Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Homeostasis07 disruptive behavior

My first interaction with this user was from this RfC on Marilyn Manson that I closed. In the RfC, Homeostasis continuously made uncivil comments and cast aspersions on other editors, to the point where I felt it necessary to mention it in my closure. I feel their comments in that RfC alone are enough to warrant action. That is not the only disruptive behavior that I've observed from them so far though. They have also started badgering other users here, here, here, and here. I think Homeostasis should be, at the very least, Tbanned from Marliyn Manson. ––FormalDude talk 06:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have gotten engagement yet, so I'll offer my view, although my comments should obviously be read with the caveat that I'm WP:INVOLVED as one of the users Homeostasis has been badgering. Taken as a whole, I think the user's behavior paints a pretty clear picture of disruption.

I first encountered them after proposing that Manson's article include mention of the sexual abuse allegations against him. They failed to assume good faith from the start, which is certainly not model behavior, but which somewhat comes with the territory when one edits in controversial areas. Their behavior persisted and worsened over the course of the RfC, as FormalDude (the uninvolved closer) noted.

Then there was their behavior giving me this edit warring notice. I'll copy my reply:

Context for anyone following along: I began an RfC a month ago proposing that we mention the sexual abuse allegations against Marilyn Manson in the lead of that article. Homeostasis07, the top editor of the page, argued strenuously against it, but following a CR listing the RfC was recently closed with Consensus to add one sentence along the lines of "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them.". Homeostasis then modified the addition to give more weight to Manson's denials, I reverted a single time, and Homeostasis dropped me the above note. I would advise them to consider finding other topic areas to edit in which they are less invested.

I find it highly difficult to believe that Homeostasis, an experienced editor, was unaware of the definition of edit warring and thought that it was genuinely appropriate. Giving another editor an edit warring notice to vent your frustration at them or attempt to sully their talk page is not at all appropriate.

Our next interaction came about due to an initially unrelated happening on my talk page, a pretty standard case of (now blocked) IP makes disruptive edits containing severe BLP violations, I (and others) revert, and IP turns around and accuses me of being the article subject. The IP's edits on my talk page were revdel'd per standard procedure for attempted outings, but Homeostasis then posted this, taking up the IP's cause and insinuating that their allegation had merit. At that point, I decided to give them a more forceful reply, warning them about WP:HOUNDING and asking them directly not to interact with me further. They ignored that request, first with a reply on my talk and then (after reverting the reply) with a ping on their own talk.

Homeostasis has certainly contributed quality content to Wikipedia, so I'll leave it to others to decide precisely how this should be handled, but I agree with FormalDude that some action ought to be taken to prevent them from causing further disruption. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• My involvement in this began on August 26, 2021, when I took a look at the RfC page for biographies to check whether I had done my first RfC correctly. I noticed the Manson RfC, something I hadn’t heard about before, started reading up on it, and made two edits to the body of the article: removing content not supported by the cite and adding content with RS.

Homeostasis07, an editor that—to my knowledge—I had never come across before, reverted the latter edit and accused me of edit warring in the edit summary and on the Talk page. When I asked them to assume good faith, I got high-horse lectured and or-else threatened ("before I take this further"). After I explained my reasoning, they accused me of "nasty misinterpretation of sources", a "completely UNDUE spiel about domestic violence", "not paying close enough attention" to the article, the sources, and the case, and of incompetence in general, "expecially when it comes to controversial subjects." I then suggested the editor step away from the article until they had cooled off and examined their own POV.

Looking at my contribs page, I just realized that there was another interchange. Before my second edit of the main space, I voted and added a comment on the Talk page which was answered with the first edit-warring accusation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That obviously hasn’t happened. Seems to me that the closer correctly decided that a clear majority of the participants answered the RfC question (should the lead mention the allegations of sexual assault) with "yes", without a qualifier, MANDY or otherwise, and that they bent over backwards to accommodate Homeostasis07’s view. It also looks to me as though Homeostatis07 thinks they have some sort of ownership of the article. After the closer added the sentence per the outcome of the RfC, Homeostasis07 immediately added a WP:MANDY comment, claiming that there was no consensus for the closer’s version. IMO a time-out from the page would be appropriate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

From the outset, I would like to make it clear that I have never threatened to "out" anyone, despite what's been insinuated above. As someone who was on the receiving end of one of those threats several years ago, I am keenly aware of the outing policy. I never threatened to do that, would never do such a thing, and if I ever gave anyone that impression, I humbly apologize. That being said, the now-banned IP did raise what I still believe to be one legitimate concern which, to me, can be demonstrably evidenced within Sdkb's contributions log. Sdkb was obtuse and threatening in their response. I emailed my concerns with corresponding diffs to the team at COI Noticeboard, per the template there. I'm sure we all eagerly await the results of their investigation.

Regarding the RfC, the key issue was not whether the allegations be included on the article at all – Marilyn Manson#Abuse allegations has existed since the story broke on Feb 1 – but instead how the allegations be presented in the lead. During the RfC, Sdkb argued that genuine policies such as WP:BLP and WP:BALANCE be disregarded in favor of the WP:MANDY essay, which argues against any denial being included. That an experienced editor would cite an essay in favor of genuine policies in such a serious matter is beyond my comprehension. In the RfC, six votes (including one yes vote) specifically argued against the proposal as initiated by Sdkb (to exclude denial). A maximum of 3 votes – Sdkb, Space4Time3Continuum2, and I generously include Idealigic's vote, who said "based on points provided by Sdkb." – supported. All other votes did not address at all how the allegations be presented, so how FormalDude came to his initial assessment that consensus of the RfC supported Sdkb's version of the lead is still up for debate. I was not the only user confused by how FormalDude came to their conclusion. I believe a close review is necessary at this point.

Regarding Sdkb's conduct, I would like to note that they have attempted to WP:CRYSTALBALL to include the allegations in Marilyn Manson's lead since the story broke on February 1; added an inaccurate "nutshell" description to the MANDY essay, which they then cited in the RfC; tendentiously nominated a template for deletion just two hours after I placed it on Marilyn Manson's talk page as a means of deterring IPs and new users from adding particularly horribly-sourced and potentially libelous content (from Daily Mail, TMZ, Page Six, etc.). User has continually assumed bad faith on my part, arguing for several months at the RfC, the template for deletion discussion, and even here (above) that my status as the "top editor" of the article somehow precludes me from making constructive contributions to the subject or the entire project as a whole.

In response to Space4Time3Continuum2x, their statement above is misleading on several fronts. Their first edit to the article was a misinterpretation of the cited source. The source does indeed state that the "Mansonisabusive" Instagram page was set up in 2017, and that the accusers began contacting one another via that profile sometime later. It is an additional source (still included on the article) which confirms the September 2020 date (date always cited to that source). In their link above "explain[ing their] reasoning" (i.e., this one), Space4Time3Continuum2x said: "Abuse (domestic or otherwise, whether it involves sex or not) is about power. I have the power, you’re powerless, so you do as I say. Sounds as though Manson had a type, e.g. Bianco: long-time fan, model and actor with Hollywood aspirations, in need of work visa, unsure about a lot of things. There are also a number of witnesses." They proceeded to link to 5 different sources, none of which supported this highly-inflammatory and undue statement. During the RfC, this user also repeatedly claimed that Marilyn Manson did not specifically deny the allegations, which was categorically untrue.

Apologies for the long response. I've tried to be as brief as possible, but 3 users piling on in such a manner does not afford one much brevity. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Here's the actual !votes from the RfC:

RfC !vote list
Users who supported mentioning the abuse allegations in the lead: Sdkb Space4Time3Continuum2 Idealigic Some1 FelipeFritschF RogueShanghai Loki JeffUK Total: 8 Users who opposed mentioning the abuse allegation in the lead: Homeostasis07 Spy-cicle ili Isaidnoway Sea Ane Total: 5

If you'll notice, the RfC was not about any specific phrasing–it was about whether or not to mention a section of the article in the lead. That is why my close ended the way it did. ––FormalDude talk 03:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In their RfC-initiating edit, Sdkb said the allegations "ought to be concisely summarized with a sentence or so in the lead". Substantial commentary during the RfC was then dedicated solely to how Sdkb introduced that content to the article; Sdkb specifically went on to cite WP:MANDY as a justification for their edits, which was directly supported by two (maybe three) users but opposed by six (see above, or the RfC). In your initial closing statement, you directly quoted Sdkb's version, which you immediately re-added to the article. But here, you're saying you reduced the entire RfC to simple yes/no numbers to re-add Sdkb's preferred version, tangibly disregarding the nuts and bolts of the RfC in the process and the lack of support Sdkb's version of the content received.

Since this is the RfC for which content added to the article will be dictated for the foreseeable future, I believe a close review is genuinely appropriate at this point, based on what FormalDude is saying here. It may not change much in the long run, considering FormalDude's subsequent edits to the talk page ([1], [2]), but there are serious questions here. That FormalDude also said in this edit summary: "I believe WP:MANDY is applicable here" is most worrying. MANDY is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and is not applicable anywhere on-site. Perhaps a TBAN of FormalDude closing RfCs, AfDs and other associated pages may be appropriate. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I stand behind my closure of the RfC and am fine with it being reviewed. I think your suggestion of a TBan for me is ridiculous, but let's see what others think. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Reading through this RfC as an uninvolved user who has never, to my knowledge, edited the Marilyn Manson article, and did not participate or even know about this RfC until now, I support @FormalDude's closure. It is an accurate summary of the consensus there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: 14 day block

A pause for reflection seems appropriate here. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I held off !voting on this, since I had hoped that being brought to ANI would humble Homeostasis and get them to commit to better behavior, enabling us to go with a lesser sanction. But their long reply above contains no admission whatsoever that any aspect of their behavior was inappropriate, instead doubling down on it. I think that anything less than a block like this would all but guarantee that the behavior will continue and subject other users and the encyclopedia to further disruption. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In other words, sit back and not address what I genuinely consider to be inappropriate actions on the part of others? I did apologize for several things above. And will again here. I apologize to everyone involved for being argumentative, and sometimes downright rude, during the course of the RfC. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support with a Marilyn Manson Tban. After seeing Homeostasis double down in their arguments, which are mostly strawmen, I think a break is needed. I also think that at this point their outside feelings are preventing them from editing neutrally, and propose a topic ban from all Marilyn Manson related articles. I appreciate Homeostasis's apology above, but I still believe these sanctions are necessary. ––FormalDude talk 03:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, indifferent on block. It looks like Homeostasis can't step back from this, and has continued arguing the point above. Further, immediately calling for the RFC closer to be TBANed just strikes me as retaliatory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the statement below, I'm willing to withdraw my support for the TBAN and just see how things go from here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

    I find it difficult to take sudden reversals of attitude when a user is on the verge of being blocked as indicative of much other than the desire to avoid being blocked. The recent comments persuade me that a TBAN may not be needed, but I think it would be a mistake to go with nothing. Homeostasis has a repeated pattern of stepping across the line and then stopping/backtracking just enough to avoid consequences (e.g. at my user talk), and if we allow that to continue, we'll be back here again. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support with a Marilyn Manson TBAN. This user cannot drop the stick, and appears very very invested in that article, to the point of badgering other users away from contributing, harassing other users about their RfC votes, and badgering away an RfC closer because, it appears, they did not like the outcome. This is precisely the situation in which a TBAN is warranted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, per points I raised above, as a punitive measure against one editor when the other three editors involved displayed poor editorial judgement. At its heart, this is an issue of policy against the repeated use of an unvetted essay and resultant edit warring. I could have handled some things differently, and I apologized twice above for those, but I'm afraid I can't apologize for expecting other users to adhere to policy, and worry about the precedent being set here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 16:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN. I've had the pleasure of reviewing many of Homeostasis07's articles on Marilyn Manson, some of which were done as review trades, and some just because I enjoy reading his work. Over several years, we each have infrequently let the other know if we have a new FAC that needs comments. If you look at the diffs from before he started working on the Marilyn Manson articles, there's no denying his contributions have serious merit. There's also no denying he can be hot-headed when things don't go his way. I don't think the issue here is Marilyn Manson. I think Marilyn Manson is one of a broad selection of topics he is interested in, and the underlying issue is a lack of assuming good faith, and that by default he takes any opposition personally as opposed to constructively. When one of my FACs failed several years ago, he seemed to take it more personally than I did, and left a comment voicing his annoyance on the talk page of the main person who opposed my nomination, which I did not think was a constructive way of moving forward.

Nevertheless, many of the Marilyn Manson articles were in extremely poor shape before he took it upon himself to improve them. I feel a topic ban does not take into account the overwhelming effort he has put in to genuine improvements in these articles, and therefore oppose such a measure. I do not oppose a temporary block on editing in general as I agree some action needs to be taken. A topic ban strikes me as nothing short of extreme for an initial punishment in this matter, especially when it remains to be seen if a temporary block may have a sobering effect on his ability to interact with others. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that WP:MANDY, as essay I'd not previously heard of before reading the current dispute, seems to have been treated as policy rather than an essay by others, a point which seems to have been lost along the way and (rightly or wrongly) overshadowed by Homeostasis07's response to it being used as such. I think the essay is an absurd opinion and could not oppose it more wholeheartedly, though that's a discussion for somewhere else. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced they won't react in the same disruptive manner when the next dispute doesn't go their way. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand, however, I don't see what there is to lose in giving him once chance before a topic ban. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN: I am in agreement with Damien Linnane. I understand that Homeostasis07 can be hot-heated and take matters too personally, but I feel a TBAN is too extreme a response for this, especially given the work he has put into these articles. He would ideally learn from this experience (and a temporary block if that does occur). I do not oppose a temporary block either as I do understand and agree that some action should be taken for this and that seems like a more appropriate response. I think it would be better to do the temporary block and then see how he grows from that.

As an aside, I have also never heard of WP:MANDY. It doesn't help that I'm an American and I honestly have no idea who Mandy Rice-Davies is. I think it is slightly odd to treat this essay like a policy. I do not agree with the essay either, but as Damien Linnane, that is a different conversation entirely so that would be best suited elsewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What Damien and Aoba have said here has certainly given me food for thought. Without even realizing, I have been taking things too personally and been a hot-head for quite some time, causing problems for even the people I've worked with on multiple occasions. I apologize to everyone here and promise to correct this behavior immediately. I'd even agree to a permanent site-wide ban should the behavior ever occur again, which I swear now never will. Sorry for all the trouble guys. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block or TBAN. No evidence of consistent disruption or any other history of incidents in the topic area. The only possible action that could be taken is a warning about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Please restore RfC remarks

User:NorthBySouthBaranof has now three times deleted my remarks in an RfC [3][4][5]. Despite clarification to the contrary, he apparently believes I am equating his remarks with defending pedophilia. To the contrary, I am not and I attempted to clarify that on his talk page and the RfC. He refused; apparently that is insufficient. He has also told me to "get fucked" and twice to "get the fuck out of here" (see edit summaries)

I ask for a warning or (if an admin deems necessary) a block for an appropriate length of time and myeditsrestored in the RfC in regards to WP:CIVIL, WP:TE, and whatever else applies. I don't care about the contents of his talk page per se (he can delete those as he sees fit per WP:USERTALK).

I ask that someone please notify him as he has also asked for me to "stay the fuck off my talk page", which sort of leaves me in sort of a conundrum. Does the requirement above pertain to required notices? I don't want to do this wrong and be accused of something else. Buffs (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Struck as he appears to be following my edits and is aware. Buffs (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit update adding personal attacks to the list: "you can't properly edit articles about living people." (see below) 09:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit 2: Let's say you don't agree with my interpretation. Can he accuse people of homophobia? Can he just delete all of my remarks? Only one is about this subject and he's deleted 4 comments aaaaaaand now he's taunting me. Where does it end? Buffs (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

You described Lawn Boy, a widely-acclaimed mainstream novel written by Jonathan Evison, a living person, as containing advocacy of pedophilia, without citing a reliable source. You linked to WP:PEDOPHILE with extensive quoting and bolding of sections referring to editors who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki when you have ZERO evidence that any person, much less any editor, is doing so. The insinuation is clear - you're suggesting that Evison and, by extension, those who defend his works on Wikipedia, are pedophiles or pedophile advocates. This is outrageous, false, and a defamatory personal attack.

Your comments about the book are wildly inappropriate, borderline-libelous, and certainly a violation of BLP as applied to Jonathan Evison - you are using Wikipedia space to falsely accuse him of writing material which advocates pedophilia. Frankly, the fact that you are continuing to make this false and unsourced accusation against Mr. Evison suggests you should be topic-banned from biographies of living persons. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I very clearly indicated otherwise. My citation is a direct quote from his own book. But if you want more sources, sure: [6][7][8][9]. I am not saying specifically that he is a pedophile. I'm saying THEY are saying it and it is objectively reasonable (and widely cited, see previous). I'm also pointing out that the same standards DW has are the same ones WP has. I'm also saying that your assertion that this is all about homophobia is absurd. You seem to be hell bent on reading what you want into this while cursing up a storm and repeatedly deleting my remarks (even those that clarify). I will not respond further to you; at this point you're being unreasonable. Buffs (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. You don't even recall what you yourself wrote, which is a strong indication that you need to step back from this issue. You wrote, and I quote, I find it hard to see how the final description "It wasn’t terrible" isn't advocacy of pedophilia. That is your personal statement of your personal opinion - something which has no place in Wikipedia to begin with, much less when your opinion is that a living person is an advocate of pedophilia.

