimpartial (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oh, and I also wanted to sincerely thank Girth Summit and anyone else who reads these difficult talk pages in order to comment on this ANI filing. It can't be easy to go through Talk:Trans woman, Talk:Graham Linehan, or for that matter the ongoing PinkNews RSN discussion, and I salute anyone with the stomach for it. I mean, I can't take more than a peek at Politics of J. K. Rowling discussions (or even edit summaries) before scurrying away like a timorous beastie, so I wish well to all who manage to bring fresh eyes to bear. Newimpartial (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• I support discretionary sanctions for all articles that deal with transgender issues.WP:UNCIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:HOUNDING violations are out of control and have been for some time. The most aggressive editors work as a bloc to overwhelm any others who attempt to make pages adhere to WP:NPOV. I have confidence that the admins will recognize any offenders who might attempt to manipulate them and will deal with rule violations consistently. Lilipo25 (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, it is already covered by WP:ARBGG, so you are already authorized to apply the discretionary sanctions as you see fit. El_C 13:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

El C, that's interesting - I hadn't realised that gamergate discretionary sanctions were interpreted that broadly, but looking at it again I see that it covers any gender-related dispute or controversy. If you are confident that it would be uncontroversial to apply GG in content disputes over transgender issues, I will bear that in mind for the future.

Newimpartial, Lilipo25 your comments directly above kind of underline the point that I was making. I am certain that stuff like what you describe does happen - but too many people in these debates lose their trust in other people far too quickly, and start seeing everyone who disagrees with them as part of an opposing side, and seem to end up assuming that anyone disagreeing with them is guilty of things like civil POV pushing, failure to hear whatever, hounding when they turn up at related articles, etc. WP:OFWV really is worth reading, and trying to abide by - especially when interacting with people you disagree with. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I'm confident. In fact, I have just invoked ARBGG to sanction Newimpartial yesterday with a one-way interaction ban with Lilipo. El_C 14:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am still not entirely clear how this sequence of events merits this outcome, but I suppose discretionary sanctions means not having to say you're sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of innuendo is to your credit, Newimpartial. I recognize venting, but you are not doing yourself any favours by engaging the imposition of your sanction in this manner. El_C 22:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The I-BAN has has been ruled upon by an experienced admin. Wikipedia has legitimate avenues for appeals if that's what is desired. I would love some peace on that front. Lilipo25 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (as original filer) I think that in any case, the BLP discretionary sanctions need to be enforced more actively in this area. It would help a great deal. The POV pushers in this area often fall into BLP violations. But the issues go beyond BLPs, and yes, there is already the GG/gender DS too. Yes, there is much incivility. Yes, the problems seem to come from WP:RGW behavior. As Johnuniq said, "The problem however is that a group of motivated activists can manipulate Wikipedia in order to portray their favored version of history and the small number of neutral editors can be overwhelmed". And there is so much WP:SEALIONing, but not by the group Newimpartial thinks. It is hard to even try to get these issues handled, because WP:TENDENTIOUS editing is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view..., and this is hard to prove with diffs. And then when a report is made, one can see above the denial, closing of ranks, whataboutism, and by one editor in particular, use of the WP:BLUDGEON against the filer (me). Crossroads ^-talk- 14:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC) clarified Crossroads ^-talk- 14:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

  From over here, the problem looks different. There are RfCs held, to establish the consensus or policy-compliant version, and then people with a strong sense of subjective certainty (SMcCandlish is paradigmatic in this regard) arrive, completely prepared to ignore consensus, RGW as they perceive them conforming to NPOV according to themselves, without the modest accessories of sources or evidence. The arrivals then engage only superficially in Talk Page discussion, or edit war, or FORUMSHOP or just engage in skewed editing from their own POV. I am (have been, in fact) the first to admit that there are civility violations on all sides, but as long as "one side" is convinced that the "other" is engaged in RGW and they alone are the guardians of NPOV (a kind of NPOV so deeply understood that it doesn't need sources or evidence), it is difficult and frustrating to move forward with these articles. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

