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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Behavioral problem on Right-wing politics

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

---

Sourced material was added to Right-wing politics on August 11 (not by me). [1] Three weeks later, there was a dispute about whether to keep it, so a discussion ensued [2]. The discussion did not reach a consensus, so I started an RfC about whether it should be kept or not. [3] Now, the editors who want to delete the material User:Springee and User:Victor Salvini are removing it, despite the fact that the RfC is still running. [4], [5], [6].

I would appreciate an admin informing Springee and Victor Salvini not to remove the material in question until the RfC has run its course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Both editors notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) The material was originally added by @Michael E Nolan: on 11 August [[7] and deleted by Victor Salvini (new editor, account started 22 June, 92 edits to date) on 3 September [8], 23 days later. The deletion was reverted by @Acroterion: that same day, about 3 1/2 hours later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The restoration was part of a bulk restoration and appears to have been restored not to rescue this text but rather to revert this edit [[9]]. See the talk comment here [[10]]. Springee (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK needs to review both WP:BRD and WP:CON. Simple version. Material was added. Four edits to the article later, that material was rejected. I have not been involved with the editing of the article in question but noted the back and forth edits on Sept 3rd. I opened a talk discussion and pinged the involved editors (BMK was not involved at that point)[[11]]. Contrary to BMK's claim, the talk page rather quickly reached a local consensus with both of the original editors favoring removing the paragraph and myself favoring removal[Edit: It's probably more accurate to say one favored removal and the other didn't seem to object]. BMK favored inclusion, thus 3:1 against inclusion.[[12]]. Since this was new material a non-consensus is sufficient for removal. BMK opened a RfC. That's fine. The current RfC is 4:1 against.[[13]] If the RfC finds for inclusion in the end, it will be included. In the mean time BMK is attempting to use the existence of the RfC as a block to prevent the removal of the material that clearly has no support from other editors. My read is this was new content that was rejected and no local consensus has ever existed for inclusion thus BRD and the flowchart shown in WP:CON apply here. The material was removed and should not have been restored until consensus for inclusion was reached. The WP:CON policy does not support keeping recently added, disputed content in place until a RfC is completed. Springee (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• WP:Tag team is also pertinent here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of meatpuppetry or coordination? If not this seems like a bad faith accusation. Springee (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient implicit evidence on the talk page to bring it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree...as it seems do others. Buffs (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

remark by blocked user commented out by Buffs (talk)

• Comment: A CU may want to look at Buff Sanass; specifically their contributions, and read the article names vertical. Clever, but clearly not here.--Jorm (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• At any case, indeffed. El_C 01:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• El_C, thank you for blocking that NOTHERE vandal. There's absolutely no need for that kind of thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Also, perhaps a checkuser might take a look at 199.247.43.138, which looks very much a logged-out editor avoiding scrutiny in their edits to Right-wing populism [14], [15], [16].
  These reverts were made after I completely re-shaped the material in order to move it to a specific section of the article, to answer the complaints that it wasn't pertinent in the section it was in. It looks more and more like this is a deliberate campaign of whitewashing. Neither of the two articles that are concerned here has a consensus for the removal of this material, but it is being kept out of both articles by brute force. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Should WP:ONUS not apply here, with the contested edit that is being introduced only included once there is consensus for inclusion? El_C 05:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, El_C, I'm not understanding your point clearly. There is an RfC running to determine consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion should happen after there is consensus to include. It seems like the cart is being put before the horse. El_C 05:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Umm.. I don't think so. :The material was in the article for over three weeks, plenty of time for WP:SILENCE to make it part of the status quo version, in which case the BOLD edit is not the inclusion of the material on 11 August, but the first removal by Victor Salvini on 3 September. At that point, the issue becomes not whether it should be included -- because it already is included -- but whether it should be deleted, which the RfC will determine, if it weren't being usurped by two editos who want it removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whether three weeks counts as longstanding text. Maybe. At the very least, it's borderline. El_C 06:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia? Three weeks is an eternity. <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Three weeks is an eternity at Donald Trump. Not quite an eternity at an irregularly edited article like Right-wing politics. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC).