Cite and quote the reliable source which factually describes Evison, his book, or any part of it as "advocacy of pedophilia." I bet you can't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I shouldn't engage, but ok: see the 4 sources above; all 4 allege exactly that. Here's another [10] Now, I've already said I'm not going to engage with you. Please leave me alone. Buffs (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. Literally none of those sources can be used to state on Wikipedia, as a fact, that the book or its author advocates pedophilia. That you do not understand this distinction is an indication that you can't properly edit articles about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that it's "critically acclaimed" comes from an unreliable source/self-published source. Hardly the strongest case. Buffs (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs:... You just linked a Washington Times opinion piece... You're not really in a position to be calling out other editors for using unreliable/self-published sources. The problem you get to is when you stray away from what the reliable sources are saying and add your own personal opinion that "it is objectively reasonable” which just FYI, no it actually isn’t. That isn’t any more reasonable than saying that a young adult book about 9/11 advocates terrorism because it accurately covers the events that took place on that day or that Oliver Twist advocates organized crime and street violence. And this is all assuming that your claim about what is in the book is accurate which appears to be in question, even when I give you every benefit of the doubt it simply isn’t an objectively reasonable conclusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What NBSB said. Neither author describing something illegal in a work of fiction, nor an author describing a character rationalizing or describing their enjoyment of an illegal act in a work of fiction, means the work in question is advocating that illegal act; by your logic Martin Scorsese has spent the past few decades advocating killing anyone who gets in the way of making money. NBSB might have been more diplomatic in the edit summaries, but I'd say was completely correct to remove your comments. (If a third party has described the author in question as advocating crime, it's legitimate to give their view with correct attribution—that comes up regularly in discussion of books like Lolita and The Satanic Verses—but the important thing is that you're saying "Foo thinks Bar supports crime", not a bald "Bar supports crime". ‑ Iridescent 08:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Texas obscenity laws say otherwise, but more to the point, that's exactly what we're describing here: what the DW (et al) is describing in their reporting. Describing this as "rank homophobia" is incorrect as the objection has nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with the graphic nature of the pedophile-relationship in the material presented. In addition to the moving goalposts (rank homophobia, accusing support of pedophilia, personal attack, now BLP...whatever is next...), it is a complete misreading of what I'm saying. What you are advocating is what I am advocating: this is what DW is saying that the parent said; my point is that WP has the same standards, not that any specific editor OR author is a pedo/supports pedophilia. 4 additional news sources are listed above corroborate that. The outrage isn't due to homosexuality, but the graphic nature of the material. I can get more sources to back that up, but I think my point is clear. Buffs (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

And the point is that 'The Daily Wire's "reporting" on that issue is sensationalistic and misleading to the point of, yes, rank homophobia (describing a gay school board member as spending smuch of his energy on the school board focusing on gay and transgender issues rather than education is another example of that homophobia). And that's a great example of why The Daily Wire is an unreliable source on Wikipedia, and why it will remain an unreliable source - and your outrage is because you know you can't actually get a consensus to change that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

1. I was talking to someone else, not you. 2. Questioning how someone is using their efforts for political advocacy over teaching is not "homophobia" by any definition. 3. Again, leave me alone. 4. "your outrage is because you know you can't actually get a consensus to change that" How much longer do I have to tolerate profanity and taunting? Buffs (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• That level of profanity directed at another editor is excessive, NBSB. You should consider apologizing and retracting the swearing.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Given that they are in the edit summaries and/or he's deleted the remarks, he can't Buffs (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  He could say: "I still think you're wrong, Buffs, but I shouldn't have sworn at you, and I'm sorry for the swearing. I won't do that again."—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  It was sheer outrage at the invocation of WP:PEDOPHILE - any experienced editor should know that's not a policy to be lightly invoked in an everyday content dispute, and that it is likely to inflame emotions among any right-thinking person. It's a policy about editors who are pedophiles or who advocate pedophilia, not a policy about widely-acclaimed mainstream novels.

  I apologize for the profane outburst, and I would request that Buffs make clear that they do not believe I, nor Jonathan Evison, nor his book, have anything to do with pedophilia or pedophilia advocacy, and that they acknowledge they should not have made such a flawed comparison. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  That's not unreasonable. Buffs: Are you willing to say right here right now that neither NBSB nor Jonathan Evison are paedophiles or pro-paedophilia advocates?—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I already said I was not claiming NBSB was a paedophiles or pro-paedophilia. He deleted those remarks along with 3 others. As for Jonathan Evison I'm not claiming he is or isn't either (I think a definitive affirmative statement about anyone i.e. "John is not a criminal" is too much, but I will state for the record generally in the negative on both counts for both people. I said the specific phrase in the book seems like pedophilia/advocating it. Now if that's just a fictional character expressing that, fine, I can live with that, but that's still the point of these women's analysis. Lastly, restoring my comments (all 4 of them, not just the ones in question, but also those deleted because "this section isn't for threaded discussion" despite ample examples on the page to the contrary) along with a note "For clarity, Buffs is not advocating either NBSB or Jonathan Evison are paedophiles or pro-paedophilia advocates" written by NBSB will suffice and I will concur...in fact, just put my signature on it with the appropriate timestamp with my blessing + I consider this matter closed. Buffs (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• First of all, I find Pedophilia very disgusting and while I do respect the “free speech” angle, I have always felt speech advocating pedophilia crosses the line, even in the days before advocating pedophilia was an instant permaban on the Wikipedia. So, this can be a very touchy subject. The question, after all of the arguments, seems to be whether this book advocates Pedophilia, or whether opposing this book is “homophobia”. As per WP:BLP, making any kind of accusation of pedophilia needs to be done with the utmost of care to make sure we can strongly support it with sources. So, that in mind, let’s look at the Fox news source. WP:RSP says Fox news is generally reliable, unless we’re discussing politics or science. I do not think this matter is one which is political, so I think we can say a reliable source says that “"Lawn Boy" by Jonathan Evison and "Gender Queer: A Memoir" by Maia Kobabe” allegedly contain pedophilia. In terms of deleting comments from a discussion like WP:RSN, comments should not be deleted unless their is a really really good reason to do so. It is completely inappropriate to accuse an editor of advocating pedophilia without very strong evidence; if any such evidence is present, please notify the Wikimedia foundation as per WP:CHILDPROTECT so we can permaban the editor and scrub their editing history as needed. Samboy (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Samboy, you don't have a "reliable source" stating this: you have a source of doubtful reliability stating that one person, without any qualifications in sexuality, law, or literature, alleged that the books contained pedophilia. Fram (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Buffs, the Daily Wire source is clearly homophobic. Just read the actual title: "WATCH: School Board Squirms As Mom Reads Them The Gay Porn In Books Available To Students". "Gay Porn", not "Child Porn", as if that was the cause of concern (or as if gay porn and pedophilia are one and the same, which seems to be their main message). And further down, it again becomes very clear when they start describing some school board members, or a selection of books. The article doesn't care about pedophilia, it uses it as a way to attack gay literature, transgender rights, and anti-racism. It's a dreadful, utterly biased source. Fram (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Okaaaaaay. Transgenderism and racism aren't even part of the subject in question here. To try and conflate the two is absurd. Buffs (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  As for the rest, yes, it's a verbal description of an act of pedophilia (adult and child), gay (it's between the same gender), and child porn (it's sexual acts of a minor)...yeah, all 3 apply as a description. You seem to be conflating a LOT of things as if they are all the same and at the same time pretending some things are unrelated in this context.

  When you discount every source that disagrees with your opinion, you're going to find that everyone agrees with you. Buffs (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  I know that transgenderism and racism aren't part of the subject, but the DailyWire article (where you can't even acknowledge the explicit homophobia), felt the need to introduce these subjects as well, when describing school board members: "Laura Jane Cohen (whose child is transgender and who frequently redirects educational issues to gay issues)," and "Karl Frisch, a school board member who does not have any children, but is a gay man who spends much of his energy on the school board focusing on gay and transgender issues rather than education". When discussing the book selection by the American Library Association, they not only remarked that "An unusually large portion of the books recommended by YALSA are about homosexuality. " (again indicating that this is somehow a problem and of any relevance in an article about a mother alleging pedophilia in one or two books), but also "Much of the youth librarians group’s selections focus on instilling a sense of racial oppression rather than a mastery of reading.", with a discussion of two books about racism, which they follow with "For a list of other questionable titles pushed into schools by the American Library Association[...]". It is your DailyWire source which conflates the topics as if they are all symptoms of the same problem and are all illegal, child-corrupting elements which should be banned. It is your source which makes "gay porn" the main issue, not "child porn" (and your reply here comes dangerously close to doing the same: for some reason it needs to be enumerated as a description of pedophilia, gay porn, and child porn, but not as e.g. a description of porn). Oh, and as far as I can tell, it is the DW and you why try to make it look as if the quoted scene describes actions between an adult and a child, when in reality, the scene is between two childs of the same age (see some of the other sources you provided, e.g. "sex acts between 4th graders" and the confirmation of this by the author: "sexual experimentation between kids". Fram (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Good descriptions for the arguments of those unreliable sources would be: conspiracy theory, moral panic, misrepresentation to instill fear of public education and promote homeschooling and religious segregation from mainstream society, divisive arguments (us/them)... —PaleoNeonate – 12:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

If the book only describes child-child sexual contacts and does not describe adult-child sexual contacts, that’s a very different ball of wax. WP:CHILDPROTECT is explicitly about inappropriate adult-child potentially sexual contacts only. Since there is confusion about this, I think it’s very important to edit Jonathan Evison to clarify exactly what is described in the book “Lawn Boy”, which is OK (as per Virgin Killer we can have some content along this vein, as long as it’s clear it’s neutral commentary). Samboy (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The book does NOT cite only child-child acts, but rather explicitly cites exactly what the mother feels is explicitly pedophelia: acts of mutual oral sex between a child and an adult. I am not going to cite the contents here as I truly believe it crosses a line which would get me banned (and, to be blunt, I think that's what at least some want me to do). Both the video and the quote in the DW article rather explicitly show it. To say "when in reality, the scene is between two childs of the same age" is taking common sense and twisting it beyond recognition. While the SCENE is between two younger people, it DESCRIBES mutual oral sex between a child and an adult and ends with "'And you know what?' I said. 'It wasn’t terrible.'" I'll be blunt, I don't know where that falls in WP policy, but I know it's damned close to the line.

"It is your source which makes 'gay porn' the main issue, not 'child porn'..." The first line of the article indicates otherwise "A Virginia mom found that books graphically depicting pedophilia were in her child’s school as part of its commitment to diversity and inclusion — so she read from them, verbatim, to the school board." If you don't think it fits that criteria, then why hasn't someone posted a quote of the contents here? (I implore you NOT to post it; the point is that no one has because it's very risky. DO NOT POST THESE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK!!!) Buffs (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Buffs, the DW article is equating gay sex and child porn, by giving a title (and much of the content) about gay porn and homosexuality, while using the (fake?) outrage over a supposedly pedophilic scene as a coatrack to hang their homophobic, transphobic and racist agenda on. The source is clealy homophobic and shouldn't be used (and we have much more acceptable sources about the same incident anyway). As for the scene quoted by the DW (that's the one we're discussing, right?), it describes an adult telling what happened to him as a child with another child (who is now also an adult), "Doug Goble, a childhood friend who has launched himself out of the res and into a flashy real estate career."[11]. The scene is not between an adult and a child. He is decribed as another kid in the book, p. 43[12] Fram (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Fram's explanation of the scene seems likely correct. If Buffs is going to continue to claim otherwise, they need to provide far better sources than the Daily Wire. I note even the Daily Wire's snippet makes it sound like this is at a minimum a conversation between older teens if not adults e.g. "Nick waved me off and turned his attention back to his beer." While by itself this doesn't prove the age of the other participant at the time, even without reading the book it seems entirely plausible that said participant was also a child and they're just called a "real-estate guy" because that's what they are now. And if this is a conversation between adults of something that happened when those involved were children, this seems to further prove what a terrible source the Daily Wire is. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree (I know, not a shock). It at least arguably falls under US Obscenity laws and fails satisfies the Miller test. Buffs (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. If you have to cite the Miller test in an argument, you should probably re-evaluate your argument. Especially when you're just utterly incorrect, as the book doesn't meet a single prong of the Miller test (I assume you meant to say that it satisfies the Miller test, not that it fails it). Mlb96 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Argh...yes... I also think that reasonable people can disagree. If we disagree, we disagree and I'll abide by consensus. Buffs (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course reasonable people can disagree. But your disagreement makes no sense in the current discussion. The claim was that the DW, or certainly that piece, is homophobic (and transphobic and racist) and tries to influence their audience even further by lying. Whether the book is or isn't obscene and would or wouldn't satisfy the Miller test is not what the discussion was about. If you can't even admit that the DW (and by extension you) was misrepresenting the disputed scene, then there is nothing left to discuss. One can only have a meaningful discussion if the participants at least are willing to admit factual errors. Fram (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buffs: disagree about what? You started off claiming that the book depicted sex between an adult and a child and this is what the Daily Wire implies it's about. You went so far as to claim it is implausible ("common sense and twisting it beyond recognition") that the depiction was something that occurred between two children, saying it's clearly between an adult and a child.

Fram has provided a sourced explanation that your understanding of the depiction, which is a recollection of something from childhood, is wrong. This includes something in the book itself suggesting this isn't simply an explanation the author offered when there was controversy but instead something anyone who read and understood the book would know. If you can't provide any sources to counter this explanation which seems difficult anyway, you need to stop making allegations to the contrary or you should be blocked until you do. This isn't something we can agree to disagree. You are free to believe what you want but you cannot let your inaccurate views of stuff influence your editing here let alone promote them.

The issue of whether it's obscene is largely separate. If you now want to only focus on the obscenity thing well I see no need to discuss whether it's obscene here since it's so irrelevant. It being obscene didn't justify the Daily Wire misleading viewers about what it depicts. If they want to argue it's obscene or is otherwise inappropriate or dangerous for kids, they are free to do so without misleading about what it depicts especially not in such an extreme fashion. As an RS it is their responsibility to do the research and make sure they don't mislead. Even if we're generous and assume they simply failed to research, this still suggests they are not an RS considering the allegation was extreme and yet easily answered by reading the book. But worse, even if we assuming an initial claim failure of fact-checking, it seems very likely someone has pointed this out by now yet we see no correction.

As for you, I was initially thinking it was simply a case of sorry "I trusted the Daily Wire when I shouldn't have, sorry". But as Fram pointed out you seem unwilling to just accept that you were wrong and so mislead us like the Daily Wire. Ultimately you don't have to accept fault, but you do need to stop misleading about what the book depicts. As for the obscenity angle feel free to discuss that somewhere appropriate although you would need to do so based on what the book actually depicts not your alternative facts view of it. Note this would not be in RSN nor here at ANI since the recollection being obscene doesn't justify the Daily Wire misleading about what it depicts. I'd note that your earlier comments suggest you agree obscene or not, there's a big difference between a recollection of sex as a child with another child, and recollection of sex as a child with an adult. So I assume there's no dispute that it matters a great deal.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• ♫ Lawn Boy ♫ spam. El_C 12:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  1934 mechanical non-spam....2007 humour spam. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

NBSB's large removal is not acceptable and the editor should not revert an edit like that again. Look at this systematically. Using this edit as an example [13]. First, the edit summary is not acceptable and violates CIVIL. Some editors feel that it's OK to be uncivil so long as you are in the right. That is simply not true. While an editor might be in the right, incivility invariably makes it harder to find compromise as it makes both sides more entrenched. There is also the risk that the editor is in the wrong on the facts of the case in which case they have made their error that much worse by adding incivility to the mix. This sort of incivility should always be discouraged even if the editor is correct on the facts.

Should the edit have been reverted? First, as a clearly involved editor it would have been far better if NBSB asked a third party to intervene. Absent that, NBSB's edit removed more than just the offending content. It removed material that was germane to the discussion while not being the specific offending material. That is not acceptable. If an editor makes a reasoned, on topic point and includes a personal insult, the insult should be removed, not the entire edit. So NBSB's removal of the whole edit was not acceptable. On the final point, was the claim specifically homophobic etc, I haven't looked into the sources enough to decide. If there is some level of doubt then the content should have remained or should remain until more editors can weigh in. Regardless, NBSB's objectives can be good faith even though their methods were needlessly antagonistic and blunt. They should be strongly encouraged to be more careful in the future and certainly not edit war to remove the talk page comments of another editor. Springee (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Springee At a bare minimum, would someone restore my non-controversial queries? I'm not going to edit war over it. Buffs (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think, since we’ve gone back and forth so much about the supposed scene in Lawn Boy, it will do a service to our readers to have the entire scene here, especially since the book is paywalled (I have had mixed luck opening up the relevant pages in Google Books, sometimes it tells me I’m not allowed to preview the book). This is clearly fair use: It is commentary about the scene, and it’s essential to include the entire scene so fellow Wikipedia readers can look at the source evidence and come up with their own conclusions. Please note: In the interests of WP:BOWDLERIZE I will leave two uses of a homophobic slur intact; I do not endorse the use of this slur, but it’s important to have the original text here as-is.

“What if I told you I touched another guy’s dick?” I said.

“Pfff.” Nick waved me off and turned his attention back to his beer.

“What if I told you I sucked it?”

“Will you please shut up already?”

“I’m dead serious, Nick.”

“Well, I’d say you’re a fag.” [Again, I do not endorse the use of this slur, but it’s important to leave the source material as is. Again, WP:BOWDLERIZE ]

“I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Dick Goble’s dick in my mouth.”

“The real estate guy?”

“Yeah.”

Nick looked around frantically. “What the fuck are you talking about, Michael?”

“I was in fourth grade. It was no big deal.”

Cringing, Nick held his hands out in front of him in a yield gesture “Stop.”

“He sucked mine, too.”

“Stop! Why are you telling me this?”

“And you know what?” I said “It wasn’t terrible.”

[Some other conversation]

“So, you’re saying you’re a fag?” [Again, and I repeat myself I do not endorse the use of this slur, but it’s important to leave the source material as is. Once again, WP:BOWDLERIZE ]

“I doubt that. It’s been twelve years since I touched a dick. But that’s not the point.”