But those of us trying to hold the centre ground are not the obverse of the POV-pushers. We have an influx of editors simply looking to bash Graham Linehan or J.K. Rowling etc. because they have an axe to grind with them and think they are "TERFs". Then we appear to have another group of editors who, like me, have no strong emotional attachment to trans issues but just see a real mess being made of Wikipedia articles. I only waded in because I remembered some of Linehan's comedy and noticed his article had been distorted into an attack page with several other glaring issues. It's also true that the problems at these pages do run much deeper than you and Bastun, although you have undoubtedly been consistently among the worst culprits. If I had strong emotions around hating some celebrity or pushing some other sort of controversial positions I'd probably keep away from them on Wikipedia to be honest. Experience tells me that it will only end one way, and ultimately no amount of whataboutery or off-Wiki canvassing will change that. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, Daz, I have nothing against Graham Linehan; I have nothing against J. K. Rowling; I have nothing against Fred Sargeant. In the latter two cases, I hold real respect for their early work. In the case of Linehan, I don't know his work, and I literally had not heard of him until his 2019 fiasco on Trans issues.

But when you did these POV edits followed by this over-the-top comment on Linehan, well, your perception that you have no strong emotional attachment to trans issues seems misleading. Your idea of BALANCE in the currently existing RS commentary on Linehan just seems to be off, and your edit-warring last year to remove the section on the issues for which he is now best known is, in fact, a version of RGW thinking, even if you can't see it in yourself. That isn't the "centre ground", man, and we can only base an assessment of NPOV on sourced discussion, not on feelings. Newimpartial (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Daz, please do not claim that you are trying to hold the center against POV pushers when you replaced a whole section of the Graham Linehan article with a single NPOV sentence that describes his critics as "censoring" him, and then when the ensuing RfC turned overwhelmingly against your edit you called your opponents "transvestite activists".

To be honest, I have been very frustrated by this rhetorical gambit from multiple people on multiple trans-related articles. For some reason, people making edits which a reasonable person might describe as "opposed to trans activists" insist that they have no agenda, but have no problem accusing people making edits that they see as "in support of trans activists" of POV-pushing. But that's not true. Everyone is trying to improve these articles, including the people you disagree with. The people who are trying to add examples of anti-trans activism to Graham Linehan's page aren't doing so because they are pushing a POV, they are doing it because it is heavily documented in reliable sources. If the people who were claiming they were "neutral" had free reign of these articles, they would be worse: heavily POV and discounting many statements from many reliable sources. Loki (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact, when that happens, we get "balanced" versions like this. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

More whataboutery and finger pointing. This was a genuine attempt at WP:SOFIXIT to a single article, more than a year ago. Contrary to what you have written here there was no edit warring on my part, and the 'examples' of supposedly POV edits you've cherrypicked are pretty lame too. Contrary to what you are suggesting I took the result of that RfC on the chin and walked away. I have never been active at any of these other articles which you all descended upon. No wonder you're currently subject to interaction bans if you go about making these sort of unfounded aspersions! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

When we are talking about TENDENTIOUS editing that does not conform to the neutral point of view..., I think we have to consider specific, representative cases or descend into mudslinging or caricature. Thoughtful consideration of cases is not what WHATABOUTISM is. Section blanking with POV insertion in the midst of an RfC is not a "cherrypicked" example, it is a key one in terms of policy, as I thought you understood since to my knowledge you have not repeated the gesture. Newimpartial (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You don't seem too worried about descending into mudslinging and caricature - it seems to be your stock-in-trade. I'm glad you seem to have dropped your incorrect allegations of edit warring though. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is still edit warring even if you don't break 3RR; you reinstated both your template tag and your section blank after reverts. But those are just facts [419] [420] [421] [422] Newimpartial (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That isn't edit warring. Given your own long and happy liaison with edit-warring (and other WP:BATTLEGROUND antics) I might have expected you to know the difference! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Daz, my problem is not so much with the edits themselves. I recognize they were made years ago, and that you struck the comment later. My problem is your insistence that you are merely a neutral observer fighting against POV-pushing opponents while you have in the past demonstrated a clear POV. I don't have anything against you personally and recognize that even edits I think are obviously POV were from your perspective a genuine attempt to improve the article. All I'm asking you is to assume that same minimal amount of good faith of everyone else. Your perspective isn't objective or neutral just because it's yours, and other people aren't "POV-pushing" just because they disagree with you. Loki (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Listen, if Graham Linehan had offended some other set of particularly zealous ideologues (vegans, Zionists or whoever) I'd still have showed up at the talk page, and tried to have the same sort of discussion with them. That's the difference. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