Have to at least partially agree with Bishonen etc. Three weeks is far from an eternity. IMO even 2 months can be reasonable on a barely edited article. Disputes over article content are perhaps not the best examples to look at since most of the time people don't really care as we can usually achieve consensus on something. So really it's just a pointless dispute over interim content. But in case where no consensus is a realistic outcome, you can probably find a lot of examples. E.g. undiscussed page moves. Or undiscussed era or language changes. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Since there were just 4 edits between the addition and removal I don’t think the 3 weeks could be considered stable. I would ask that someone look at SquisherDa restoration of the content in the past few hours. It seems like an unwise restoration. Springee (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Bishonen and El_C... I think that's the first time I've done that... Buffs (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been notified about this discussion and I’m here to give my testimony. On August 11th a user included a quote in right wing politics by Steve bannon. The quote was thrown in without context and presented no information. I removed the quote one September 3rd only for it to be added back again. The issue went to talk where’s there’s now a huge message history regarding it. Ken started a vote on whether it should be removed or kept. After a few days a supermajority of users who had voted were against the inclusion on the quote. Since the discussion was dying down and no one else was getting involved I removed the quote again, this time ken re-added the quote telling me that we had to wait 30 days before removing (because an “RfC” or something was running, I don’t know what he was on about). Springee, a user who’s been a strong supporter of removing the quote, said in the talk page that the quote could be removed because of the time since it was originally added, and removed the quote again, only for it to get added back again by another user and now we’re here. Victor Salvini —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:STATUSQUO, I have restored restoring the 00:32, 6 August 2019 version (stable version from before the recent edit war, unchallenged for nearly two months). I then re-added a minor grammar correction and short description template as being uncontroversial changes that are unlikely to be challenged.

Please discuss your preferred version on the article talk page rather than through back-and-forth edits. If you cannot reach a consensus, I suggest settling the dispute through the ongoing RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! It feels like BMK is pushing a political agenda with this filing. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say exactly the opposite, actually, that Springee, in particular, is going of their way to remove pertinent material because they simply do not want to see an accurate assessment of right-wing populism in a Wikipedia article. Case in point: when I added the same material to Right-wing populism, and supported it with material from two undoubtedly reliable academic sources, they removed it from that article as well, and the academic sources with it.

My only agenda (as always) is that our articles accurately present prtinent and sourced information on their subject matters, as opposed to attempting to WP:CENSOR information that I don't like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

And Springee continues their attempt to whitewash Right-wing populism of material they apparently disagree with. Once again, this is a behavioral issue resulting from a content dispute, not a content dispute per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Please do not cast aspersions by accusing others of "whitewashing". Springee (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Since you're following me from article to article with the only obvious reason the deletion of this material, I think that a violation of WP:CENSOR (i.e. "whitewashing") is a reasonable conclusion. WP:Casting aspersions is about making claims without evidence. In this case, the evidence appears to be sufficient to raise the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll side with Springee on this one. BMK, this is a WP:POINTy edit and I think you know it. You want this quote included, but you don't seem to have any third party analysis of it. An analogous situation would be someone of prominence standing up and saying "The White House is White because it is a symbol of racism in France, where the architect came from" and including it in the White House article at the end of the paragraph about it's design. It simply doesn't belong. While it's verifiable, within context it isn't notable. Someone from the left or right saying "stay the course!" isn't notable by any stretch. Buffs (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: "POINTy" I know no such thing. I often add pertinent material to multiple articles that it is appropriate for. The notability is clear and obvious to anyone (or, at least, almost anyone) who isn't hellbent on making sure the information doesn't appear on Wikipedia, as seems to be the case here. Besides, this is not a discussion about whether the information should be added, that is not appropriate for AN/I, this is a discussion about the behavior of the people attempting to whitewash it, and the various policies and norms they have violated, which at this point include WP:Harassment (following me from article to article), WP:NPOV, WP:Sockpuppetry (editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny), possibly WP:Tag team, WP:Casting aspersions (the unfounded claims that I am editing with a political agenda), WP:CENSOR (throughout), and possibly creating a "Joe Job" account. These are not aspersions, evidence is present to support each and every one of these claims. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, I would think the above discussion would make it clear that if consensus isn't established and edits are challenged then the matter is resolved on the talk page before the material is restored. You have instead decided to go full bull in the China shop on both the Right Wing Politics article as well as the Right-wing populism article where you have ignored objections from myself and The Four Deuces while suggesting that consensus was needed to reject new edits. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There are discussions on two different article talk pages about whether the material is appropriate for including in that article. Some of the arguments made on Talk:Right-wing politics may be applicable to Right-wing populism but not all of them, both because they are two different, but related ,subjects, and because the material in question is presented differently (i.e in a much more integrated manner, with supporting citations from reliable academic sources) on Right-wing populism, while it was added rather baldly (not by me, remember) on Right-wing politics.