This is the entire scene. Some things: There is absolutely no WP:CHILDPROTECT issue here; the scene described second-hand is one which happened between two children (Elsewhere in the book: “eight or nine other kids, including my hero, Doug Goble”), so it does not run fowl of our very strong anti-pedophilia guidelines. It’s not a pornographic scene; the interaction is only described secondhand, and very curtly describes something which happened a long time before. The point of the scene is to challenge Nick’s prejudices and let Nick have less bigoted views of gay people. It looks like the DailyWire grossly misrepresented the scene, and I think a reasonable person can infer that the DailyWire wrote their article with a homophobic agenda. Samboy (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

As stated above, if it doesn't meet WP:CHILDPROTECT criteria, it at least arguably falls under US Obscenity laws and fails satisfies the Miller test. You don't have to agree, but at least some people think so, if not the "average person". To say this a "homophobic agenda" is a step too far; I don't think this was intentionally misleading. Without additional context, which the speaker did not provide, it very much sounds like adult-child sexual interaction. With more context, the fact that it's two adults talking about underage homosexual acts that one person doesn't want to hear about...I'm not so sure it's that much better, though it's ironic that the speaker's mic was shut off before she could finish "because there are children in the room" [there weren't]. Buffs (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"if it doesn't meet childprotect criteria"? What more do you need to actually admit that no, it doesn't? And what more do you need to recognise a homophobic article as blatant as that one? "Oh, we have one pedo book" (quod non), let's equate this in our title with "gay porn" (the oldest homophobic trick in the book, equating homosexuality and pedophilia), and let's add some other books with homosexual themes (and now that we are busy, transgender and antiracist ones as well) as if these are obviously problematic; and to top it all off, let's highlight some school board members with the same "agenda" and create a false juxtaposition that you are either interested in reading or in these themes (for the American Library Association), and that you are either interested in education or in these themes (for the school board members). That you have an issue with books which include a short discussion about "underage homosexual acts" (as if the homosexual nature somehow makes it worse or unacceptable) is not surprising I suppose, after all the above. But that is in the end not important: what counts is our BLP policy, and what are or aren't reliable sources. Fram (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the entire introduction of claims of pedophilia in a book, a hypothetical speculation of an author's intent and an article about a school boards judgment over a book is an attempt to derail a discussion on whether a website should be deprecated as a source on Wikipedia. Look at the energy invested in this discussion which has turned into arguments over civility. I would have removed the comments as being a salacious tangent to the purpose of the discussion which has nothing to do with Jonathan Evison and his book and is supposed to focus on The Daily Wire being used as a source. If that was your goal, Buffs, it looks like you succeeded at least for a day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It’s hard to see how Buffs’ behavior here could go unsanctioned — it’s grossly inappropriate on several levels. —JBL (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Liz makes a good point above, so I encourage participants here to not allow this diversion to distract from the RfC at RS/N, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Daily Wire. It was preceded by this discussion that is worth reading: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Wire Feel free to participate. The more eyes the better. -- Valjean (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Both editors here are at fault. It is just one over-reaction following another. Aircorn (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that what Buffs has done, is to seriously misinterpret a source, be very wrong, and be persistent, in a content dispute; whereas what NBSB has done is to swear at Buffs and delete Buffs' talk page contributions. I think NBSB is right about the content dispute but it's only NBSB's behaviour that's clearly sanctionable. I think it would be harsh to issue an actual sanction for the swearing because (1) NBSB has apologized and (2) in context, it's reasonable to understand the swearing as a stress symptom caused by feeling unjustly accused. I do think Buffs' behaviour could be sanctionable if we feel that he's intentionally misrepresenting the source. Do we?—S Marshall T/C 14:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have found and quoted the original. To Buffs’ credit, the original passage in “Lawn Boy” without context looks really bad. To correctly understand the scene, one needs to understand that the fiction character Goble, while described as an adult in the scene, was actually around the age of the main character when the fictional oral sex happened. It looks like DailyWire messed this up: They either did not read the original book in its entirety, or they read the book but felt they could get more clicks by quoting one part which, without context, can look like an extremely inappropriate adult - child relationship. This is just one reason why the DailyWire is “generally unreliable”. (Don’t get me started about how a single TheVerge article about Marvin Minsky which misrepresented some court testimony has resulted in us having a low level persistent vandalism problem on that article). Samboy (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

S Marshall, Buffs has had ample opportunity to retract their repeated mischaracterizations; as far as I see, they have not done so. I can't definitively say whether this speaks to intentionality (as opposed to, say, stubborn incompetence), but I think it is not acceptable behavior either way. --JBL (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I've restored my comments (sans the ones that people find objectionable as listed above...) myself because no one seems to actually have any problem with them. The fact that no admin stood up and said "no, his comments shouldn't have been deleted; that's uncivil" and restored them is one more point of evidence that clearly the admin corps isn't up to the task. Unless there are further objections, I think this ANI has run its course. But if people want to pile on with additional criticism, go for it. Buffs (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not really their job to restore them, if they did they would be involved and acting in general editor capacity. —PaleoNeonate – 21:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the admin who did consider this discussion was concerned with whether to hit you with sanctions for sending a discussion about the quality of a online news source into a tangential death spiral on pedophilia, not whether or not they should restore your deleted comments. But I think most admins saw this discussion as either a minefield or they knew that the heat would cool down in a day or two. But that's just a guess on my part.

Buffs, if you think the admin corps aren't "up to the task", maybe consider an RfA, we could use more admins. But a warning, an RfA will make the ANI board look warm & cozy in comparison. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) I wouldn't want anyone I know to become an admin on Wikipedia, in fact, I would discourage it. I think the admins we have are phenomenal whether we agree on content or not. We may even disagree on principles and I still believe you all do a great job considering. I dare say its even necessary and I know it but I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I classify it as "at your own risk". I respect the hell out of every admin I have run across or dealt with, for real. --ARoseWolf 16:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I was blocked for deleting insulting comments on my own talk page and someone else does not even get a reprimand for deleting 4 different remarks of mine and making multiple disparaging remarks about me? Double Standards here. Buffs (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You consider this "deleting insulting comments", yet have on the one hand no problems claiming pedophilia and so on left and right but fail to see actual issues like the homophobic, transphobic, racist contents of the DW article you defend? Contrary to Liz, I wouldn't suggest that you consider an RfA, as it would go down in flames. Fram (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are we talking about an RfA (sneeringly or not) for a user who should have been blocked or otherwise sanctioned for their behavior above, about which they seem completely unrepentant? --JBL (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are some of my fellow editors sneering in the first place? The incivility is appalling and down right shameful. But carry on chipping away at the foundation of this collaborative effort, nay humanity itself. That makes total sense. I'm not supporting Buffs' position but I'm not supporting the sarcastic and relentless incivility I see here either. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion gradually starts to veer off on a sidetrack one or two posts above or below this. This is my best uninvolved approximation of the place to make the boundary. Please resume discussion about the issue at hand below this hatnote. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strange how you always pipe up when a problematic editor gets criticized for their problem edits, but fail to appear when those editors are incivil themselves (here, and much more egregiously at the LouisAlain discussion). I guess that the collapse of humanity only counts when it comes from some people, and not from others? Shaemful indeed. Fram (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Yes, seriously -- there is an important question here and so maybe if you want to whine about tone you should whine about the tone used by Buffs while repeatedly falsely accusing people of promoting pedophilia etc. FFS. --JBL (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC) That's like saying he did it first so that somehow justifies us disregarding a foundational principle of this encyclopedia because well, he did it first. Incivility is never justified by anyone whether its the initial instance or in response to. Not by Buffs, by me, you, or anyone else. I have no issue with problematic editors being brought to ANI for their problematic edits. But there comes a point when you have said all that needs to be said and it simply becomes piling on. Bring out the issue, discuss the issue, make a ruling and move on. Continuing to attack and go after another human being is shameful and I wont apologize for calling it that. The issue has been discussed. If you have a proposal then make it. --ARoseWolf 12:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Which doesn't change the coincidence that you are swift to patronize one side and ignore the other one (let's face it, in the LouisAlain discussion there was just one person truly horribly incivil, which some dreadful personal attacks: yet you chose to ignore all of that). Fram (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Please show me where I defended any specific personal attack on anyone. Make sure to include diffs of me saying I support personal attacks. Otherwise you are making inferences into what I have said and I suggest not doing that without asking me what I meant because you really have missed the point if that is your conclusion. There was incivility and personal attacks that went both ways. My comments made were for everyone involved. If you chose to only see me as patronizing one side then that is your choice. What I didn't see the need for and I continue to advocate against is the piling on of an editor, especially one that walked away from the encyclopedia even before he was blocked. Louis is gone so continuing to discuss that case is pointless. I will say that one persons attacks does not justify a response in kind. I don't see anything here that says civility is optional. EVRYONE must act in a civil manner at all times. Even knowing that we are human and mistakes will happen it still doesn't justify it. --ARoseWolf 13:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC) I didn't say you "defended" them, I said you "ignored" them. If you meant to address everyone, then it is very unlucky that you only appeared after some hardly incivil comments from one side, and didn't pipe up earlier when you hade plenty of chances to address actual, direct personal attacks. With "especially one that walked away from the encyclopedia even before he was blocked.", you mean LouisAlain, yes? Not only did he announce his departure multiple times over the years, he was editing throughout the discussion and at the time of the block, and announced that he would sock as an IP after the block, just like he apparently did at the French Wikipedia after his block there. "I will say that one persons attacks does not justify a response in kind." No, that's why no one compared LouisAlain to a Nazi, a pervert, a dictator, ... even after he called other editors such names. Most of us know that we shouldn't respond in kind, and most of us don't. But apparently we shouldn't have responded at all, lest humanity collapses. Oh well, at least some of us have the civility not to discuss the perceived negative intentions of others behind their backs. Leading the battle for civility by example eh? Fram (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Incivility is not just calling people names, its tone, its approach. Name calling is an obvious. Louis and anyone should be ashamed for calling anyone those things. It doesn't excuse the responses. What is causing humanity to collapse is the lack of understanding, kindness and civility. Did I say a single thing that wasn't true in that statement? That entire thread became more about the perceived character of a person rather than just a discussion about their problematic edits which is where it began. It moved into personally and relentlessly attacking an individual. There is nothing perceived in what was said in the discussion of Louis. The intent was made plain and clear. Even so I still have respect for most of you and the ones I omitted from that are the ones in that discussion I don't know or haven't involved myself with but I assume are respectable people as well. Nothing on Wikipedia is behind anyone's back. You are free to look at anything I have said anywhere at any time. If you view this as a battle then that's your choice. I don't view it as a battle. I view it as an opportunity for our community to grow and fall back on the principles it was founded on and to check our own interactions with others to ensure we are upholding the principles of civility in our own discussions. I do believe the pillar of civility is quite literally one of the most important but not because it is more important than the others but because the others are easily definable and even easier to correct. Civility is the most disregarded of all of the pillars. Civility is hard to maintain when we feel challenged and when we face incivility directed at ourselves. It is still no excuse to return the like. By that I don't mean returning the exact same words incivility because I don't differentiate the action. There are no types of civility or degrees of incivility. You wont find one list in our policy on civility that shows the degrees by which civility exists or the degree to which we may respond to incivility. Civility is civility. Incivility is incivility. We can keep discussing this and going around in circles if you wish but nothing is going to sway my principles to the point that I will agree that the incivility, tone or otherwise, on this thread or any other thread or by anyone on any of these threads is permissible. Obviously you disagree with my viewpoint and that's okay. We can disagree. --ARoseWolf 13:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC) I see. When you ascribe nefarious motives to people (again, only one side of course) and do so in a place where these people are unlikely to notice it, it is not uncivil or behind their back, as they could have seen it if they really searched for it, and it is all completely factual, no interpretation or opinion injected (and of course no uncivil thing in sight) in "The approach by so many that I hold in high esteem in that thread was vicious incivility. It was targeted for one single purpose, discrediting another human being, not just their work but them, their person, every aspect of them. It was to tear this human being to shreds in the hope they would do exactly what they have done which is quit." I think I will take my civility lessons from someone else. Fram (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Oh, and you know what else is also a sign of civility? Acknowledging the mistakes you make, like claiming that LouisAlain had quit or that I had said that you had "defended" personal attacks: while it is definitely not civil to simply ignore your mistakes and continue as if nothing happened. It gives the strong impression that you are only interested in making your point, and not in listening to what others might have to say. If you want people to listen to you, first show that you are capable of listening to them, learning things from them, and seeing where you might have been wrong. Fram (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Louis' last edit was to his own talk page and that was to blank it. That was on the 25th, the same day he was blocked. His last "official" edit was on the 24th and that was to change a date in an article. He left a message on the AN thread under the word DONE. A day before he was blocked. He blanked his user page the next day. He quit before he was blocked. I did err on one point and that is that you did, in fact, say I had ignored Louis' personal attacks which is also not true. You can cherry pick my statements to try and prove your points but anyone can, if they so choose, look at the sum total of what was said and in what I continue to say. I neither ignore nor defend any incivility, whether that is found in a personal attack, disruptive editing or in the lack of understanding and kindness shown to another human being and regardless of whether it was said in an initial attack or in the 100th response to said attack. No incivility is justified, period, under any circumstances. Was Louis wrong for being uncivil? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. But that doesn't give anyone the excuse to also be uncivil in their tone, remarks or attitude directed back at him. I listen. I read and listen better than most give me credit. And I do evolve and so does my position. I have no issue admitting when I am wrong. --ARoseWolf 16:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC) He was blocked the 25th at 08:19, and then blanked his talk page the same day at 08:49. In the ANI discussion, he was asked to provide the Babel template on his user page: he did this[14], and replied at ANI, starting his reply with Template:Done, "often used on talk pages to show clearly that a section of discussion has been resolved", not an indication that one is "done" with Wikipedia and ceases editing altogether. So no, "He left a message on the AN thread under the word DONE. A day before he was blocked." is not really correct, unless you consider "29 minutes before" the same as "the next day". "He blanked his user page the next day": he didn't blank his user page, he blanked his user talk page, "30 minutes later". And then he went to dewiki and clearly indicated that he will continue to edit here, but as a sockpuppet. So no indication that he quit before the block, and every indication that he had and has no intention of quitting. Fram (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not have many regrets, but reading this ANI thread is one of them. Minkai (talk to me)_{(see where I screwed up)} 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Second that. ––FormalDude talk 12:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

CIR editor; lack of communication

• 919499sp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

None of their edits are tagged as being from mobile devices, so likely not a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, so likely that they are ignoring or are not able to comprehend the issues about their editing, which beyond the lack of formatting notably include a stunning lack of basic writing skills (spelling/grammar/even just coherence). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Possibly ELL/using automated "blind idiot" translations? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 05:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a liability and a time sink. Persistently adding misplaced external links instead of references, despite numerous warnings. No response to messages on user talk page, so a CIR block seems the only option. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Since this report was raised, 919499sp has made just one edit - this, which if anything is worse than usual: the last portion isn't even a valid URL. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The URL works for me if I copy and paste it into my browser. The date is wrong, though. The death occurred on March 5, not 6. That doesn't mean the user shouldn't be blocked, just saying.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, doesn't look like they're responding to or even acknowledging concerns. "CIR" can stand for "communication is required", too, and obviously that is also missing here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Still (today) adding misplaced external links instead of references, despite all the warnings. Still no sign of attempting to learn or to communicate, so CIR block still seems the only option. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits to twin towns sections

• 178.143.50.74 (talk · contribs)
• 178.143.50.89 (talk · contribs)
• 193.87.63.204 (talk · contribs)
• 95.102.249.250 (talk · contribs)

User:FromCzech just left a message on my talk page about these four IPs who have been making many unsourced changes to twin towns/international relations sections of city articles without any attempt at discussion.

I think this is a pretty obvious case of disruptive editing and sockpuppetry (the indefblocked User:HunCzeLit224 basically had the same editing patterns and the top IP has already been blocked twice), however I am marginally involved as I challenged one of the IPs about some IPA edits, and FromCzech's AIV report was removed without any meaningful comment, so I'm bringing this here for further consideration. Thanks. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked + 46.29.3.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Foxglovesi - Image spam

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

This editor seems to be using images as a backdoor route to get spam related to their computer repair business into Wikipedia. They have uploaded 7 images to commons, all bar one of which have an enormous watermark containing the web address of their business. Here [15] they add duplicate images to the article, both the things in their aerial shots (the theatre and Shakespeare's house) are already illustrated in the article, there is no need for an extra watermarked image. Here [16] they move the existing infobox image to the bottom of the article, then add 4 aerial shots, all watermarked with the web address of their computer repair business. Here [17] they replace a completely adequate infobox image with an aerial shot, without even bothering to update the caption, again with an enormous watermark giving the link to their computer repair business. Thanks, 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the image additions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Their "defense" is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, with a side order of "otherwise how will people contact me?". These aerial shots are also tagged "own work" which I am a smidgen skeptical about. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The images having a watermark is inconsequential to me. I am happy to remove it if it means I haven't wasted my time in attempting to contribute to Wikipedia. Please let me know if its worth me re-uploading the images as if I am going to have issues with users complaining they are spam I wont bother. I personally think its rather ridiculous that my have been regarded as such. All the images I uploaded showed something new. For example the RSC tower that was built onto the theater building. Any header image I "replaced" (I added it back to the relevant part of the page) was because it showed something specific like the church in Brailes while my image showed a large portion of the village. All these images are my own work, I have no idea how you're able to just assume bad faith over and over again. What proof would you like? I'm pretty bored of this now. Foxglovesi (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Orangemike subsequently blocked Foxglovesi for 31 hours for promotion. Their images are up for deletion on Commons, and I had tried to explain policy to them on their talk page. However, Nil Einne has now schooled me at the Commons deletion discussion: I had misunderstood that uploaders are allowed to retain copyright. Foxglovesi was right about that, and showed good faith by removing the watermark from one of their images, File:StratfordTheatreAndObsevationTower stratford-computers.co.uk.jpg; in addition, not all of their uploads have the business URL in the file name. They are making valid points about the usefulness of individual images, although they have not done so at a talk page and they initially edit warred. They're learning, and I was wrong about the legalities. (We also shouldn't assume something is impossible just because it's relatively new; they've said on their talk page that they take aerial photos like this using drones as part of their business.) I find their choice of "otherstuff" image examples odd, but we may have been overly harsh here. (It's taken me a while to type at Commons and now here; last I looked, they had a second unblock request open.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

If they would just take the adverts out of the file names, I would not have a problem. You do NOT put an advertising for your business into a Wikicommons file name. You can license with an attribution requirement; that's perfectly fine, as Yngvadottir was reminded; but you can't persist in putting those spamlinks for a commercial enterprise into the file names themeselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: They didn't remove the watermark from that image, that was the one upload that didn't contain one (hence the "bar one" comment in my original comment here). There were two reasons I proposed the images for deletion - The claims that they were under a creative commons licence didn't match up with the website they were claimed to come from, which is under a standard "all rights reserved" copyright, and the obvious spam watermarks and file names. I believe that they have adequately addressed the copyright concerns, but I am still of the opinion that the watermarks are blatant spam and were intended to promote their computer repair business. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: Also their explanation that they have a side business in drone photography makes no sense - why on earth would a computer repair shop have a side business in aerial photography? If, as they claim, they are doing this commercially and are including the URL watermark to direct people to their photography why does their website contain no images, no mention of the images (or their licencing), and no mention of drone photography? As far as I can see what they're doing is putting these images into the infoboxes of articles so that when you make a web search for "Stratford-upon-Avon" the first thing that pops up in google is an image with their website in the corner. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think the watermarks are egregious, whatever their process of thought may have been. As I say, I'm scratching my head at their coming up with a Geograph image as their example of others already doing this kind of thing in images. If it has a watermark, I'm blinder than I thought. But since they transferred all their files to Commons—even this screen shot, which from our point of view pretty well proves the point about the watermarks being deleterious to the encyclopaedia—the file names are surely a matter for Commons, and it's trivial to move the files if one has that right over there? They also edit warred with you and others and were slow to discuss. I'm very much leaving it up to the admins to respond now that they're blocked. But it's none of my business if they also do drone photography, although this shouldn't be the first or even the umpteenth place they advertise the resulting pics. I do think we might be able to use some of the pics. It's the advertising that's wrong (and the high-handed edit-warring; but I've seen edit-warring in the firm belief one's photos are the best photos so many times, it may be a more widespread thing than the belief one's prose is always superior). Yngvadottir (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: There are literally images on the same page with the website url in the file name Image with URL in filename Please explain your problem with my image but not with this one.