And you would have done so with an anti-vegan POV, or an anti-Zionist POV, presuming you arrived with the assumption that their edits were bad and should be opposed. Many people can believe a thing because that thing is true: the fact that you see them as "zealous ideologues" who are "offended" (when I presume you wouldn't say that about, say, believers in evolution removing creationism from a biology article) without even a serious attempt to discern whether what they believe is supported by the sources is a further indication that your "neutral" POV is nothing of the sort. Loki (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

people making edits which a reasonable person might describe as "opposed to trans activists" insist that they have no agenda, but have no problem accusing people making edits that they see as "in support of trans activists" of POV-pushing. There's an irony in how editors who like to go on and on about their own "neutrality" and their hatred of "activism" are very likely to be partisan. If you (and here I'm speaking generally) have a dog-eared copy of a RadFem book about how "transwomen" are "erasing" "real women" on your bedside, and if you can't stub your toe without angrily accusing the coffee table of being a "transgender activist", you probably aren't quite as neutral as you make yourself out to be. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Shout out to Talk: Lesbian erasure. The page is aggressively archived, but there is some good material here for those who want to see frustrated editors talking past each other. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, I'm going to be honest here - I have no idea what your post is about, or who you are referring to. Please either be clear about the point you are making, or refrain from commenting. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND

(This section is for discussing what to do only. Any attempts to continue the battle here will be moved to another section per WP:TPOC)