In any event, since we're waiting for the culmination of an RfC on Right-wing politics, there is currently no consensus which can be applied to Right-wing populism, and even when the RfC is concluded, whether its decision whould be pertinent to Right-wing populism would depend on why it was excluded from the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any activity that requires consideration here. TFD (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not surprising. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I give up

If the Wikipedia editing community doesn't give a shit hill of beans that a handful of like-minded editors are block voting and tag teaming attempting to keep pertinent, sourced information out of some of our controversial, but extremely relevant to the times, articles, so that material they don't agree with is never seen by our readers, why the fuck heck should I care?

It's really a sad day for WP:NPOV when stuff like this happens, especially when it's so blatantly obvious, and the evidence of it is presented, and very few even bother to stir themselves to take action.

Close this, or block me, or whatever anyone wants to do, since we're abandoning our principles there appears to be little interest in enforcing an extremely important policy. The whitewash attempt to prevent pertinent information from appearing in a relevant article will succeed, and Right-wing populism and Right-wing politics will be cleansed of not include anything the self-appointed CENSORS people who oppose the material disapprove of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This was a heartfelt cri de coeur born out of frustration, but it has engendered objections because of the language used. I have endeavored to correct that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Toys and the pram. Block voting does not decide RfC outcomes, if you make a convincing argument then the RfC closer will side with you. If not then most likely the problem lies in your position not being strong enough. You, of course, know this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK, your comment is dripping with irony. Just a few discussions down you lecture an editor about the need for following consensus and what isn’t harassment etc. [[17]]. Yet here we are with you insisting that the 9:3 and 5:2 discussions against inclusion are just whitewashing and that editors must get a consensus to remove your recent edits vs you needed a consensus for inclusion. Finally, rather than seeking the consensus via discussion you try to bully the process via continuous changes to the basic content with declarations that there is no consensus to remove your latest version of the text. If only you were following the sound advice you were espousing. Springee (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about that. Iwas the one who had to clean up after it (it took three rolls of paper towels), and that sure wasn't irony I was mopping off the floor. (I'll leave the answer as an exercise for the reader.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose a block of BMK for uncivil behavior

Profanity-laden remarks like this are not helpful, demeaning toward others, and he's been warned repeatedly. Requesting a block. Buffs (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional instance from today: [18]

Add quote from WP:IUC:

"The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

(a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions

(b) <N/A>

(c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety

(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")

He hits 3 of the first 4. Buffs (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not being ridiculous. Remarks like his are making this situation more and more uncivil (see definitions added above) Buffs (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, no. Expletives as an expression of frustration are not cause for block. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

See above addition Buffs (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with the addition of that material, yes it's sourced but I don't think it's pertinent to the rest of the paragraph. So on the content dispute side of things I'm not with him, but I'm not seeing the edit for which you want him blocked in the same light. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the collegial disagreement! Have a good day! Buffs (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI blocks are not WP:PUNITIVE and that is what is being proposed here. MarnetteD|Talk 18:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what blocks are for. Perpetually failing to follow WP:CIVIL and preventing further problems should be on the table. Buffs (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You've been making a lot of non-constructive edits to ANI in the last few days; I think you should take a break from it. --JBL (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. YMMV. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea and OP should be trouted for suggesting it.--Jorm (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a fish, but let's WP:AGF here, shall we? Buffs (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Frustration is allowed. Buffs, when the (to you) offensive comment is actually at ANI itself, it's pretty redundant to "helpfully" list what's wrong with it in your opinion. Do you seriously think admins haven't seen it? Remarks like your proposal lower the tone of ANI worse than the odd heartfelt profanity. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC).