@192.76.8.74: I'm getting pretty fed up of your bad faith arguments at this point. Why can't I? would you like a copy of an invoice of a person I have done drone photography for? I am in the process of updating my website. I have no idea how in your world its is beyond all reason to do both photography and computing.

@Yngvadottir: I image warred SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE their reasoning was: "You appear not to understand that by uploading an image at Commons, you surrender your right to claim copyright on it" WHICH IS PATENTLY FALSE INFORMATION. I have to think your trying to confuse multiple things on purpose at this point. I have never defended anything about watermarks other than that they aren't 'enormous' which was the original complaint. I am quite clearly referencing that image for the website URL being in the file name. I am perfectly happy for images with watermarks to be removed, I'll be re-uploading them without watermarks. How you've managed to confuse these two things is just amazing to me. Foxglovesi (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Foxglovesi: I'm sorry I was wrong about image copyright. And thank you for being willing to reupload the photos without the watermarks. It demonstrates that you have been listening to our concerns. However, having Geograph.org in a file name is not comparable to your uploading files with the URL of your business in the file name so that people can contact your business (which is pretty much the definition of advertising). Geograph Britain and Ireland is a charity, its images are a free, geographically indexed repository, see Geograph Britain and Ireland#Long term archival for their use on Commons, and I believe the file names are from the bot batch uploading them. From my point of view, your file names with URLs are relatively trivial anyway, since readers will only see them if they click through, and since somebody was kind enough to give me the file mover right on Commons, so if the set were not under discussion, I'd have already moved those that you uploaded with that kind of file name. This community is not monolithic; we do a lot of discussing, and that's why articles have talk pages, which is where one is supposed to go when a disagreement arises, rather than edit warring. (I've piped up at Talk:Stratford-upon-Avon for use of your watermark-free image with the tower, but others disagree.) But advertising of any kind is not allowed here; the watermarks would be unacceptable even if they were smaller. Even on your user page, all that's allowed is a brief, non-promotional statement about your business, together with other information about yourself or your Wikipedia editing (see here, near the end of the section). Yngvadottir (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

User: Selfstudier

Selfstudier has engaged in disruptive behavior repeatedly on IP related pages recently instead of trying to build consensus.

He's refused to abide by agreements, sought to recruit others to help support his case instead of allowing changes to go forth, reverted text he didn't like while being unwilling to explain his objections to the content (certainly not using the MOS), then makes an ad hominem argument against another editor instead of making any sort of constructive input.

Quotes:

• "It is what it is, I will edit the article if I see a need to, just as you have been doing, whether or not I agreed, right? " (link)

• "As I said, what I am interested in is the view of other editors, via RFC if needs be." (link)

• "And "not an improvement" (= "it was fine the way it was before") is a very common reason for a revert. Your edit essentially added nothing of any consequence. " (link)

• "I edit and here you are again, never having been on the page in recent times. Admit it, you have a thing for me, that's it, isn't it?" (link).

Can he please be given some sort of push to behave more collaboratively and constructively?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but this does not seem to be behaviour which would warrant opening a case at ANI. Might I suggest a quick withdrawal and a commitment on both sides to resolve any issues through the correct content dispute resolution channels? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. See here.Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: I've seen zero willingness from Selfstudier to change any of his behavior. So what do you feel the appropriate dispute resolution venue would be? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

And to be clear, I'm looking for the following from Selfstudier.

1. Agree to abide by group decisions.

2. Agree to participate collaboratively.

3. Agree to base his changes, and particularly his reverts, based on the manual of style.

If he's unwilling to do these things, that's a problem, right? Especially from a very active editor.-- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any of these problems here, I see a series of difficult disagreements over content in a very sensitive area. The correct response to this would be to exhaustively discuss the situations, then if necessary, go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or if that fails (or if several users are involved) to resolve things through RfC. The only example of content which might require a visit to ANI (if it were part of a trend of unjustified allegations) was a comment that selfstudier made where he suggested that Inf-in MD was stalking him, a misconception which arose because you canvassed Inf-in MD to join the talk page in which you were arguing with selfstudier. It is difficult to resolve these questions, but ANI is not the place, and your trigger happy attitude is probably heading towards boomerang territory. I'd take a deep breath and go back to substantive discussions on article content. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: Okay, I just find his behavior more than a bit exasperating. If he was willing to engage in exhaustive debate to come to consensus, I'd be fully supportive of him. But that doesn't seem to the case. Instead he just seems to make a few comments, then storm out with an attitude of "I do what I want" if things don't go his way. I just looked at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard again, but it's only for problems on a single page, and SelfStudiers actions are across multiple pages. What would a RFC look like in this case?

On one page today, he says that he didn't revert a change I made because he had any substantive objections to the new content. He just did so to make a point, and thus made a LOT more work for everyone:

Selfstudier: "I don't really give a hoot about the edit itself, what I object to..." (link)

On another page, some of us are trying to come up with the appropriate due weight of criticism in the lead. No response to the meat of the conversation about the appropriate weight, just a seeming threat to revert.

Selfstudier: "I rebalanced the lead with different criticism, there is plenty more that could be added ..."

Bob drobbs: "There was absolutely no consensus to pack the lead full of criticism. Criticism taking up 0% of the lead is clearly inappropriate (note the entire lead sucked a week ago). But criticism taking up 40% of the lead is equally inappropriate. If you're going to continue to keep "rebalancing" the lead toward tons of criticism you need to explain your rationale for that."

Selfstudier: "Reverting again, keep it up" (link)

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier was taken to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement over their IPA editing just a day before your report here, Bob drobbs, and the AE admins unanimously declined to sanction them. Were you not aware of this? Bishonen | tålk 11:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I took a look and that was a report for a violation of the 1RR. It doesn't surprise me that was closed as it doesn't seem it was true. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Selfstudier, RE: Reverting again, keep it up — why are you responding to a substantive comment in such an unsubstantive, terse and confrontational way? I don't understand. (Though, granted, I have little background into all this atm.) El_C 21:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I had thought to simply ignore the initial complaint here as it is entirely without merit. Now it appears as a clothesline on which to hang further accusations against me. If we are going to discuss this, would you first please ask Bob drobbs to provide diffs in support of his evidence-free allegations above, specifically "He's refused to abide by agreements" (diffs and specify which agreement I have not abided by), "sought to recruit others to help support his case instead of allowing changes to go forth" (diffs and evidence of said recruitment) and "reverted text he didn't like while being unwilling to explain his objections to the content" (diffs of said reverts please). The "ad hominem" assertion, which is not in fact ad hominem, can be seen at the BDS article talk page here and arose there as a result of canvassing by Bob drobbs of editor Inf-in MD here. That BDS section is also where the partial quote "I don't really give a hoot about the edit itself, what I object to..." is from and Bob drobbs has truncated the quote and avoided the context, namely his reversion (again) of material in the face of opposition from 3 editors, insisting that he is correct and the three are wrong.

Of course you are familiar with one element, the recent filing against me at AE. Then perhaps a good place to begin is with the SWU page at the point where it was said that I reverted (on the 29th) this edit of 24 September by Bob drobbs here, please notice the lead as was and the tags at the top of the article following this edit, which removed the sole criticism from the article lead, instead placing it in the body.(en passant, an edit sourced to rollingstone, an unreliable source per RSN, was also added at the same time). And here is the root of the problem, since then all the back and forth editing and talk page brouhaha has been about those tags, how and whether they should be removed and the anodyne nature of the lead, which two editors in particular are attempting to maintain criticism free and SWU rosy with myself and more recently others trying to include pertinent criticism. As you are aware, I revert only infrequently, usually preferring instead to add material and that is the case here as well. Frankly the latest reverts (yet again reverting well founded criticism from the lead) just got on my nerves, thus the terse comment.

Let me finally say that I am more than happy for any complaint to be properly filed at the AE board and I will accept whatever judgement is rendered there but it is not reasonable or practical to have an unstructured discussion here about a series of complex events. I don't know whether this answers your initial question but it is the best I can do in the circumstances. Regards. Selfstudier (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, that's a lot. But more narrowly, what I quoted (your response), just rung very oddly to me. Because either you're having a conversation or you're not having one. That Reverting again, keep it up, it almost seems like a non sequitur. I suppose I'm just having a hard time conceiving in what context such a retort would make sense as a reply to that ["Criticism", etc.].

RE: WP:AE. Indeed, personally, I think that if you insist on having this complaint filed at AE, that ought to be your right. Your right to not get sunk by a structureless, diff-less, free-flowing, word-limitless, multi-threaded discussion. I'm with you there. Sorry, I otherwise had a challenging time following your explanation in full. El_C 23:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: On the narrow question, which as indicated I don't really think can be divorced from the broader questions, you may have noticed that I have refrained from engaging in any further discussion on the talk page since making that comment so in that sense you could say that I am not currently having a conversation since at present I do not believe that it would serve any useful purpose and anything that I did say would likely then be partially quoted here out of context.Selfstudier (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't noticed. But even absent context, comments such as Admit it, you have a thing for me, that's it, isn't it? are inappropriate. And not just tonally, but also, it isn't something to allege on an article talk page. Either you report it in the correct venue (with diffs), as WP:HOUNDING, or it's an out-of-place WP:ASPERSION (i.e. evidence-less). El_C 23:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: The editor appeared out of the blue, never having edited the page before and I explained above how that came about, canvassing and involving the same two editors from the SWU page. I did then say that it would be better to discuss on respective talk pages and the issue would have rested there were it not for it being raised here by the canvasser himself. Point taken however, I accept the criticism.Selfstudier (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@SelfStudier: Per your request, here's context of where you seem to be refusing to abide by agreement:

Bob Drobbs: Is there really a need to rehash this entire conversation on RSN, or can we just move toward closing it?

M. Bitton: Closing it won't change the fact that even if consensus is achieved here (it doesn't look that way), it will be invalidated by the inappropriate venue.

Bob Drobbs to Selfstudier: Are you willing to agree to remove the content from this source, and replace it with content from other sources? Or are you going to insist that this conversation continue and be relocated to WP:RSN?

SelfStudier: It is what it is, I will edit the article if I see a need to, just as you have been doing, whether or not I agreed, right?

That sure seems like you're saying that you're going to keep editing as you see fit, irrespective of any agreement. There's no hint of what venue you might find acceptable, and that you feel entitled to keep editing as you see fit because you believe I've also engaged in some misbehavior?

As for your attempted rejection of this complaint based on it being a "series of complex events", I'd argue that's the very nature of a disruptive editor. And in this case particular the sub-section on consensus building. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Where is the agreement you claim that I am not abiding by? I agreed to nothing nor was I required to.Selfstudier (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You are required to agree to the principles of consensus building, and abiding by group decisions.

When you say you'll just do your own thing irrespective of any decisions that might be made, and won't clarify which venue (if any) you'll accept, IMO you're being disruptive, and making things really hard for other editors. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Now you have changed your claim. Kindly explain which "group decision" I have not abided by. Please stop implying disruption without providing any evidence of it.Selfstudier (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

What about "sought to recruit others to help support his case instead of allowing changes to go forth". Would you like to explain that allegation?Selfstudier (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's step back to.."and won't clarify which venue (if any) you'll accept"...and ..."There's no hint of what venue you might find acceptable"... per above. What you have neglected to mention is that it was I that suggested you take the source to rsn and yourself who decided not to do that instead taking it to the NPOV noticeboard. Having realized your mistake, you sought then to get me to "agree" to take it to the rsn noticeboard where I had suggested it be taken to begin with.(What I said "It is up to you to decide whether to take the matter to RSN which was what I had suggested in the first place, I don't really know why you brought it here.") I mean, really.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment The editor is continuing to edit the SWU article without responding here. It should be clear by now that this whole business is about that article and the "SelfStudiers actions are across multiple pages. What would a RFC look like in this case?" is nothing more than a red herring, there are two other pages, the NPOV noticeboard, just dealt with and the BDS talk page, also dealt with. There is no complaint of disruption filed at my talk page, in fact no comment at all from Bob drobbs at my talk page up until the notice of this filing.Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Now we come to the third allegation "reverted text he didn't like while being unwilling to explain his objections to the content (certainly not using the MOS)". If we count as two, the reverts dealt with in the previously referenced AE filing, that appears to be the sum total of reverts that I have made in the period referenced in my reply to El_C above. So to what reverts does this allegation refer? Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Response: Our back and forth reached a point of not being productive so I stepped aside to give time for other editors to weigh in. The problems span multiple pages. My points above stand. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

3 unsubstantiated allegations and 3 pages is what I see?Selfstudier (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment as nobody else has adressed the "elephant in the room": There has been som very active off-wikipedia canvassing about the StandWithUs-article. I noticed it first, when newbie after newbie arrived on the talk-page, demanding that we removed the description "righ-wing" in the lead, see here. And sure enough; a certain off-wiki blogger has kept a campaign about it. (I will not spill the WP:BEANS, but anyone can email me about links). Iow: expect massive WP:MEAT on the StandWithUs-article, and that User:Selfstudier has the energy to fight this WP:MEAT-army: kudos to you! cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Huldra: Irrespective of your thoughts on other editors, or what you guess their motivations might be, every editor including Selfstudier has an obligation to try to come to Consensus and base our edits on the Manual Of Style. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Editors are also obliged not to make unsubstantiated claims about other editors. Personally I try to base my edits on V and NPOV, the MOS being merely a guideline.Selfstudier (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Well, it's an important guideline the editors are supposed to attempt to follow!

And are you willing to work with me to achieve consensus on difficult and nuanced topics? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I have been working collaboratively on such topics with many editors for a few years now. Are you willing to cease making allegations that you cannot substantiate?Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Bigfella77

• Bigfella77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has continued genre warring after a final warning. For example: Special:Diff/1047652282, Special:Diff/1047752773, Special:Diff/1047647857/1047659410, Special:Diff/1047753587. Please block 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 12:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I know genre-warriors are a dime a dozen, but I could swear I've seen this exact style of "thriller" and "neo-noir" additions for crime movies before. But can't for the life of me figure out who it was. Anybody remember? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the first article this person changed was Heat (film) I took a brief look into the article history and found another recent user who was labelling things as "neo noir" (diff) Not an exact match, it only looks vaguely similar and there could easily be a few editors with love of the "neo noir" label (just as there are plenty more editors with their own particular favorite buzzwords) but perhaps an admin might be able to quickly check the IP address/ISP range and rule out the possibility that Bigfella77 is a sock-puppet of User:TheUnbeholden. -- 109.78.201.233 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The new-noir taggers nearly always hit Blade Runner, so that’s usually a good place to check for foot based clothing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@109.78: I noticed the overlap with TheUnbeholden as well, but I'm hesitant to make any sort of accusation there. The case I seem to recall wasn't anyone established like them. (And it's not like "<arguably neo-noir movie> is neo-noir" is a unique take. It's the manner of expressing that take that's distinctive.) @Canterbury Tail: Looks like that's all been IPs there. So maybe it's multiple people with the same favorite genre to add. Maybe an IP-hopper who finally created an account. The more I look, the more I feel I've sent myself on a wild goose chase, so... 🤷 I imagine it'll be an indef if they do it even one more time, so I guess it doesn't really matter whether this is a first account or not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an accusation, I think we can politely point out coincidences and make gentle suggestions without causing offense. It remains up to admins with access to the check user tools if they want to look into it further, although they are probably already too busy with the next disruptive editor. -- 109.78.201.233 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

He seems to be back at it again already as an ipv6 anon Special:Contributions/2600:8807:E4F:3A00:98E4:A2F8:34DD:B0B3 -- 109.78.201.233 (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked Special:Contributions/2600:8807:E4F:3A00:0:0:0:0/64 for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Ireland & Northern Ireland user issue

Please look at Fiachratwohig16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who so far has been removing mention of Northern Ireland from various articles/templates. I know there are restrictions on reverts relating to Ireland and Northern Ireland, and want to dump this in the laps of Admins. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill, this lap is for kittens! Anyway, less seriously, they haven't engaged in that kind of disruption since your 3rd warning to them. Which is to say: ethno-national —or religio-national? I dunno— disruption. But their 2 most recent edits (out of a grand total of 9) still look like vandalism/disruption nonetheless.

I guess it wouldn't hurt to give them a final warning (which I'll do momentarily) and to indef as a vandalism-only account if they still persist after that. Feel free to notify me personally if that happens. That said, any admin who feels this is too lenient/WP:PACT'y of me, should feel free to just immediately block. El_C 16:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks. I tried to send you a kitten but it wouldn't fit through the cable. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries, DuncanHill. And thank you for the kitten try — I blame that one electron-positron pair, they're always up to no good. El_C 18:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ack it’s just the usual sectarian Northern Ireland doesn’t exist vandalism. I see it constantly. I tend to just revert and block and move on as this isn’t something that is a mistake or an editor will see the light over. You’re welcome to always ping me over any Northern Ireland/Ireland items, I seem to be the admin who sticks his nose in the most there. Canterbury Tail talk 19:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What can I say? I'm a hopeless (dumb) optimist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But I rarely see Northern Ireland disruption on RfPP, for example, whereas AP2/EE/ARBPIA/ARBIPA/AA2/KURDS are pretty much a daily occurrence. Which is a good sign for those across the channel and/or the Irish Sea. El_C 20:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe because I have most of the target articles on my watchlist, as do several others, and it's generally caught pretty quickly as a result. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. But I'm sure lots of folks have, say, Wyoming on their watchlists, and yet... Anyway, I'm moving to Yellowstone National Park, see you all there. El_C 21:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

El C, in the spirit of being pedantic, Yellowstone extends into Idaho and Montana a little bit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, that's okay, I'm forming my own state in the park proper. I'm sure the fine folks of those states will be fans of my brand of politics & governance. Oh, and the Feds, they'd love it. National Park Service will roll out the Red carpet. Moose invited, of course (but just the one). El_C 00:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

El C, I actually took Super 8 footage of a moose chasing my brother in Yellowstone in 1968. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow. A most unenviable position. And obviously you did the responsible thing: filmed (for safety). I didn't see any Meese when I was there. But I did see chipmunks (I know, shocking). Of all the national parks I've been to, though, I think it might be my favourite (and I've seen the sunrise at Grand Canyon National Park). Mind you, Olympic National Park's Bigleaf Maple is also kinda the best. So many great parks to annex! El_C 05:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The poor lad. Doesn't know the name of his whereabouts :( GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Emergency Block

For user Ebbedlila. Running some automated tool to spam tags to thousands of articles. Most are incorrect. I have rollbacked some of them until I can take a look at each. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

For example, they feel some nineteenth-century Zamindar to be an Indian politician.