The above clearly demonstrates that there is a huge battle going on regarding this topic. I would like to open a discussion about what to do about it. Suggestions? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: terminology RfC - it might help to have an RfC on NPOVN concerning whether "anti-transgender activism" is subject to normal sourcing requirements (like "anti-black violence" or "anti-Jewish sentiment"), or whether it is subject to the stricter requirements of LABEL. Lots of people think they know the answer to that question, but it gets discussed heatedly on various pages without any consistent outcome. Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I think there's potentially something in that suggestion, but I'm not quite sure about the comparisons you've used to make your point. You've compared "Anti-transgender activism" to "Anti-black violence". I don't think that it would be controversial to describe an attack on a trans person, because they were trans, as "anti-transgender violence", or as a "transphobic assault". However, "Anti-transgender activism" isn't quite the same. "Anti-black activism" would more usually be called "White supremacism", which I think most people would agree would fall under LABEL, as does neo-Nazi (which is listed explicitly, alongside "transphobic"). The same goes for "anti-Jewish sentiment" - if we're talking about the abstract idea of anti-Jewish sentiment, it's not being applied as a label - but if we call someone an anti-Semite, or say that they are involved in anti-Semitic activism, I think that LABEL would definitely apply. If an RfC is necessary to nail that down, it might be a good option. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I intended that as a real question, not a rhetorical device. I understand that there are differing perspectives on this, and it may also make a difference whether a particular discussoon concerns a BLP matter or not. So I would like to see the community discuss this matter outside of the BATTLEGROUND of a particular page. Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion dealing with the content dispute over the phrase "anti-transgender activism" will just move the battle to a new phrase or some other way for the combatants to have a go at each other. I think we need a general solution of some kind. Simple dealing with the one phrase will leave us playing Whac-A-Mole. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Query - I am wondering if there is any provision anywhere in the rules that could limit the sources that can be used for articles that are proven battlegrounds? I know it's a long shot, but it seems like a lot of the trouble occurs because there are so many subject-specific websites and publications now that whenever a topic is as controversial as this one, anyone can find a source that says pretty much anything on it that they happen to agree with. If we were limited to only using content from general news sources that don't specialize in either of the polarized viewpoints - meaning no feminist or LGBT publications - and that have a Wikipedia rating of "Reliable", it might cut out a chunk of the edit warring. I've never seen any provision for it and frankly, I don't even know if it's feasible, but figured I'd throw it out if we're brainstorming ideas here. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Lilipo25 Take a look at WP:PARTISAN. Sources which might be perceived as biased are not disallowed if they are otherwise reliable, but it is often appropriate to use in-text attribution when using them. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Well, if limiting the sources can't be done, I'm not sure what would help other than the consistent monitoring of these articles by a few genuinely impartial admins, and strict sanctions going forward for anyone violating the rules. I know that admins are busy and I don't know how it would work, exactly, but things like opening yet another RFC on the same section heading would get us nowhere: we'll just have the same arguments all over again, and there's far more than that one subject heading in dispute anyway. The divide between the two points of view is at this point a chasm the Colorado River could have made and I'm sorry to say that without more oversight, I don't see these entries ever becoming less of a battleground. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any admin volunteering to constantly monitor the ongoing battle. How about a warning to everyone who is doing the fighting that if it doesn't stop, everybody involved will be given a "no fault" month away from the article so that some other editors can give it a go? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Proposal withdrawn. See below. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Saying "everyone involved" gets blocked from the article implies that would include people who are being personally attacked/hounded/etc. as well as those who are the perpetrators, and that seems both unfair and unhelpful. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If, as you claim, there are some who are innocent and some who are guilty, how do you explain the many comments opposing singling out a particular editor and blocking him? I certainly wouldn't say that everyone is equally guilty, but it does take two or more people to have a battle. Look, it isn't the end of the world being caught up in a "no fault" month away from the article, especially if it the no fault bit is is made clear. We routinely block everybody from editing a page with full protection -- including editors who have never edited the page. I don't see anyone who has been harmed by this. I think that "kick everyone off the page for a month and let new editors give it a go" is reasonable in a world where we routinely decide to "kick everyone off the page for a month and don't let new editors give it a go". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that will work for the time out, but I fail to see how that will make editors work cooperatively afterwords. I still favor some sort of carrot and stick approach for the long term. Ward20 (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell what you're trying to say with this sentence: If, as you claim, there are some who are innocent and some who are guilty, how do you explain the many comments opposing singling out a particular editor and blocking him? as that doesn't seem in any way at all to disprove that there are often issues between editors in which only one is actually at fault? And "it isn't the end of the world" to punish an innocent person is a poor argument in any case: if "the end of the world" is the standard by which we plan to judge what is a fair response and what isn't, we might as well just ban everyone who disagrees on the first offense. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is my theory: [A] The battling editors may find a one-month time out to be a good motivation to cooperate instead of battling. We have seen this many times with on month full protection. [B] One or more of the battling editors may not come back. Again, often seen with on month full protection. [C] The new editors may be able to create a version that the battling editors are willing to live with. [D] when the month expires, the new editors may be able to change the dynamic on the talk page. I think it is worth a try. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No, this is still unjust "both sides"-ism as Lilipo25 said. And the simple fact is that full protection is not a sanction on individual editors, but a topic ban is. As for "it takes two", pretty much any social misbehavior takes two or more, but any civilized legal system knows only the wrongdoer is to be punished. Anything else is simply wrong. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Who told you that a partial block (that's what I am proposing, not a topic ban) of everybody who has edited a page in the last 30 days is a sanction on individual editors, but a block of everybody who has edited a page in the last 30 days plus everyone else is not a sanction on individual editors? That any admin who applies a no fault page block and says that it targets everybody who has edited the page whether they are at fault or not is automatically lying? Neither the no fault page block or the full protection singles out any individual or attempts to assign blame. In fact both actions purposely affect both the guilty and the innocent. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No way is my clean block log getting sullied because 'no fault block for all'. You apparently don't see it that way, but let's be real here: blocks and bans are pretty much only given to those who have done wrong. So no, I will not roll over and accept a public humiliation without good cause. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Wait, I'm with Crossroads on this. Until this time I thought this was about a full protection of the article for a month. That I would reluctantly support, but I am totally opposed to having a partial block history on my record for editing constructively at the wrong place at the wrong time. Ward20 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah. I had not considered the block logs. I withdraw my proposal until such time as the W?F gives administrators the ability to do it without causing entries in the block log. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think it would be a help I would be willing to commit to a voluntary editing time out along with the commitment of the other involved editors. There could be a discussion about it, and a pledge sign up on the talk page. It could even be a coerced time out, voluntarily pledge or face a partial block. That might eliminate the block log quandary as it is giving the editors a choice to opt out of a block. I think there are less than 10 on the Politics of J. K. Rowling. I do not know how many editors are involved in the J. K. Rowling‎ article as I haven't been involved there nearly as much much. It seems like it would be easy to monitor as there would be several editors checking their watchlist to observe activity. It could be reported here for sanctions if someone broke their pledge not to edit. Question though, if a voluntary editing time out is implemented would it include the talk page? Just wondering. Ward20 (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I am reasonably certain that Wikipedia does not have a legal system, "civilized" or otherwise. Strong moral intuitions here, though. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I am well aware of WP:NOTLAW, but the principle stands nonetheless. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