  I don't care about the profanity, per se. It's a symptom, not the root problem. It's the uncivil remarks. From the last set of remarks alone...

  "the Wikipedia editing community doesn't give a shit" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d

  "a handful of like-minded editors are block voting" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d

  "[a handful of like-minded editors are] tag teaming" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d

  "so that material they don't agree with is never seen by our readers" WP:IUC 1c

  "evidence of it is presented, and very few even bother to stir themselves to take action" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d

  "we're abandoning our principles" WP:IUC 1c

  "The whitewash will succeed" WP:IUC 1c

  "Right-wing populism and Right-wing politics will be cleansed of anything the self-appointed CENSORS disapprove of" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d

  Until we crack down on civility problems, we're going to continue to drive away inexperienced editors. There's no time like the present... Buffs (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

And you know that notion just crossed my mind.-- Deepfriedokra 20:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal to Block or otherwise sanction BMK. BMK is reminded that sometimes frustration and hyperbole are a bad mix. BMK's passion sometimes results in over exuberance that comes out badly during discussions.-- Deepfriedokra 19:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Not at this time I do think BMK's recent editing and talk page behavior has left much to be desired. They have ignored CONSENSUS and ONUS and their accusations directed at me and others are certainly not CIVIL. However, I don't think they have risen to the point of needed a block. A simple reminder should be sufficient. Disclaimer - I was cited by BMK in the opening of this wreck of an ANI. Springee (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed. BMK. Do have a care, and please be mindfull of AGF and ASPERSIONS. Such hurtfulness is not helpful. One's opinions should stand/fall on their merits/demerits.-- Deepfriedokra 20:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  If it gets the job done, a simple admonishment is fine. I'm only looking for the behavior to stop. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: still ongoing. Your thoughts?

• Oppose - I don't really agree with BMK's behavior in this specific instance but I don't think it rises to the level of warranting a block. Sure, he shouldn't have used profanity but I think that we should just try and hash this out here first and reserve a block for a last resort only if that's the only way to prevent major disruption or incivility. Michepman (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Incivility is continuing: [19] Buffs (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• ???? Imploring an editor to properly indent their comments is "incivility"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• You appear to have a highly optimistic opinion of a condescending remarks like that. Buffs (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• "Optimistic"? Are you sure you weren't thinking of another word? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• I meant what I said. Perhaps you shouldn't be so critical of others. Buffs (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• BMK, please refactor your comments after you have a chance to reflect upon them. Editing conflicts can be upsetting, but you will be best served by removing or striking comments that are unproductive. Please use dispute resolution instead, if there are problems yet to be addressed. Obviously, no block of BMK is needed here. Buffs, please avoid requesting a block. Simply point out the problem and ask for help resolving it without assuming what the correct solution might be. Jehochman ^Talk 02:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Jehochman: What, exactly, in this comment, addressed to Springee:

"Are you ever going to learn how to properly indent your comments, or are other editors going to have to continue to clean up after you for the rest of your Wikipedia career?"