A college is an Indian politician.

A social organization is an Indian politician.

A branch of Buddhism is an Indian politician.

A prominent actress who barely dabbled for a year with a minor party is an Indian politician.

There are countless cases like these.

A very polarizing figure of Kashmir is an Indian politician.

A child rights activist is an Indian politician as is some social worker.

A bureaucrat is an Indian politician.

An Indian Independence activist is an Indian politician.

A career-diplomat is an Indian politician. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

They have already stopped over an hour before this post. I will revoke AWB access until this issue is resolved. Please notify them of this thread as required by the big yellow box that you see when you edit this page. ST47 (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for my errors. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the mess editing like that. I had went through a series of categories, specifically Category:Indian politicians by century and just picked through some before I just went through them all. I missed a bunch because I just held down the enter key. Ebbedlila (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Ebbedlila, what are you going to do to fix the incorrect edits that you have made among the correct ones? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I will go through each of them to review. I would also request that someone mass revert me for every edit in October 20221. Ebbedlila (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 18:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I feel like I'd get bored after holding down an enter key for over two hours. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Ebbedlila: The other suggestions/warnings in your talkpage history are kinda irrelevant here, but this suggestion about using previews was given just 9 days ago. Kindly be careful with mass edits, especially with AWB whenever you get back the access to it. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 22:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Usernamekiran:, honestly, I want it back soon. I do wish to re-do similar edit, but using previews this time. Something, I am regretful that I didn't do. Ebbedlila (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ST47: and Phil Bridger, I had earlier requested a mass rollback for myself and completed by Elli. I am truly sorry for all the mistakes I have done. I should have been better at this.

I hope that I can regain the AWB access for future use. To remedy such errors, I will stick to typos, and avoid adding short descriptions such carelessly in the future, even if it means formal restrictions/warning. In the meantime, I had went through some of my edits and “manually” re-added some short descriptions as they were accurate.

Ebbedlila (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

List of catgirls

I had thought perhaps this belongs in the edit warring noticeboard, but that noticeboard seems more geared toward addressing a single or very small number of users engaging in problematic behavior, whereas the situation described below involves multiple users where either position is arguable.

There has been a lot of edit warring in List of catgirls over one particular entry, the one for Hermione Grainger. The entry in question was added on June 29, 2021[18]. Since then there have been multiple attempts to remove the entry, all of which have been reverted. There have been multiple users on both sides, and while some may have pushed it to the 3RR none have significantly exceeded it. This has happened repeatedly every few weeks.

It's unclear whether the entry belongs or not. I think a good enough case can be made either way, enough so that the removal may be considered good-faith edits, yet some of those who have reverted the edits have characterized the removal as vandalism.

The preferred solution in the Wikipedia world is to discuss in the talk page. I attempted to start such a discussion on 14 August 2021[19], but a month and a half later there have been no responses. Then in the last couple of days there was another spate of edit warring over this entry that resulted in protection. I have not been party to any of these edits other than one trivially minor edit in an attempt to draw attention to the discussion thread.

Is there anything that can be done to get the interested parties on both sides to actually discuss this? mwalimu59 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What, I already said Meow! El_C 18:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you considered starting an RfC? That might attract additional perspectives, and allow a firm consensus informed by experienced editors. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC to settle this matter. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The recent edit history of Granger looks pretty bad and involves at least one of the same participants. Narky Blert (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring over whether Hermione Granger is a catgirl? Now that's what I call WP:LAME. Mlb96 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

We have had edit wars on whether Donald Trump was a racist, and on whether George Floyd was murdered. Which I would consider more absurd than debating the transformations of a fictional character. Dimadick (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

History merge request on Mohammad Jorjandi due to copy-paste page move from draft

I nominated this for speedy deletion based upon it being a copy-past page move from Draft:Mohammad Jorjandi, but an IP removed the speedy deletion nomination.

Shortly thereafter, M3754d moved the draft page, which contained the original edits on the draft, to User:Mohammad Jorjandi. M3754d then moved the page back from the userspace to the draftspace, leaving a redirect.

Shortly after moving the draft back-and-forth from the userspace, the draft was apparently blanked, leading to the draft's deletion by GB fan.

This still appears to be a copy-paste page move, and I believe that this page should be deleted. However, we have now we have lost the attribution of the edits that were in the draft, and being a non-admin I can't restore anything.

I'd request that a history merge be undertaken, if possible, so as to restore the public history of the edits on the page in line with WP:CUT. I'm not able to do this due to my lacking the toolset, but I figured that if I were to ask here that it would be the right place to find someone who has the knowledge and permissions to do so. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I am on it, will take care of the history merge.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Mikehawk10: For future reference, Wikipedia:Requests for history merge is the place specifically for such requests. SpinningSpark 23:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: Thank you for pointing me to that board; I'll be sure to use it in the future. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous user 103.210.146.65 and 103.210.146.77 with significant proportion of edits reverted

Hello, new here so hope I'm doing this report right. Here to flag User:103.210.146.65 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which if you look at his contributions, as of today he has 195 of 304 (64%) edits reverted. User has been warned on their Talk Page several times... but given it is an IP user I presume they are not seeing the warnings. I personally encountered this user in the history of Big Four accounting firms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) where he keeps trying to add US headquarter locations for the accounting firms. It looks like he also has a related IP address User:103.210.146.77 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which has also made the same change to add US headquarter locations to the US. Similar to the first IP, this second IP has 181 of 298 (61%) of edits reverted and warnings on their Talk Page. I suspect that:

1. As an anonymous IP user, they are not seeing the talk page warnings
2. They are using multiple IP to evade any bans
3. All edits are on mobile and of consistently sub-par quality, often subject to reversion.

Not sure what to do about this, if the user IP(s) can be blocked or some other sanction? The pattern of behaviour is similar across both IP, and despite the talk page warnings, there has been no observable change in actions by the user. CDB-Man (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months. Just blocking on sight at this point, with any IP/range they happen to use. Already blocked for one month on July 25 for more of the same (even then). Enough people have tried reaching out at this point on the talk pages of the IPs involved, but have hit a brick wall. El_C 05:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El_C -- I see you blocked only User:103.210.146.65, can you also block the seemingly connected IP User:103.210.146.77 as well? -- CDB-Man (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

CDB-Man, np. But that account hasn't edited in a few weeks, so it might be Stale at this point. El_C 06:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point. I will report back on IP #2 if he picks up activity to ban evade or something like that. CDB-Man (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: For the record, the IP editor edited earlier as 5.178.202.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), displayed the same pattern of disruption and amassed three blocks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's right, there's been several iterations of this user/s, so becoming a bit of an LTA at this point. And it wouldn't surprise me if it goes further back still. I think Mark83 (courtesy ping) might have a better sense of the scope and scale and timeline involved. El_C 13:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• 331dot, who blocked several of these IPs several times at times, might also have some insights into all this. El_C 13:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive paid editor, possible sockpuppetry on Public Investment Fund by User:Riyadhcafe87

This is my first ANI request so I will apologize in advance if I make any mistakes in formatting. I did not know exactly what noticeboard category this would fall under nor what possible action to request so I have created this section here.

I was first made aware of the article on the Public Investment Fund (to be referred to as PIF) by Riyadhcafe87 yesterday after being notified for an RfC (full discussion here). Riyadhcafe87 is a paid editor who works for the PIF, as disclosed on their user page. The RfC concerned removal of claims in the lead of the PIF's obscurity and lack of knowledge about the fund's investments (see diff for state of lead at start of discussion). Riyadhcafe87 had made 2 requests on the talk page before hand: an edit request that was declined by Quetstar and a WP:3O (here) to remove a recent addition to the lead to include the same claims as those in the RfC that notified me. The edit request was declined due to not being written from a NPOV as a COI editor, while Pyrrho the Skeptic remarked that an RfC should be started to fully discuss the matter of the 3O. Thus, the aforementioned RfC.

RFC itself

The RfC claimed that criticism of the PIF as obscure was "not a prominent enough line of commentary for PIF". However, myself and other editors (Snooganssnoogans, Quetstar, Huldra) believed it was prominent enough, while other editors (Pyrrho) had more issues with the old date of the source than the claim itself. The proposal was to remove it from the lead, but note that similar criticism had been removed from the body by an IP address here.

I believe Riyadhcafe87 discussed in multiple ways that were disruptive:

• Moving the goalposts

He kept asking for more and more sources on the PIF being non-transparent, even after they were provided. I provided many sources diff, which he then rebutted as either not relevant, asking for a source when none is needed (non-membership of an organization where the members are listed on its website), or not truly addressing the criticism I had brought up "this is another point" "this looks like the same article" (diff). Note: One of my sources was a deadlink, which I have fixed today.

Instances of him continuing to ask for sources after I had listed them, even after the RfC was closed: diff, diff, diff.

Him never responding to a very long reply I made outlining my perspective on the topic: diff of my edit

• WP:Wikilawyering

I hope I am not using this term incorrectly, if I am please educate me on what term to use best as I do not want to fall into name-calling. He kept using WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE as an argument for removing criticism of the PIF due to "undue weight", and while some were correct uses (just calling for more sources), after some time they became incorrect. These were either explicit or implicit:

• diff
• diff

Used WP:CIVIL while ignoring calls to let it go:

• Use of civil diff
• Ignoring calls to let it go and accusing Quetstar of trying to cause a firediff

• Failed to properly disclose WP:PAID until after months of editing and start of RfC

here

• Fallacious argumentation

See my previously linked edit calling them out diff as well as another one I made diff.

Similar conduct in other sections of the talk page

• Moving the goalposts/Wikilawyering diff

• WP:Bludgeoning

I preferred to call this out when referring to the whole talk page rather than within the RfC as it is then when it is most clear. Some of these actions could be understood as impatience but overall almost feel like harassment as they frequently do not let 24 hours pass before re-pinging an editor (forcing a response):

• Quetstar

18 August diff

• Snooganssnoogans

I will preface this by saying that Snooganssnoogans' conduct also was not great, but he edited in good faith and has a history going over many years of editing in controversial articles against paid editors/vandals, examples: Talk:Center_for_Immigration_Studies, sockpuppetry, list in their user page, and just a cursory look at their contributions reveals a massive ammount of undid revisions to PR edits. I'm sure they can add notable examples if they feel so inclined, but I think that is unnecessary.

WP:Bludgeoning: diff, diff (the reason I think this is bludgeoning is that a {{no ping}} mention would have been enough).

Possible sockpuppeting

I'm not entirely sure of this one, but thought I'd mention it so more experienced editors can judge for themselves. There have been 2 IP edits on the page which might be connected to Riyadhcafe87:

• IP1: diff, made from an IP which on a quick search appeared as in the same street as multiple Saudi holding companies, which could possibly have connections to either the PIF, the Saudi Government, or Riyadhcafe87.
• IP2: diff, made from a mobile IP 20 minutes from the Saudi London Embassy, and multiple Saudi government offices in London. Most likely to be Riyadhcafe87, due to their proficient level of English and disclosed connection to the PIF.

Conclusion

I don't really know what exactly would be the correct action for dealing with Riyadhcafe87, but I strongly believe that the page should be semi-protected to prevent vandalism/PR edits from IP users in the future. Same goes for connected articles Future Investment Initiative Institute, Mohammed bin Salman, and Yasir Al-Rumayyan, which are frequent targets of IP edits, paid editors connected to Saudi ministries or the PIF, and controversial articles. Please do respond on what your thoughts on the matter are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz (talk • contribs) 08:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion:

@A. C. Santacruz: If you suspect sockpuppetry, gather your evidence and create a case page at WP:SPI; the people there have the tools needed to look under the hood and can link accounts to isp address and such. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that. Just thought I'd include the ip edits here as well if a semi-protection is considered. Much appreciated. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 10:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Update, SPI report filed in appropriate channel. However, rest of my incident report here is still needing discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 11:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• I did a preliminary sweep and found two suspect accounts. AS for the others mentioned, Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) has been blocked once and is apparently rough around the edges, but I see nothing in the contribution history to suggest anything other than a hard contributing wikipedian. Huldra (talk · contribs) has been blocked a few times for editos on or relating to the middle eat, but not this region, and the diversity of edits and timeline cast major doubt that this is a sock account or an SPA account. As with Snooganssnoogans, I see only a hard working wikipedia contributor. It may simply be a case of too few participants and perhaps a a few ugly words, so maybe whats need most is a reminder that everyone should Assume Good Faith, Keep Calm & Carry On. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• There was no sockpuppetry suspected of these users. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 13:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at everybody mentioned here just to be safe. I've been the point man for an LTA case and its been a doozy, so it's gotten to be second nature for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair, thanks for your due diligence :D. Hope I didn't sound too passive-aggressive. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This user has really tested my patience. If I was an admin, I would have blocked him forever. Quetstar (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Note additional WP:BLUDGEONING since nominating. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, My primary interest is in Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, my secondary interest is in the Gulf States (ie GCC-states). Now there is a big difference between my primary and secondary interests, and that is the huge amount of paid professional punters involved with the GCC-countries. Make no mistake: the GCC rulers pay millions $$$ each year to (mostly Western) "Reputation managers"/"advertising companies"/"PR firms" etc, in order to "manage their reputation" online. I see them all over (see eg Talk:Yousef_Al_Otaiba#Paid_editing?); they often work "in concert"; some very clever/experienced working togeter with one or more "foot soldiers". I'm not a very good "sock-hunter", but be aware; articles like Public Investment Fund would be prime area for these paid punters, Huldra (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for productive things to do on this encyclopedia, I would suggest helping to clean up pages related to rich corrupt authoritarian countries and looking closely at prolific editors in those areas who never ever add any negative content to those pages (despite the prevalence of negative RS coverage) while adding trivia and poorly sourced puffery. Pages related to the Gulf dictatorships are rife with these weird editing patterns. These editors get upset whenever content is added about the human rights situation in these countries, the wealth of the rulers, or the nature of the authoritarian regimes. I've raised it multiple times at the COI noticeboard, as well as highlighted problems on the RS noticeboard with the kinds of sources that these suspicious editors use[20][21]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

These are examples from earlier today of the kind of behavior that I'm talking about.[22][23] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Not particpating in the above discussion, I have just noticed my edits being cited here. When multiple users raise concerns about additions of controversial statements and open discussions such as this or this or this or this or this etc ... on BLP articles, I think its important to reflect back on such concerns raised instead of blindly accusing others of malice to everyone who doesn't conform to the same views. Gorebath (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:1.145.92.224

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

User:1.145.92.224 has been added unsourced content to several articles. I have told them that they need to cite the content they add, on both their talk page and on edit summaries, but they are not listening. For example, they keep adding an unsourced recording year to "Never Let You Go (Third Eye Blind song). When I took it out, telling them that it was uncited, they said the parent album, Blue, was recorded in 1999. I checked it out, but the album's article does not mention a recording year, so I removed it. They reverted me minutes later without explanation. It is clear that the IP will not listen to reason, and I am at my 3RR limit on "Never Let You Go". Can someone please help me out? ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: This user has decided to leave a colorful message on my talk page. Vile. ResPM (T🔈 🎵C) 13:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP's request for a two week Wikibreak has been granted. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Rombo86 issues

Rombo86 has some anger issues, I should say, as can be seen by his frequent use of profanity when being warned. See his talk page, specifically here, here, and here. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's a long-term issue. Blocked for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Notfrompedro Uw-disruptive1

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

---

On 18:17, 2 October 2021‎ I edited the Democratic Socialism page and clearly explained that "'Public ownership of the means of production' cannot be achieved without authoritarianism. The government would need to confiscate businesses from the owners of the the means of production."

On 18:35, 2 October 2021‎ Notfrompedro reverted my edit without any explanation.

On 14:02, 3 October 2021‎ I reverted to my edit and again clearly gave the explanation that "These statements are false. Democratic socialism cannot achieve it's sated goal of 'Public ownership of the means of production' without authoritarianism."

On 14:08, 3 October 2021‎ Notfrompedro again reverted my edit without any explanation.

The point of my edit is very simple. The wiki page for Authoritarianism says "Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power." For Democratic Socialists to achieve their stated goal of "public ownership of the means of production," they would need authoritarianism to seize the means of production from the owners of private industry. Firthermore, Democratic socialists would need authoritarianism to enforce their system on anyone who refuses to go along with it. Therefore, Democratic socialist are against "political plurality" and the "use of a strong central power."

To claim that Democratic socialism is anti-authoritarian is therefore patently false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeRyan22 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not "truth". We - and our readers - don't care about your opinion on democratic socialism or its methods – only care what others have to say about it. If you can find reliable sources that agree with you, you can add them to the article in question. Until then, your opinions are, I'm afraid, not wanted. Sorry. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 17:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The other thing to note is that this is a content dispute, and should be resolved by means of discussion at Talk:Democratic socialism. ANI is only for cases where there are unresolvable behavioral problems above and beyond a disagreement over article content, for example, repeated failure to discuss contested changes on the talk page. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this is more of a situation where an editor with 15 edits wants to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Anything that we can do to nip this in the bud before we waste a dozen editor hours on it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is the source: "Unlike capitalism, free enterprise, which can only occur truly through voluntary transcations, socialism can only occur at gunpoint." https://assets.ctfassets.net/qnesrjodfi80/4aGmFvw9ZekEgIcE86SUkE/d2e526ea4decaab47f22051e84704530/crowder-democratic_socialism_is_still_socialism-transcript_0.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeRyan22 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Apart from Wikipedia being based on verifiability, no authoritarianism beyond the power to raise taxes, which is claimed by every government in the world that has ever existed, is needed for socialism, which is democratic if voted for by the people, to occur. If you want to make an argument on the basis of authoritarianism then you will need to make an extreme anarchist argument against all government. Of course there are other arguments you could make against socialism, but they would all be your own personal arguments which we don't use here. We only use what is verifiable from reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior from User:Satrar

User:Satrar has a history of POV pushing a pro-Pakistan/anti-India agenda and other disruptive editing:

• They had previously engaged in an edit war with Echo1Charlie;
• During said edit war, they changed sourced figures, claiming the source to be "unreliable";
• And they added a POV template to Para (Special Forces) without providing an explanation.