So you weren't really saying that Wikipedia ANIs constitute a legal court under international law? (; Thanks for your continued attempts to debate in good faith. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The issues seem to be not adhereing to: "Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. and not adhering to WP:AGF by mentioning motives of editors.

Propose: 1RR per editor per day, and trying to find an uninvolved admin to follow the article and give a week or more time out on the topic to any editor that violates WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:LAWYERING or WP:Tendentious editing. This is not a unique problem, there must be a history of how to handle this. Ward20 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"Any attempts to continue the battle here will be moved to another section"

(As promised, moved from above section.) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I already stated what I think needs to be done when I started this thread, and gave evidence when I did so: [423] And this very recent comment by Autumnking2012 is also particularly evidence based. The bulk of all this behavior occurred within 1 year of Bastun's 4 July 2019 BLP DS notification. There's been a lot of noise since this thread started consisting of WP:IDHT and whataboutism, but if administrators focus on the evidence, they will know what to do. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I do think some problem editors need to be blocked or topic banned, and anti-trans POV-pushers pose a particular problem. Of course, over-eager non-transphobic editors can be a problem too, but a partisan with a strong, angry view about a vulnerable minority group will necessarily be a bigger problem when it comes to maintaining an atmosphere of WP:NEUTRALity and WP:CIVILITY. Everything the WP:NONAZIS essay says about racist POV-pushers applies just as well to transphobe POV pushers. Just substitute "transphobe" for "racist": [a] problem with racist beliefs is that they immediately alienate any non-racist. As soon as a good-faith editor begins to suspect another editor of harboring these beliefs, it becomes all but impossible for them to work together without conflict. The block a couple of years ago of one problem editor for transphobia, a block which was upheld by community consensus, was a good start, but he was part of a larger circle of bad faith actors who contribute to a poisonous atmosphere on the site. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

So, in contrast to my suggestion of a single editor getting a topic ban tailored to fit proven disruption, WanderingWanda apparently wants multiple blocks/topic-bans doled out to unnamed anti-trans POV-pushers and partisan[s] with a strong, angry view. The previous indef of TaylanUB, who actually had significant evidence against them and who repeatedly engaged in misgendering, was just a good start. Actually, I agree that editors who engage in a pattern of any kind of POV pushing, tendentiousness, attacks, and so on should be topic banned or blocked, including that which is anti-trans. But given the claim of an apparently already-existing larger circle of bad faith actors, this looks to me a lot more like casting WP:ASPERSIONS and creating a chilling effect. Regarding WP:NONAZIS, I believe the WP:CRYRACIST portion is more relevant here: Casting aspersions of [transphobic] trolling and vandalism should not, however, be used as a trump card in disputes over content or at a noticeboard. These claims can have a chilling effect and make the normal dispute resolution process difficult to go through....Unsubstantiated claims of [transphobic] vandalism and use of unsubstantiated claims to gain an upper hand in a content dispute or noticeboard thread is disruptive and a form of personal attack and will often lead to the user making it being blocked. Claims of [transphobia] should not be made lightly and editors should strive to work through the normal dispute resolution process when it comes to legitimate disagreements on interpretation and quality of sources and other content disputes rather than clear [transphobic] disruption. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, the instruction at the top of this section says specifically This section is for discussing what to do only. Any attempts to continue the battle here will be moved to another section. With all due respect, it appears that you've done exactly what it says we should not do, by attacking those on one side of the debate as transphobes and bad faith actors. I don't see how that's helpful here. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Topic banning Bastun is already being discussed. Please don't suggest topic banning Bastun as the solution to the battleground. The section above is for solutions to the general problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