do you consider uncivil and wish me to refactor, considering that Springee's talk page comments were consistently wrongly indented, making it difficult to follow the discussion (although Springee has gotten a lot better since I made that remark)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. I'm speaking about the initial diff complained about in this thread.[20] Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I understand now. I have struck out any parts that I think may have been found objectionable, and replaced them with more suitablle language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman:, I respectfully disagree. IMHO, this sort of incivility is rampant in WP and needs to be addressed, but YMMV. I've placed my concerns here and above and elsewhere. I also suggested a remedy. If the community disagrees, I can accept that and even revel in it. Buffs (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Take a look at XY problem for an explanation of why it's better to focus on the problem at first, rather than a proposed solution. Jehochman ^Talk 12:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Ah, I think you're misreading my intent here. My call for a block is only tangentially related to this dispute (of which I'm not a part); it's only related in that this is one venue where such issues from BMK exist (and continue here at ANI and elsewhere). I recognize this doesn't solve the problem at the various pages mentioned at the beginning. Buffs (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• AN/I topic ban instead – A block would seem unnecessarily punitive. A better idea would be a topic ban against BMK at AN/I. He is in the top 2 most prolific contributors here, and his contributions come in two main flavors, both a net negative to the project: (1) stirring up trouble, calling for blocks, etc., instead of taking a more productive approach to discussing problems (e.g. like what he did to me); and (2) using AN/I as his own personal way to solicit help in his content disputes, as in the case that brought us here. Both of these should just stop, and a temporary block is unlikely to accomplish that. Ban him from AN/I (and AN, where he's the #1 contributor), except in cases brought by others that involve him. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - While his behavior in this one area hasn’t been stellar, it’s important to remember that Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) edits in highly contentious and sensitive areas that are more likely than others to require admin attention. That doesn’t excuse bad behavior, but the fact that he edits here often or gets involved with tough disputes shouldn’t be held against him in and of itself. I have seen him contribute productively to discussions so banning him seems like an overreach. Michepman (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment - as another person who regularly edits on the topic of political conflict, I have to say that the subject is, by its nature, often incendiary. BMK may occasionally be blunt or abrasive, but compared to some of the behaviour we see in this article set, blunt and abrasive does not rise to the level of disciplinary action. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose to inflict Paine upon BMK

I didn't think that was a profanity-laced rant, so much as a profanity-sprinkled rant. This is a profanity-laced rant.

Anyway, Bannon's quote, "Let them call you racist...", is a riff on an old American saying, "Let them call me rebel", which comes from what are, according to legendary scholar Levivich, some of the greatest words ever written in the English language, Thomas Paine's The Crisis (text): "Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one, whose character is that of a stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man." Now that is a PA against King George III. BMK, by contrast, hasn't made any PAs against any specific editors from what I've seen. Rather, he's made hand-wavy general comments about a vast right-wing conspiracy, which hasn't worked out any better for BMK than it did for a certain American politician, but is no reason to block.

So, BMK, in the words of Paine: "I dwell not upon the vapors of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes." Bannon said "Let them call you racist...", and you added that quote to Steve Bannon, National Rally (France), Right-wing populism and Right-wing politics. You got some pushback at the latter two, but no one's disturbed it at the former two. This tends to disprove your theory that there is a concerted effort to keep this quote out of Wikipedia; rather it's just crowd-sourced editing, i.e., consensus working as normal. This is no reason to give up. To partially quote another writer who is not quite as good as Paine, but still pretty damn good: "something something fighting tooth and nail against multiple editors something something almost entirely based on their personal view of things something something Wikipedia's consensus-based model." 'nuff said.

Therefore, I propose we bring BMK a ladder and a change of clothes, help him down from the Reichstag, let those RfCs run, and call it a day. Because, as Paine wrote in Common Sense (text): "It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies". – Levivich 00:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Makes (common) sense to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The push to put this quote in so many places doesn't due BMK any credit. It's clear they want it in because, when taken out of context, it's inflammatory. It's very notable that BMK didn't add the context of the speech. Yes, they added the audience but not how the quote was used in the delivered speech. It appears that when the editor couldn't "win" at the other two articles they went off to "win" other places. Perhaps self reflection is the best answer here. Springee (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The context that was provided for the Bannon quote, to show that it was not "taken out of context".