I tried to have a friendly talk with Satrar on their talk page, but they escalated it into personal attacks, ethnic profiling, and an attempt to discredit me because of my nationality. Satrar does seem to have made some constructive edits outside of the Indo-Pakistani conflict topic, but because of their behavior on the topic I propose that Satrar be topic banned from the Indo-Pakistani conflict. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced edits

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

---

Egapikiw111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As can be seen here in one of their latest additions, this user ignores all requests and warnings on their talk page to source their edits and continues with their disruptive uncited behaviour. Please could an admin remind them about some Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:OWNTALK. Thanks. Robvanvee 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Eventually, something has to give (original stuff, me). El_C 01:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor Julioxo in general sanctions topic

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

User is a SPA in WP:GS/PAGEANTS space. User is uncommunicative; has never posted to a talkpage or user talkpage that I can see. Has racked up a talkpage full of more than a dozen warnings including two level 3 uw-unsourced, three blocks, and an SPI. Disruptive, unreferenced changes are continuing today e.g. [24][25]. Can an admin look into this and take appropriate action? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Eventually, something has to give. El_C 01:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing incivility in Talk:Sex and gender distinction

On Talk:Sex_and_gender_distinction#Biological_sex there is significant incivility in discussion, flagrant use of yelling-type text styling, various instances of aspersions and personal attacks, and various parts which borders on a WP:NOTFORUM issue. It would be nice to have an uninvolved admin look into this behavior. (Note, this page is within the D/s GENSEX topic arena, additionally.) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: one of the instructions at the top of this page says: Include diffs demonstrating the problem (bold in the original). Just linking to 100K+ talk page falls short as far as reports here go. El_C 01:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Gwennie-nyan, can you please clarify which specific editors whose behavior you think is actionable by admins? And then notify them properly as instructed at the top of this page?

I do agree that the massive discussion is a trainwreck from beginning to end and for the past 24 hours-plus is in complete violation of WP:NOTFORUM. If any administrator, like El C, is willing to close the discussion, I welcome their doing so. Please put it and us out of its misery. You wouldn't even have to read the whole thing IMO; just say in the close to start a new discussion if there is a proposal for a specific edit and say to keep it civil, etc. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gwennie-nyan: And if you're going to provide diffs about a specific editor(s) you must notify them of the discussion here on their talk page(s), quoting the instructional header at the top of this page: You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Spent the last two hours reading this page, making a few comments in-between elsewhere. I still haven't found the first shred of incivility but I will grant the editor that my understanding may differ from theirs. I don't see the yelling in text unless they are equating a bold text as yelling. It's a very opinionated area of medical/biological science so it can be expected that people will be passionate and some tempers may flare. It appears everyone has handled it well considering. Unless anyone has diffs to point to something specific I don't see anything actionable. Others may have a different opinion. --ARoseWolf 14:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

As one of the involved editors, I'd like to clarify that my bold text comments weren't intended as yelling, I felt there was a miscommunication happening between myself and another editor, and my use of bold text was an attempt at clarifying the thrust of my argument points. I'd also like to note that CycoMa has already apologised for what I perceived was a personal attack on my talk page, and I gladly accepted and hold no ill will against them. As others have said, it is an opinionated area and that people will have differing opinions and differing passions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t really perceive much of the stuff said there are yelling. Nor do I see what I said or others said as being uncivil, if there is incivility I assume it wasn’t intentional.CycoMa (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Also as one of the involved editors - I was mainly bolding because I noticed one of the other editors, was having trouble reading large amounts of text. I actually added an edit summary after I went through and bolded specific salient points 'for the hard of reading' or something. Although there were some heated moments, I found the discussion productive, resulting in some useful new content being added to the article. Tewdar (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" - quick, call the police, there's a spider in the bath! 😱 Tewdar (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And KFC has run out of chicken! Narky Blert (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

In the UK last week, lots of people were dialling 999 because the shops ran out of petrol! Tewdar (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User FangLeone1916

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

---

• FangLeone1916 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding redundant fields to infoboxes (nationality & citizenship), overlinking, adding WP:EASTEREGG links, etc. despite multiple warnings on their TP. No response, all of their edits have been to articles. In some cases, they have re-made these changes twice in the same article. MB 04:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Motorcycle Action Group again

Motorcycle Action Group was featured here very recently (archive discussion).

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

Now one of the people involved in edit-warring in that article, and with a COI as a director of the organisation, has been posting about the group on other editor's talk pages. This has included "outing" of some of those involved, e.g. this edit.

Surely outing is wrong? At the least his outing edit(s) should be struck from the record and his continuing antagonism must be grounds for a topic ban. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: Incidents of outing should be emailed to the oversighter's mailing list, following the instructions at WP:Oversight. Posting them here on one of the busiest noticeboards on the site will only draw attention to it. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not engaged in disruptive behaviour, I have merely sought to remove the libelous comments made about me on 25 September by my (losing) opponents in the recent chairmanship election. Any breaches such as the 'outing' you suggest are inadvertent for the simple reason that this is not a community I frequent and with whose customs am therefore unfamiliar. I am a UK Registered Independent Financial Adviser with a reputation to protect. The abusive edits made about me were clearly in breach of your policy re' libelling living persons. (Redacted) I refer you all to 10mm socket's white-knighting where he called me a 'potentially corrupt person'. Nice. Just compound the libel, why don't you? Anyhow, do what you like, but Wikipedia has seen the last contribution it will ever get from my company. We have donated substantial sums year in and year out for many years. Wikipedia can whistle for money in the future, and next time they ask for some, I'll tell them why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBirdNeil (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

For transparency, I have oversighted 109 words from the section above (marked (Redacted)), and a further 300 from Woodroar's user talk page. This was done per provision 1 of the oversight policy. The overall meaning of the message above by TBirdNeil has not been significantly altered. Please do not restore this content. Many thanks ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Given TBirdNeil's repeated claims that statements made were libel, I'd say a WP:LEGAL block is in order. The fact they have an admitted COI is secondary, but still troubling. And then there's the outing... yeah, I can't see any reason to leave that account unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DOLT sounds like an insult, but it isn't. It's germane. Let the bloke make his case. We have rules against libel. All that's at issue here is whether they apply.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Having just seen the BLP violations and outing which were contained in the edit summaries at Motorcycle Action Group and which weren't redacted (I've revision-deleted them now), I similarly don't see any point in leaving this account unblocked, especially as the ranting above doesn't seem to indicate any intention to edit collaboratively. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, look at it from his point of view. We've published what he understands as libellous disinformation. He's tried to work out who was responsible for it, and he's tried to find the right levers to push to make us change the content he's unhappy about. This isn't someone who's here to build an encyclopaedia, this is someone who's here to stop us smearing an organization that's close to his heart. Of course he isn't here to edit collaboratively. Of course he hasn't read and doesn't care about our 150,000 words of rules and guidelines. To treat him like a troll or a vandal is to totally miss the point.—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

User:NadVolum disruptive behavior

Over at Talk:Julian Assange there is a fair bit of incivility, snipping and general snark. But this user has tired to use OR conspiracy theories about some kind of press blackout to argue for their edits. There was a discussion about this on my talk page, where they repeated the claim [[26]], and [[27]], the response to my saying this [[28]] is to post this pointy comment on the article talk page [[29]] literally daring me to report them. Its sole purpose seems to be confrontational.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What constitutes a conspiracy theory is of course subjective. It's not clear how you think this editor has disrupted WP; all your diffs are to talk pages, where OR is not prohibited. The first diff is presumably an error [?]. Cambial foliage❧ 10:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Errr I am reporting the fact they made a deliberately wp:pointy comment, not that they pedalled OR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This was meant to be the first diff [[30]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Pointy editing is disrupting WP to make a point. So you need to demonstrate that they disrupted Wikipedia, not that they said something you disagreed with on talk. Cambial foliage❧ 10:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is the 'conspiracy theory' from the media critique source Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting:- MacLeod, Alan (2 July 2021). "Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage". FAIR.. NadVolum (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

And here's the full discussion on the talk page User_talk:Slatersteven#Nudge_nudge?. NadVolum (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My comment re Stundin and Yahoo relate to Talk:Julian_Assange#RFC_inclusion_of_Sigurdur_Thordarson_claims and Talk:Julian_Assange#Request_for_comment_on_Yahoo_report where there were discussions about the topics and the discussions were prematurely terminated by them starting RfC's with a paricular wording. You can see more about my complaint at the second RfC. NadVolum (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Some might view an article by a former member of the academic staff at Glasgow University Media Group (wiki) and published academic author as a relevant article to the talk page; others might view it as a conspiracy theory. All of which is not relevant here. Where is the disruptive editing? Otherwise this section is a waste of time, and could represent WP:SANCTIONGAMING. Cambial foliage❧ 11:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The disruption is daring me to report them then deliberately making a comment and pointing out how it (in their mind) was cause for a report. As I said they were just tying to make a point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not accept that I am peddling conspiracy theories. If I did not clearly reject what you said it would looked like I accepted what you said. That you're annoyed by that is your problem. You needn't have accused me of it or 'promised' to send me to ANI for it in the first place or done 'nudge nudge' humor about me. NadVolum (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see anything worthy of action here. If mild snark on talk pages and a few elbow pokes rougher-than-ideal are sanctionable, the filer has indulged in that as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There could be some admin actions necessary, but not regarding NadVolum. The stonewalling of the Yahoo content and some bad faith canvassing at other noticeboards has become very disruptive. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering about what to do about the forum notices. I have warned them they are treading on thin ice. But was unsure if it did cross over into canvasing, as they were careful how to word it. But it was clear the notices were not neutrally worded. I would also remind people to issue notices if they raise concerns here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

But I agree there are general issue of lack of civility and assumptions (or outright accusations) of bad faith from both sides, and it is making it very hard to try an steer a neutral course.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd just become aware of the canvassing issue, after looking into the background to the thread started by SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the reliable sources noticeboard. SPECIFICO has started three different threads, all with identical wording to the first sentence ("Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media."), at WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:RSN. [31]][32][33]] These are not even remotely neutrally-worded notices drawing attention to a discussion. They are blatant canvassing, and personal attacks on other contributors, as SPECIFICO should be well aware. In my opinion (as someone uninvolved in the dispute at the Assange article) sanctions would seem appropriate. As for whether any other contributor has crossed the line in that dispute, more evidence may be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing there relates to any opinion on either side of the issues under discussion on the article talk page. Canvassing is an attempt to solicit editors on one side or the other. I stated no position as to the RfC, only pointed any interested editors to the discussions at the article page. Soliciting uninvolved editors on the widely-watched site-wide noticeboards is an effective way of broadening the discussion and reaching a decisive resolution one way or the other. There are no personal attacks. Various editors have themselves stated their biases on the article talk page, and I named nobody. The statement was to indicate the importance of participation by new uninvolved editors. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

So, if your clearly partisan description of contributors to the discussion regarding the Assange article wasn't an attempt to 'solicit editors on one side or the other', what exactly was its purpose? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The content dispute is not a partisan dispute. The purpose, as I said above, was to emphasize the need for uninvolved editors to join the discussion, given the biases declared by various previous participants. SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not asking whether the dispute is partisan. I'm asking why you posted such clearly partisan characterisations of contributors to the discussion on multiple noticeboards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I wouldn't go so far as saying sanctions are warranted. @Slatersteven @SPECIFICO, the first sentence in your request on those noticeboards does seem like its steering a certain crowd you may want to see at this article. Just look at it objectively, I know you can see what is being pointed out and its not any more malicious than you making the comment in the first place, which I dont believe was malicious to begin with. I don't know if it would be agreeable or not but maybe if you struck that portion of the sentence it would be better. I think bringing awareness in asking for fresh eyes to look at the article is great. It could bring in new perspectives and that's always welcomed, regardless of their personal views. Looking at the page I see way too much incivility and personal attacks going back and forth so I didn't go far into it. I don't have an opinion about the subject but I do implore everyone to act with civility towards each other, for what that's worth. --ARoseWolf 17:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC) --17:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC) --18:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

They are not my requests.Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm so sorry @Slatersteven. I had you on my mind when I was typing out my comment because I was reading what you had written on one of the noticeboards. I meant @SPECIFICO and never came back and changed it. My apologies to you. I struck your name and added the intended. --ARoseWolf 18:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Re your appeal for civility, if you ever do have a proper look at Talk:Julian Assange may I suggest you try seeing if you can tick off every point at WP:STONEWALLING. Might stop you getting involved and annoyed! NadVolum (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ps yes I think your idea of striking would be a good way of indicating the message has been received. NadVolum (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with other's who say that SPECIFICO's notifications violate WP:CANVASSING. I don't know if there was really a need to raise the issue in 3 different noticeboards but I wouldn't generally consider that a problem beyond wasting time of participants of the board. However per our guidelines notifications or RfCs need to be neutrally worded and the first sentence at BLPN was far from that. I don't think we need sanction at this stage if it's a one time thing, but SPECIFICO needs to avoid canvassing in the future or be subjected to a topic ban on such notifications. The way to ask for uninvolved editors is to say something like "looking for more uninvolved editors" or simply say nothing since I think most people who see a noticeboard notification recognise the desire is particularly for more uninvolved editors. It's most definitely not claiming there's a problem because the talk page is full of editors who lean in one direction. Nil Einne (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing is an attempt to solicit editors on one side or the other. Indeed. This is exactly what Specifico chose to do in this edit at WP:RSN. Pinging two out of eight editors that had commented in the earlier discussion is not a neutral broadening of the conversation. Doing so with the bland comment who commented here previously suggests an attempt to disguise it. Cambial foliage❧ 21:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Those pinged were the two editors who commented on the substance of the issue you raised there, and not editors who just said that the thread was not appropriate. After those two groups, the remaining editors were already active on the article talk page and did not need a ping to participate there. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the selective pinging. That actually raises significant concerns, since any selection criteria beyond something like active in the past few weeks and not topic or site banned or blocked risks at a minimum unconscious bias. I'd note that User:Mikehawk10 was pinged. Their contribution to the closed RfC on RSN was

Are you asking us to evaluate whether specific content is due in the article? There are several other considerations beyond reliability here. This board is not the correct place for this RfC. I imagine that this would be best handled on the article talk page if you would like an RfC, or on the NPOV noticeboard if you’d like more unstructured discussion. RSN is a place for evaluating a particular source's reliability, not the inclusion of specific content.

While they did say "There are several other considerations beyond reliability here", but this seems a few weak comment on the "substance of the issue". Still visible on the article talk page is MikeHawk10 NAC of a discussion as no consensus which is effectively in SPECIFICO's favour since it resulted in the exclusion of content SPECIFICO opposed.

Meanwhile User:PaleoNeonate was not pinged. Their contribution was "Some of the sources like The Guardian are reliable. If the material is DUE is another matter and this should indeed normally be discussed at the article's talk page." which seems much more of a commentary on the substance of the issues and also suggests a chance of opposition to SPECIFICO's view. PaleoNeonate has no active comments on Talk:Julian Assange. I'm no way suggesting MikeHawk10 did anything other than accurately gauge the consensus or that SPECIFICO was intentionally choosing to ping editors they expected to favour them. Since PaleoNeonate's comment was an indented reply, it could have easily been missed.

But this situation is precisely why editors should not use ad-hoc selection criteria especially not without discussing with participants first. It's easy to create a perception that there was bias which is harmful to us all no matter if there was non even unconscious. The risk of unconscious bias is another reason why editors should avoid such adhoc selection criteria. Without adhoc selection criteria, there is no such risk and any mistakes like not notifying PaleoNeonate would also be easy to pick up. That said a good thing about selective pings is unlike non-neutral notifications they're easy to fix so I will do so. </>

Also even if those pinged participated on an RfC on RSN, it's unclear to me why you would ping them to a discussing which just tells them to go to the talk page. It seems better to ping them to the talk page. This is a minor issue, but as editors weren't informed of the RSN notification on the article talk page it gives the perception of a lack of transparency and as I said perceptions matter.

In other words, an all round very poor showing on the part of SPECIFICO.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth it to note that SPECIFICO was topic banned from Julian Assange for 2 weeks less than a year ago for also removing consensus text. In this case they've removed the text at least 3 times now [34], [35], [36], citing, among other things, that it is "disputed on talk." Yes, mostly by SPECIFICO. Now there's an open RFC that could probably be snow closed, as well as the already overwhelming consensus in a previous section to include this material. This type of disruption is a major time waster. Now add on the campaigning canvassing where editors are called "self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media," and I think we are well into reinstatement of the topic ban territory. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify I said ad-hoc above but it maybe wasn't the best word. What I meant was it's a criteria that whether reasonable, SPECIFICO just seems to have made up and didn't explain until now. Meaning there was no way for anyone to check their work indeed it's possible people might have even just assumed they pinged everyone. The fact it's subjective adds to these concerns given the reasons mentioned above namely perceptions of bias and possible unconscious bias. While I think it's somewhat clear here, it's easy to imagine comments where editor A feels there was no commentary on the issues and editor B feels there was. Mentioning you did this would at least allow people to check your work and decide if you criteria was reasonable and if your selections fitted your criteria. Better would be to discuss notifications first. Note this doesn't have to be a long discussion if it's uncontentious likely it'll be a case of 'hey I plan to ping editor A, B, C because they participated in discussion X but not editor D or E since they only said it was the wrong place and of course F and G are already here'. And hopefully one or more other editors will reply 'sure that seems a good idea' and with no disputes in a few days you can go ahead. Nil Einne (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with @Nil Einne's assessment of the issue here. The perception is this was an attempt to bring specific editors to the the talk page and article that, in the very least, might have a favorable perception of SPECIFICO's views, more so than others. Whether that was the intent or not only SPECIFICO knows. Had they just requested more eyes on the article without injecting their view of the participants of the discussion and had they not selectively pinged specific editors, whatever the reason may be for that, then we probably wouldn't have been here discussing this or we could easily have dismissed it as not Canvassing. The word choice and selective pinging are in poor taste even if only from the perception standpoint.