"Please don't suggest topic banning Bastun as the solution to the battleground." Who are you responding to? Are you having difficulty keeping track of who said what? Because if your comment is directed at what User:Lilipo25 wrote, it's senseless and baseless. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It is rather obvious who I was replying to. You are assuming a huge amount of bad faith over how many colons someone put in front of a talk page comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"It is rather obvious who I was replying to." Actually, it is not. Assume nothing, because the yada-yada keeps expanding and eyes begin to roll. So who, exactly, where you responding to? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

---

FWIW, I think that "anti-transgender activism" is obviously a WP:LABEL, since it's basically equivalent to "transphobic activism", but LABELs are sometimes justified. We call a whole bunch of neo-Nazis and white supremacists "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacist" when there's sufficient sourcing to justify it, and if anything is a LABEL it's "neo-Nazi". For example, the very first line of Richard Spencer is Richard Spencer is an American neo-Nazi..., without even in-text attribution. I feel like we need to update the wording of WP:LABEL to acknowledge more clearly that the presumption that these labels shouldn't be used can be defeated entirely (as in, even in-text attribution is not necessary) if the sourcing is strong enough. Loki (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, the comparison to Richard Spencer is not an apt one. I did not want to debate the WP:LABEL here, but as several editors have brought it up now with the argument that it is fine to call him "anti-transgender" in a Wikipedia heading because he is - and we now have a comparison of his views to those of Richard Spencer - I think it's necessary.

Spencer is called a neo-Nazi because he recited the propaganda of Joseph Goebbels in the original German ("Lügenpresse") at pro-Trump appearances during the 2018 presidential campaign, encouraged his followers to give him the Nazi "stiff-armed" salute, called for "ethnic cleansing" of Jews and other minorities and, when Trump was elected, gave a speech telling his followers to "party like it's 1933" (the year Hitler came to power in Germany). No matter what anyone thinks of Linehan, he has never done anything even half so egregious in his disagreement with trans activists. He has stated repeatedly that he believes trans rights are human rights and that it should be illegal to discriminate against trans people in the workplace or in housing or education, etc. His beliefs (that self-ID laws are wrong because he doesn't think someone born in a male body should be able to self-identify into women's prisons, sports and changing rooms, and that children should not be given medical intervention to transition like puberty blockers or surgery), are certainly very controversial, but Wikipedia cannot summarily label them "anti-transgender", particularly when there are some transgender activists who support them. Lilipo25 (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I pretty strongly disagree with the assertion that Linehan has "never done anything even half so egregious". I think he has been quite blatant about his anti-transgender activism, and the fact that the nature of his activism is anti-transgender is stated clearly and repeatedly in the reliable sources, in a very directly analogous manner to how the fact that Spencer is a neo-Nazi is all over the RSes covering him. We're talking about a man who has been both banned from Twitter and warned by police for transphobic harassment. Loki (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Warned by police: Come on. Stephanie Hayden - who calls herself "litigious" and was recently forced to admit in court that she is currently suing so many different people for "hate crimes" and harassment that she didn't even know how many court cases she had going - called the police because he misgendered her and called her by her previous male name when they were arguing on Twitter. A patrol officer was obligated to respond and said "just stop tweeting about her".. Are you really comparing that to Spencer saying that the US needs to be "ethnically cleansed" of Jews and black people, while encouraging people to salute him the way they saluted a man who murdered six million people? And yes, Twitter banned him for saying "A man can't be a woman". You have every right to be offended by that. Other people have the right to agree with it. But it isn't even close to Richard Spencer quoting Joseph Goebbels, the architect of Jewish genocide.in Europe. Lilipo25 (talk) 07:34, 3 August 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.