@NadVolum, an aside to all of this, I believe one of the single greatest observations in statement ever found on Wikipedia is in that supplement. It reads, "The capacity of the human mind to engage in denial and rationalization can be impressive". A discussion I was involved in recently exemplifies this. An editor was against adding something new, even though it was reliably sourced, to an article because consensus was formed ten years ago on the article, in which this information was discussed but didn't have the evidential sources it does now, and they felt the added information went against that consensus. Rather than discussing it they stonewalled it and refused to allow it in the article. No matter how much I tried to point them to the fact that consensus can change and when we are presented with new evidence and additional sources, even if it has been discussed before, it can change consensus, they were incapable of seeing it going so far as to say I was driving away long-term editors because of my position. I'm not saying consensus needs to change every minute, we do need stability, but it can change and there is a process by which it is allowed to. But when we are so tied to a specific version of an article, especially one we have heavily edited, it can become difficult, even painful, to see it altered. I sympathize with them even if I disagree with them and I do believe they believe they are acting in good faith and I deal with them from that standpoint. --ARoseWolf 13:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that too! :-) I believe in working with probabilities but really the best I can do is to just try and cope with my biases and hope it's good enough. NadVolum (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I note that even after this discussion here, SPECIFICO is attempting to defend the post made at WP:BLPN, asserting that the talk page discussion is "not pro- or con- Assange".[37] If SPECIFICO really believed that to be the case, it would, in my opinion, have made made the description of the discussion at Talk:Julian Assange as "frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media" entirely pointless, if not downright irrational. If it isn't a pro-anti Assange thing, why does it matter who is a fan of what? This was clearly canvassing, in a particularly objectionable form, intended to attract contributors with specific opinions on the topic, and SPECIFICO's refusal to acknowledge the error suggests to me that maybe another, longer, topic ban might be appropriate. Along with a reminder that neither being a 'fan' or 'opponent' of something is in of itself of relevance during discussions between contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from User:Nuraini1011958

User Nuraini1011958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not provide any edit summary for any edit published including [38], [39], [40] and [41]. The user is uncommunicative; I have tried to engage in the Talk page Talk:Sepak takraw#August 2021 but the editor did not reply to the discussion. Instead, the editor decided to write on my page “Blocked” [42]. Please help me resolve this issue MrCattttt (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been taken care of it, removed the False block and I let the User:Nuraini1011958 know that that was inappropriate to use a block template since Nuraini1011958 is not a admin, It also seems that that was a false block as well because an admin would note it in a block log anyway. Chip3004 (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not only because of the false block. The user is uncommunicative and reverting referenced content without any edit summary even though I have ping the user for a discussion. The editor did not make any contribution on the page but only interested on this one specific line in the page [43], [44], [45] and [46]. MrCattttt (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

SNL NOR from Pontiac

• 2601:408:C301:3EA0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 98.250.246.220 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Saturday Night Live (season 47)
• History of Saturday Night Live (2020–present)

Somebody from Pontiac, Michigan, US, has been violating WP:No original research for a few years at various Saturday Night Live topics. They refuse to change or communicate. Typical activity includes comparisons between various episodes, listing actors that did not appear although they were credited, naming various superlatives and "firsts" by comparing broadcasts, etc.

The IP4 has never been blocked but the IP6 was rangeblocked twice. Any suggestions about fixing this persistent problem? Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Noticing the two prior blocks of the IPv6 from last February (most recently by User:Ohnoitsjamie) and the common geolocation of the IPs to Pontiac, I've blocked the IPv4 and IPv6 for a month each. Since the user has been engaged in this pattern for more than a year, further blocks may some day be needed. Semiprotection could be an option but there are too many SNL-related articles for that to be practical. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend a longer block for the /64 range given the long term disruption; 3 months at least. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers - Possible disruptive editing

An RfC on Wehda Street airstrikes, regarding whether an alt-name should be included, and if it should whether it needed attribution was recently closed as "no consensus".

In line with WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:ONUS, I reverted back to the "most recent stable version", though it is worth mentioning that this version is liked by no one, but it was quickly reimplemented by Firefangledfeathers, in line with their preferred format (they preferred "included with no attribution"; the version as it stood during the RfC was "known in Arabic as ...", and the reimplemented version says "sometimes referred to as ...").

Two requests have been made for them to self-revert, but these were rejected, while attempts to find an intermediate "no consensus" compromise have failed, and so reluctantly I bring this here.

BilledMammal (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute brought here, a place where content disputes should not be brought. Why haven't you or another editor just put in the "most stable version" ? If what you say is correct, then you should have enough editors to make this stable without violating any edit warring policies. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It does feel that way, which is part of the reason I was very hesitant to bring this here and wished to resolve it with discussion. As for "enough editors to make this stable without violating any edit warring policies" unfortunately that is not the case; most of the editors who agreed "attribution" have even less involvement in the area than I do, while that is not true of most of the editors who agreed with "no attribution". As such, I brought this here as while a single edit is typically below what we would consider disruptive, I believe it is made so by the failure to abide by WP:ONUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS, and I didn't know where else to bring it (I also considered WP:AN3, but it seemed to fit there even worse) BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of this discussion and will be happy to accept the consensus of other editors/admins if my conduct here has been subpar. I do request that the section heading be made more neutral, though I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to make the change.

I don't believe my one edit can be viewed as disruptive editing. BilledMammal has stated that they oppose my edit, but they have not provided any reasoning against it at talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. And I believe my comments on the talk page, in both the RfC and the most recent discussion, speak to why I oppose it - this is not the place to restate them. BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reverting based on no consensus is at best filibustering and at worst tendentious editing. There is overwhelming consensus against removal of the content entirely, as shown in the RFC having exactly one person arguing against inclusion in the lead, and blanket removing the content because you dislike the attribution pushes it more to the latter imo. Claiming what has been in the article for over two months is not the most recent stable version also seems to be a curious definition of the words most, recent, and stable. nableezy - 20:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Most recent stable version" means, to the best of my understanding "not disputed", rather than "not edited warred over" - and I don't think we would want a definition different from that, lest we encourage edit warring rather than talk page discussions and RfC's. BilledMammal (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

In the RFCbefore section it can be readily seen that there was some sort of consensus around an altname even if not in the precise details around it so going back to a "no altname" position was I think, a rather unreasonable thing to do and while Firefangledfeathers might have took it too far back the other way, I don't think that was disruptive and now we have nearly resolved it, I believe, somewhere in the middle as might be expected.Selfstudier (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hoax info

Abarsanti7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest registered account of the vandal described here. Their current modus operandi is to hide hoax info amongst seemingly benign edits, in this latest attempt adding additional information about whether the cover art is North American or European, trying to hide hoax info additions like this among them. Eik Corell (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've indeffed the user for disruptive editing at a rapid clip, but I don't see the connection between this user and the IPs you point to. The current user is obviously repeating the same edits as Special:contributions/2600:8805:C400:649:0:0:0:0/64, which geolocate to Connecticut, not Ireland.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to come out and say it. I've looked through a bunch of their edits and I don't see a problem with them. Even that edit above seems to be pure good faith and not deliberate disruption. I've probably looked at 50 of them, and not a single one had an issue, all appear to be reasonable and good faith. They're mainly adding captions to the images in the infoboxes, something which is perfectly allowed and supported by that particular infobox template and guidelines. The captions also appear to be correct. I don't see disruption in those edits. And I don't see any issues with the edits of that IP range either.

@Bbb23: I'm actually very concerned here about User:Eik Corell's seeming abuse of the Rollback functionality here for rolling back edits that are clearly NOT vandalism, and lack of WP:AGF. They clearly didn't check those edits before clicking the Rollback button. Can someone convince me why this blocked happened and why there isn't actually a boomerang happening here? Canterbury Tail talk 19:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Before the named account was created, they used IPs. That in and of itself is fine. However, both the IPs and the named account proceeded at the rate of a quasi-bot. And when I look back at the IP edits, I see other users besides Eik Corell reverting their edits, especially when they inserted unsourced information of the kind described by Eik Corell. It's hard to believe this individual is anything but WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I must say I'm not entirely convinced. Some of their edits could be removed as unsourced, or tagged, but the vast majority are perfectly good beneficial edits. Even back for the IPs, adding the correct captions is not a wrong thing to do, and it's something that's easy to do quickly and doesn't take much effort to define as it's clear from the image what the caption should be (European or North American, if it's cover art etc.) Quasi bot or quick editor? Dunno. And there has never been a single attempt to communicate with this editor, not even an edit summary that I can tell. There are cases where I can easily make several edits a minute in certain areas. They all appear to be good faith. I will however again iterate that I'm concerned that Eik Corell is just jumping on the Rollback button for clearly non-vandalism edits. Canterbury Tail talk 20:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any real comment on this, but I will note that at least one of their "cancelled version" edits might have weight; Curious George appears to have a cancelled version - though I don't know how reliable Gamespy is. However, I don't think they did the necessary research; I believe they pulled the cancelled version information off fansites, such as this one for Chicken Little, where it is unsourced.

I also don't know how easy it is to reliably identify the region for the cover-art of a release, but I assume it would be done through the game rating? BilledMammal (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Cover art can be used to ID between North America and Europe very easy. ESRB is for US and Canada and PEGI is for Europe (including UK). Canterbury Tail talk 20:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Then perhaps a talk page discussion would have been warranted, particularly now they are registered; I don't know if any of their IP's had the topic raised, but the fact that they are on a dynamic IP could have easily resulted in them missing it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

First things first, the cover art is not an issue. The issue is that it's used as a cover for the vandalism; You see an IP pop up and hit dozens of articles, but when you check a few of the edits, all you see are some wiki-gnome-ish infobox edits about cover art, and you assume it's all good. Combined with the constant IP switching, it's actually an excellent method to force vandalism through as most people do not scrutinize further edits after that. About the edits and platforms being cancelled, initially I remember spending quite some time trying to figure out whether these additions were legitimate or not -- whether the user was getting this information from somewhere, googling any specific companies mentioned, and I never could find anything supporting it from any reliable source. Whereas their earlier edits consisted primarily of this kind of stuff, their newest additions, like this one mentioned above go into specifics, and I suspect this, too, is a strategy to mislead editors; namedropping a studio that does exist, could potentially have been involved because a google search shows they've done similar stuff, again you assume it's all good. But none of it lines up when you actually research it, and that's why this vandalism and the tactics they're employing are so devious; The info they're adding is so minor and looks procedural so you assume it to be legit. And again, though somewhat circumstantial, once you spend enough time scrutinizing it, you find other patterns that give them away as well: Apart from their claims being totally unsourced and dubious when researched, their claims evolve as well, starting for example with this one, evolving into this. I'm sorry if I come off as not assuming good faith, but I have spent entirely too much time trying to verify so many cases of this user's hoax info, as well as dealing with their vandalism. This user has been through so many IPs, I don't believe they've missed all the warnings and blocks they've received on their IP's and accounts. Eik Corell (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected; that Nacho Libre example in particular is very convincing. Thank you for putting in the time to look into this. BilledMammal (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Except the Nacho Libre one is quite convincingly not the same editor. It's an editor in Ireland that Eik Corell is chasing around (that seems reasonable to chase.) The editor that is the subject of this thread is clearly someone from Connecticut, so not the same editor, and their pattern is different. There's surely more than 1 editor in the world who's ever put information about potentially cancelled versions of games. I just fear here there is a good faith editor being mentally merged with a disruptive editor and no one has ever even attempted the slightest bit of communication so they repeat their edits wondering why they aren't staying. Canterbury Tail talk 13:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

We have established that this user from Connecticut is most likely not the same user from Ireland. Unless they are a frequent flyer I doubt they are moving around that much. Is it possible? Yeah, but not likely. We have to think like the average person would that has little to no knowledge of Wikipedia. That is assuming good faith. Why are they adding and repeating their edits? If I had little knowledge of Wikipedia except I was told it was free to edit and I saw something that stood out to me and made the change but I went back and it didn't show I would probably think my edit didn't save and I would try to add it again. That's why we should attempt to communicate. --ARoseWolf 13:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

But have we really? For especially pernicious vandals, this seems to be quite normal, meaning that they have some amazing ability to completely switch not just IPs, but IP ranges, switch between IPv4 and IPv6, and accounts with ease, all of which will mostly be clean; Not proxies, not VPNs, or otherwise "marked" in databases for abuse, just bog-standard residential IPs like the ones appearing here. In the userspace report I linked, this is the case as well -- several IPs are already listed there as not geolocating to Ireland, and their behavior still matches. It feels like any attempt to isolate, differentiate, or otherwise separate and address the sources of hyper-specific vandalism like is a red-herring; Whether it's an organized campaign, a person utilizing a botnet, or another vandal adopting the vandalism of another, is ultimately futile -- Whether it's the same duck or not, the quacking is exactly the same. Eik Corell (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And that's why I feel we should treat the edits on the merits of the edits and not presume they all belong to the same people. Did we gain anything by reverting valid cover art captions? Would it have hurt anything to have left them? Even if they are the same person, those edits are not problematic and we shouldn't just be blindly reverting every edit by an editor, only the problematic ones. Canterbury Tail talk 00:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Revoke Talk page Permision of Troigjuodjgosdrpmjfsaolkjmepokpewr:

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

---

This user is actively using their talk page to do a small amount of trollin', which is against the guidelines, so revoke permission to edit talk page MoonlightVector^{Talk page} 20:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Next time, please provide a link to the user. It makes things easier.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

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

2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506's talk page

2600:8804:6600:C4:9DD6:8ED8:6B65:A506 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP user has created a list of 'enemies' and 'friends' on their talk page labelled Possible sock puppets and bad actors and Good people just trying to help [47]. And posted on an article talk page in reply to another user: Thank you for clearly stating your bias on this issue. You may join the others that need to recuse themselves from editing here [48]. And on RFPP: Someone take away [User]'s editing rights, he's lost it [49]

This appears related to ongoing disputes on Talk:DRASTIC re: how we should describe the group ("internet activists" vs "scientists and amateur researchers") and how favorably we should describe their findings/actions re: NPOV. Another anonymous user was recently warned by @Graham Beards: then blocked by @Bishonen: and @Samwalton9: for WP:NPA on my and another user's talk pages: [50] [51] This new IP appears to be very similar to the old range. They both attempt to invalidate or silence editors who disagree with them as "biased" and "having COI" and "needing to recuse themselves from editing articles related to covid origins."

DRASTIC is a loose group of twitter/internet sleuths who have been implicated in past harassment of scientists online. It is not at all surprising to me that this has become a flashpoint where multiple different anonymous editors are harassing/attempting to POV push on covid-related articles. It feels quite a bit like a meat puppet circus. I believe admin action is warranted. Thanks for reading... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, the IP user seems to be here with a personal grudge, and in addition to the talk page harassment there's silliness like this... An enforced, prolonged vacation would do good. And the TP should obviously be G10ed, as tagged. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  I see Liz has fixed that issue. Any comment on the IP's behaviour at RFPP/decrease? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Note: Liz just blocked the indicated anon for 31 hours for block evasion. Thanks! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Can we get a TPA block too? They've devolved into 'spank me daddy' and 'did I stutter?' responses. They're also making clear that they'll continue the harassment from the second the block expires.Nate • (chatter) 03:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I was hesitant to propose this, given it's partly my fault for wasting my time trying to explain a few things; but yes, there's no indication they've understood the issue here, and no indication that they'll attempt editing constructively once the current blocks expires. The declined unblock request itself says, and I quote, " I'll kindly wait till my IP changes again or the 31 hours expires. Then I will continue to fight the bias being WP:PUSHed by RandomCanadian and Shibbolethink." Clear evidence that they do not intend to abide by the block; and also of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. TPA could also be revoked on the sole grounds of misuse of talk page during block, but hey that's like the least of concerns at this stage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • "I'll kindly wait till my IP changes again"...? Well, exactly. Dear admins, please do block the /64 range when you want to block an IPv6; don't just block the single IP. Please. I know it may happen that the person has access to an even wider range, but blocking the /64 is in any case a first step. Leaving out a few useless subtleties, a /64 is always a single individual. I've done it now, as well as lengthened the block a little, in consideration of the individual's conduct while blocked: 2600:8804:6600:C4:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen | tålk 12:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

Persistent edit warring and vandalism by User:Daimler92

This user has been engaged in POV-pushing behaviour across a number of articles, particularly on the Kalergi Plan, where they have engaged in persistent edit-warring and abusive behaviour to other editors despite warnings over the allegation that a passage of Coudenhove-Kalergi's work was misconstrued (i.e., first instance, not edit war, but they keep on going ...). In addition to this, the editor has also been vandalising the page, undoing said vandalism but still trying to push their edits at the same time. (They claim this was an accident done while on mobile, yet the disruptive edit literally has "Vandalizing" as the edit summary... Makes someone's job easier, I guess?).

I also believe they have engaged in IP editing to try and force their wording into the article; this edit from 88.109.112.42 also has the same issue with the term "misconstrued" as the IP, and has only made edits on the Kalergi Plan article one day after Daimler's edits were reverted. Daimler also reverted a revert of the IP editor soon afterwards.

For what it's worth, this claim was uncited and I think should have been removed or clarified; the main text notes white nationalists quoting Coudenhove-Kalergi's writings out of context but does not specifically tie it to the quote contested by this editor. But this is stuff to be brought up on the talk page – this editor has behaved in an abusive and manipulative manner and is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, as their edits on all articles seem to follow a pattern of far-right, anti-Semitic POV-pushing.

Pinging @ජපස:, @Hob Gadling:, @XOR'easter:, @NorthBySouthBaranof: and @Binksternet:, who have been involved in disputes with the editor. —Bangalamania (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bangalamania: You failed to notify the user as required.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Apologies, I have never filed an ANI report before. I hope I've notified them adequately now. —Bangalamania (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have jousted with Daimler92 but they are not vandalizing Wikipedia. (The "vandalizing" edit summary could be short for "reversion of vandalizing", or it could be a slip of the finger on a dropdown menu showing boilerplate choices of pre-loaded edit summaries.) Daimler92's addition to SPLC was a good one, and the dispute at Kalergi Plan is minor—no secondary source is supporting the analysis. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Either way, the editor was edit-warring on the article, even after repeated warnings. This should have been taken to talk. —Bangalamania (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And the language about misconstrual that they removed from the lede was supported by the sources in the main text. XOR'easter (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

You and the OP are focusing on the removal of "misconstrued" but the edit can also be interpreted as about removing the (indeed false) claim that the idea of a Kalergi Plan is derived from that one section in the book, rather than the book as a whole. It's possible to simply say it is based on the book and formulate separately the reason(s) it is wrong. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are things that should be handled on the article Talk page, not here. The problem that should be handled here is that the user did not handle those things by discussing them on the article Talk page but by edit-warring. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The OP offered a diagnosis of "far right antisemitic POV pushing" in part based on their interpretation of this edit, so it's also relevant here. Another point in Daimler92's favor is that the sources only assert that Kalergi's book is being misconstrued without offering an explanation of the supposed error (and they avoid talking about the "Jewish master race" comments, though I think those are ultimately innocuous). Basically there are no good sources that adequately explain or refute the theory and that is fuel for edit wars. Sesquivalent (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Daimler92 was edit-warring, regardless of how valid the contributions are (I will not venture to make an opinion on that). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that Daimler92's first edit (I did not check if the later ones are the same) is correct, but reliably sourcing it is likely impossible. The Kalergi Plan theory does not stem from only the one quoted passage in the book. There are, for example, other passages in which he calls Jews a "master race" and speculates on their leadership role in the future. However, the only sources for this are either non RS sites that push the theory, or WP:OR and SYNTH from PRIMARY sources (Kalergi's book). Likewise, there are RS calling the "Kalergi Plan" a conspiracy theory but none that explain details of why it's wrong. So the more basic problem is that there is not enough material for a separate article rather than a section of Kalergi's bio article. In the current arrangement where it is a separate article, it is possible Daimler92 is pushing for edits he is convinced are correct as a matter of fact (they are). Which conflicts with various Wikipedia rules, whether or not he is aware of that. Sesquivalent (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a version of the book archived here by the internet archive. I would suggest finding page numbers for the quote(s) here. Sadly I am not able to speak German. Thankfully ca:Projecte Kalergi has the page numbers, so someone could go find and verify the quote. I think the Catalan article has a better coverage of his philosophy as a whole, as just a cursory look through archive.org shows he published many books that are available on the internet, rather than a passage from just one book. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've located the original of the quotation, and have added it and a more precise citation to Kalergi Plan. (The Catalan article cites three pages; it's from one of those, off by one.) The English translation of that passage is good. I have no intention of reading the whole book to see if it's representative. Narky Blert (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

They are edit warring and POV pushing, but I am not sure it is vandalism per see.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Silent

To prevent recognition, I decided not to open an SPI. It seems like this account was a sleeper and now an active sockpuppet of Nic.cartagena12. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

New user first edit is personal attack on my talk page

User:Blindatlove88 is a "new" user, who's very first and as of now, only edit is to leave a personal attack on my talk page, see [52]. As that is a very unusual first edit for a user, even a vandal, I suspect that it's a sockpuppet of a different user. However, while I do have some guesses on who it might be, there's no evidence to link them to any specific user, and I don't want to throw any unfounded accusations against someone. And while I feel that it's unlikely, it's certainly is possible for them to not actually be a sockpuppet. So I don't know how to proceed from here. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: would a check user be appropriate here? I find it very unlikely that they're not a sockpuppet because how else would they even come across my talk page otherwise? However, if against usual procedure to do a CU in a situation like this, I understand. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want you can file something at WP:SPI, there are instructions on how to start an investigation without a known master. It's a bit of rigmarole, but might turn up sleeper accounts or similar. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Can you point me to the instructions on how to file an investigation with an unknown master? I definitely want to do that, but I didn't see any instructions on WP:SPI on how to do it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't see any instructions either, but looking at the history it seems that the correct way to do it is list the sockpuppet in the "master" slot, then not use the "sock" slots and mention the reason in the body (unknown master). BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User:GAROSENTAIJINOHGERRV7's good faith edits

I first encountered this user at Miss Earth 2021 with this edit[53] that he provides without sources to cite his edits. I tried to adress this in his talk page, however it seemed to be usless as he kept on doing the same unsourced content as seen here [54] and even did the same at Miss Universe 2021 with this recent edit here [55].

This person is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and rather spread misinformation, and with that I think this editor should be blocked from editing. Milesq (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat on my user talk page

User:Hillary1900 is a near single purpose account making promotional edits about Oopali Operajita which I noticed this morning in this diff. I put a uw-paid1 template on their user talk page, and in response I got this legal threat on my own user talk page. Note that Hillary1900 has previously indicated that they are an attorney. I think I could use some assistance here. - MrOllie (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

legendary President, Hillary1900? While being an attorney is not against policy, making veiled legal threats is. A quick block should be applied here.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

On legendary president, I tried. At Talk:Oopali Operajita#Richard Cyert. Jay ^(Talk) 16:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Opinion. Around half of Hillary1900's 200+ edits are on Oopali Operajita. 84 of the 94 edits since August are on the article, and I would believe it is partly because I chanced upon the article and started implementing general cleanup, NPOV and Verifiability since August. While I admit Hillary1900 has been a difficult user, I have been reasoning at the article talk and user talk pages, and it did appear that the user has picked up on the verifiability aspect in the last few days. I haven't looked at the last 2 days though. Considering the increasing number of daily edits, I was considering looking at WP:SPA in a few days.

I understand the user has a legal viewpoint of looking at Wikipedia and the above referenced attorney link was an accusation about me, I didn't respond, as I wasn't asked about my opinion. The user has been civil to me and hasn't attacked me directly (It helped that the user absolutely stopped responding to my posts or any posts on the subject after a while!) But the user has tried to reach out to trustees, and not to senior editors or admins (even though I tried to help the user reach them). If the user had spread out to more articles and started communicating with more users, over a period of time, I believe the user would have had a broader outlook about Wikipedia, how others work, and how to work with others. Jay ^(Talk) 16:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material at Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials

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

---

Hello, I am a new editor and I read that this was the best place to bring stuff like this up: I added sourced material to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials over the series of a few edits and it was deleted by User:Washuotaku. I reverted him, User:Bkatcher reverted me & User:The Anome left a demeaning comment on my talk page. I used sources, I made calm and professional statements. I regret that I said 'fight me' in the edit summary but that's come and gone now. My problem is how people who would object to something like this can stay on Wikipedia for 10 years and not get wisened up, either by admins or their reading here. Something ought to be done. I don't want to get in an edit war but I think Washu Otoaku has got a few of his friends otherwise he would have made 3 reverts by now. Can somebody do something about this or get it figured out? I really don't know how to go on with this, we would just revert each other back and forth. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@GrandEditor 5: This is a content dispute, not a vandalism issue. Please sort this out with other editors by discussing it on the article's talk page, Talk:Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials, to achieve consensus on the article content. -- The Anome (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Anome: AS I Stated in my edit summary which I assume you did not read,

Everyone on this site likes to whine about 'neutral point of view'. PEOPLE ARE DYING. Don't you understand? LIVES ARE AT RISK. Wikipedia cannot remain neutral. We have to take a stand for basic human decency. I have provided references from news sites, scientific studies etc. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@GrandEditor 5: I read it. However, no matter how well-founded your concerns, you are still stuck with having to abide by Wikipedia editorial policies. -- The Anome (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Also not sure where to start telling you what is wrong with this, the implication you will edit war if you do not get your way, the implication of meat puppetry, the POV pushing nature of this. As to people are dying, what? This reads like wp:nothere, and wp:rightgreatwrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC

I'm not going to edit war. I want to maintain peace and friendly discussion which is why I brought the dispute here instead of continuing to revert. And I would also like to add that Bkatcher and his friend Washuotaku have together violated WP:3RR now. Not sure what you mean by 'meatpuppetry'. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The accusation that users are combining to edit war in unison. And no they have not as 3RR applies to one user reverting. I suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Having sources is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for text at Wikipedia, and having a source is not a magic force field that protects text from being removed. Text also needs to meet other policies, such as using neutral point of view, being written in an appropriate tone, being relevant to the overall narrative, and several others. I have not extensively reviewed the dispute as yet, but vanishingly close to 100% of the time when someone complains that their recent sourced edits are removed, there are usually other factors justifying the removal that they are refusing to acknowledge or address. Please make sure that your additions are valid beyond merely the existence of sources. --Jayron32 16:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think they're valid. I'm not going on a tirade here nor was I in the article, I wrote full sentences with sources such as the Washington Post, and a study from a university on the effects of Confederate monuments on students' mental health at a school, specifically students of color. Now some other editors feel my edits are not in compliance with WP:NPOV which I feel is not really relevant in an issue of this magnitude. That's the dispute. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

−

Great wrongs have already been righted. Now Wikipedia and specifically this page (And I was only really making these kinds of edit on this one page and got into this great big hangup) needs to come into the 21st century and state the obvious instead of pandering to white supremacists and neo-nazis. No issue with you as I am sure you don't believe such things, it's a disagreement in how we should go about it. GrandEditor 5 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@GrandEditor 5: You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see how to resolve this. This page is not the right venue. -- The Anome (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The OP has now been blocked as a sock.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Impersonation of a living person by new sockpuppet of User:Raxythecat

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

---

A persistent sockpuppet master, Raxythecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is now impersonating the subject of an article they regularly vandalize, Lionel Snell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The impersonating user is Lionelsnell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). You can find the current SPI case and history here. Skyerise (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User Wlbw68

User User:Wlbw68 consistently continues to impose on me a discussion of the situation with his conflicts with other participants in Russian Wikipedia, because of which he got a block there. I have nothing to do with their conflict and do not want to discuss it, and I consider it a flood and persecution. Please stop user Wlbw68 who returns a discussion in Russian on my talk page. --- Eleazar (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eleazar: You failed to notify the user, which is required. In addition, other than your link showing that the user was blocked at ru.wiki, you have provided no evidence to support your allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

[56], [57], [58], [59] - Here are the diffs where he continues this, although I told him every time to stop. Of course in Russian. --- Eleazar (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

But you still didn't notify them of this thread. I've done this for you this time: [60]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

(more) yes, they do seem to be pestering you about things going on at ru.wiki, even when you asked them to stop. I'll leave them a note to stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I thought the mention was enough. I do not know very well with the rules of the English WP, in Russian there is enough mention, sorry. --- Eleazar (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam and thanks again very much, I appreciate it! --- Eleazar (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Warning left: [61]. Let me know if it continues after the warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! --- Eleazar (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

User making non constructive edits and making reverts

Editor BubbaJoe123456 has enforced the users opinion on how the lead section of the Eritrea country article should be written. The issue is related to user making these edits here: [62],[63],[64] referring to a status quo which does not exist. Prior to that location was set to Eastern Africa per template guidline. After lengthy discussion on how the lead should be written, several users involved, consensus was reached to set the location of the country to both Eastern Africa and Horn of Africa. I provided the Wikipedia country article guidelines WP:WPC, WP: WPCTEMPLATE as a good example of how the lead (location included) could be written, besides also providing examples of how similar locations (regions & subregions) are presented here on Wikipedia in the talk page [65]. In the discussion, I proceeded with asking if anyone objected to any of those examples. No one openly objected and the edit is not controversial in itself since it follows Wikipedia guidelines and several other similar good examples. This got reverted by BubbaJoe123456 [66] and later by user Rastakwere with no rational explanation [67]. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that should be resolved at Talk:Eritrea. Looking at the article's revision history, it appears that you've been trying to make the wording a certain way for awhile, and have been reverted by multiple editors (not just BubbaJoe123456 and Rastakwere) so this looks like a slow-moving edit war. Maybe open an RFC on the wording since the lengthy discussion doesn't seem to be reaching a clear consensus on its own. Not an ANI matter, IMO. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Leechjoel9 has a history of very focused editing (I'm choosing my words carefully) in topics related to Eritrea, as discussions at Talk:Eritrea and Talk:Demographics of Eritrea will clearly demonstrate; two RfCs have been required to deal with what shouldn't have been particularly controversial topics. In this case, he changed the lede of the Eritrea article last year (after it had been stable for 10 years) to place Eritrea in Eastern Africa, rather than the Horn of Africa. Given this editor's history, I can only assume there's some underlying political context in which Eritrea doesn't want to be classified as part of the Horn of Africa. Recently, several editors attempted to move the geographic location back to Horn of Africa, but were reverted by Leechjoel9. I started a talk page discussion on the topic (Talk:Eritrea#Horn of Africa), where there clearly wasn't support for Leechjoel9's original attempt to eliminate a reference to Horn of Africa. Alessandro57 proposed a compromise solution, including both Horn of Africa and Eastern Africa, and that seemed to be acceptable to the other participants in the discussion, including (Chipmunkdavis and Rastakwere, so I implemented it. Leechjoel9 continued to push for his own version, and eventually attempted to implement it. I reverted, as I don't believe his edit reflects the consensus he believes it does. Leechjoel9 reverted me, and was himself reverted. He then started this thread. A boomerang TBAN is in order, I believe. Pinging Boud and Johnuniq as well, given history. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• I should also point out that Leechjoel9 was previously warned (before they blanked their talk page) that their behavior in relation to the Eritrea lede constituted edit warring. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The article itself was tagged saying it needed an update since it had ten year old content on it, over a year ago. Updating the location was a part of that, and it was updated following the guidelines per above. Nothing more, nothing less. The proposed example was to add both Eastern Africa and Horn of Africa. Regarding the other issues related to the topic of Eritrea or Horn of Africa, it has been you and Boud that tried to half the size of the population of the Eritrea with 3 Million inhabitants with one single source as a reference, this is controversial to say the least. Especially when there exist at least several sources by CIA, African Development Bank, COMSEA and Eritrean government saying otherwise, sources that are independent of each other. This is against WP:NPOV and WP:RSUW undue weight giving support to a minority view. Other users also objected to your proposals saying it was politically motivated on your behalf, at the same time you along Boud was heavily involved editing another article under DS Tigray War in relation Eritrea, especially the latter of you two. This lead to lengthy discussion in the talk page of Eritrea and the Demographics of Eritrea (possibly archived now), where Boud and you tried to get a topic ban against users who simply disagreed with you by warning other users about the discretionary sanction or randomly starting ANI and other type of incidents because of this. Luckily these issues was resorted to discussions in the end although lengthy ones, many times not benefiting involved parties or admins. Please stick to the topic, nobody is blanking anything, archiving is a common procedure and exist for a reason and they are searchable. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Without rehashing the entire Eritrea population RfC, I'll just point out that your description of the available sources doesn't match the situation. As for your talk page, archiving is certainly common. Archiving the entire page, for the first time, right after you filed this report, and including in the archiving content (such as your edit warring warning regarding the Eritrea lede) that's less than a week old, is...somewhat less common. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

AfD interference and allegations.

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs)
• Multi7001 (talk · contribs)
• Spinningspark (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerospace Research Systems, Inc|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Multi7001 did significance interference with the discussion etiquette at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges which Spinningspark handled excellently avoiding an otherwise probable DRV by myself (to avoid precedent setting of the process) by null and voiding it with no objection to an immediate renominate. The 2nd nomination had procedural errors, corrected 2.5 hours after nomination but with content above by !vote changed and allegations raissed. The reversion reasons on the edit summaries on Multi7001's talk page are eyebrow raising. The edit summaary allegation (that closer Spinningspark) waspossible accomplice of spam user (Djm-leighpark) [68]. While there is a risk I have SEALIONed Multi7001 there is considerable lack of COMPETENCY in following procedures for someone who has put themselves forward for NPP and took advice to launch in AfD.Old revision of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer & Old revision of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer I expect to see voiding of Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination) but have no objection to a properly raised 3rd nomination. Multi7001 seems to have difficulty in accepting advice and may need warning to future conduct. If people feel I am a sock of Spinningspark feel fee to raise at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Djm-leighpark; which the allegations made in the above AfD's may have have encouraged someone to raise. At the end of raising this I observe Ponyo has just warned Multi7001 on their talk page which hopefully is sufficient. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• The nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rai Menges (2nd nomination) includes a number of personal attacks that at least one admin has suggested Multi7001 strike (which he has not done). The AFD itself was not transcluded properly and I fixed it during a wander through the logs (admin Metropolitan90 fixed it further). To be honest, I didn't really read the statement, as I was just cleaning the formatting. But there is no way a statement like that will result in a collegial discussion about the notability of the subject or the nature of the article itself. As loathe as I might be to suggest the procedural closure of a second AFD in mere days, I think that's what needs to happen. And Multi7001 should probably be discouraged (or prevented) from nominating it (or anything else) until they can do so properly and without the personal attacks. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

ThiagoWinters

User ThiagoWinters (talk · contribs), removing content that is backed by reliable sources (right here). In his talk page, he was informed about what was wrong with his edits and he also instructed to use the article talk page. Not only he ignored the warnings, he deleted them and proceed to engage in the same behaviour. Coltsfan (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Coltsfan: I really don't know why experienced users are failing to notify other users of reports here. That said, this appears to be a content dispute, not a conduct issue and should be resolved elsewhere, preferably on the article Talk page, which I don't see anyone using.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, here is the thing, contact was made. Like i said, he was instructed (see here) to use the talk page to discuss the content with other users. He deleted it (here), then blanked out his entire talk page (here). So, i assumed he removed the warning, but at least acknowledged it. But no, he refused to engage in any contact with me or the others who reverted him and also ignores the instructions to use the talk page. But here is the thing, he is the one removing content (backed by RS, btw), so he is the one who has to justify it. He didn't and refused to do so even when asked too. But if that is normal behaviour/acceptable, then my mistake, let him be. Coltsfan (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of IPs removing sourced content from Olavo de Carvalho, repeatedly adding complaints about the article in Portuguese,[69] etc. I have semiprotected it. I'm also concerned about ThiagoWinters's editing of the article. They have removed "polemicist" from the lead on the argument that Carvalho has never in his own books referred to himself as a polemicist (yes, really, that is the reason given in the edit summary), and also removed "far-right conspiracy theorist" along with its sources The Atlantic and Polygraph.info, dismissing them in the edit summary with "Olavo himself criticized the far-right, and opinionated journalism cannot be taken as a fact to define an individual". I have warned ThiagoWinters on their page, with policy links showing that reliable secondary sources trump a subject's own statements of their positions, and have also given him an alert about the discretionary sanctions for biographical articles. Bishonen | tålk 06:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC).

Directing users to Sci-Hub?

In a recent posting to NPOVN, MarshallKe mentioned that a particular paywalled journal article might be found on Sci-Hub.[70] I made an edit[71] to remove this quietly, and reqested on their Talk page not to do this, but MarshallKe has doubled-down, creating another NPOVN posting saying the article can be obtained there.[72] and that I "don't understand copyright law".[73] Not using a URL gets around sci-hub's global blacklisting and by directing users there seems problematic per WP:lINKVIO. Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Block him. I don't think it's a matter of "I don't understand" and the gaming is something that should be addressed with a swift block. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Are we detecting (EditFilter?) whether people are adding disabled sci-hub urls anywhere? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Block as a preventative measure until they agree not to do it again. Its one thing to not understand the rules, its another to say you dont agree with them and are going to flout it. Directing people to a site we have specifically implemented technical measures to stop people doing just that? No excuses. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah since Alexbrn would definately count as involved given the discussion at the article, another admin would have to take action. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Another? While I agree that Alex would certainly be a great mophandler ... -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 09:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I assumed they already were mopping :D Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The user did not edit after this thread has been opened, and I would like to hear from them, but if they continue editing Wikipedia without replying here I am prepared to block indef with the unblock condition that they show understanding of copyright policies (which others as they claim do not have).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I hadn't been aware of this particular policy, and will obey it. MarshallKe (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

NewsPenal18/sandbox

Could someone please userfy this editor's latest. Dawnseeker2000 08:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat at Indian Telecommunication Service

Please see diff, by IP 106.197.0.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given the proclivity of the Indian authorities to attempt to intervene in websites like Wikipedia it's not an entirely empty threat. ninety:one 09:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ninetyone, I went to find a source, and surprisingly the Indian government actually uploaded their archived paper Gazette online. The IP editor was right, despite the callous edit message. – robertsky (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)