All the necessary context was provided, such as this, which was in the "Definition" section of Right-wing populism until it was removed by Springee (first removal, of entire section; second removal, of Bannon quote only): Erik Berggren and Andres Neergard in "Populism: Protest, democratic challenge and right wing sxtremism" write "Most researchers agree ... that xenophobia, anti-immigration sentiments, nativism, ethno-nationalism and racism are, in different ways, central elements in the ideologies, politics, and practices of right-wing populism and Extreme Right Wing Parties."[34] Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, in their Populism: A Very Short Introduction, note that in European right-wing populism there is a "marriage of convenience" of populism based on an "ethnic and chauvinistic definition of the people", authoritarianism, and nativism. This results in right-wing populism having a "xenophobic nature." Mudde and Kaltwasser cite the French National Front as the "prototypical populist radical right-wing party".[35] In March 2018, in what has been described as a "populist pep talk"[36] at a National Front party congress, Steve Bannon, former advisor to Donald Trump before and after his election, advised those present to "Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honor."[37] [21] or this version, from the Steve Bannon article: At a party congress in March 2018, Bannon gave members of the French right-wing populist National Front (NF) what has been described as a "populist pep talk".[150] Bannon advised the party members to "Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker. ... Hstory is on our side and will bring us victory." Bannon's remarks brought the members to their feet.[250][251][252][253] Critics expressed concern that Bannon was "normalizing racism."[254] Bannon generally considers charges of racism made against the right to be the result of a biased media.[255] What more context could be required? Each version is specifically geared to the article it appeared in, so that the "Definition" version has academic sources to support it, while the others are straight-forward reporting with no interpretation, and multiple sources to confirm the content and context of the speech. I fail to see any way in which I took the quote out of context. Reading any of the various articles about the speech -- such as this one from the NYTimes --will confirm that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Yet in both cases consensus was against including. Not "Springee alone opposed". In both cases you tried to push inclusion when other editors objected and thus violated CONSENSUS. If so many editors say no, then you really need to ask why. The way that helps the most is to go to the talk page and discuss rather than make POINTy edits. Springee (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC) That is incorrect there was no consensus. You have consistently misrepresented the situation, just as in this discussion you misrepresented that the quote was "taken out of context". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC) And you circle back. First, per policy (NOCON) if there isn't consensus the edits revert. I say there was consensus for removal, you say there was no consensus. Either way, policy says we do the same thing, revert to the earlier version of the text. You claim the quotes weren't out of context but other editors disagree. Springee (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Are you ever going to learn how to properly indent your comments, or are other editors going to have to continue to clean up after you for the rest of your Wikipedia career? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

OK but it's in unity that our great :strength lies–just as true for building a nation as for building an encyclopedia. We make a shitty encyclopedia when we fight all the time. That's how we end up with articles like "Levivich is an American^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]} ...".

A notable guy said a notable thing; the world took note of it. Do we document it? Where do we document it? How do we document it? We should be able to have that conversation (WP:BRD) and it should look something like this:

Editor A: I think we should document it here, like this.

Editor B: I think we should document it there, like that.

Editor C: I think we should document it here, like that.

discussion proceeds...

...but instead, it too often looks like this:

Editor A: I think we should document it here, like this.

Editor B: I think we should document it there, like that.

Editor A: I think you're a Nazi.

Editor B: I think you're an asshole.

Editor C: Both of you fuck off.

I think it stems from favoring simple binary presentations that we can "!vote" on, rather than open-ended discussions. It's bold/revert, support/oppose, keep/delete–that's how we like to break things down, but it divides us. So we have binary edit wars and RfCs with binary choices on multiple articles, satisfying nobody, and yet rarely have just a brainstorming session about "where do we put this Bannon thing?" Brainstorming, open-ended (rather than adversarial) source analysis, and pre-RfC discussions are too rare, especially in DS areas like AP2, because charged topic areas lead to a lack of AGF, and it's hard to have a conversation with a Nazi and an asshole. Heck, just try talking to – Levivich 04:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but also consider Arrow's impossibility theorem, which holds that when a group is presented with more than two choices, there is no voting system that will ensure that the outcome reflect's the group's actual preferences. Given this, RfC's are more likely to represent the views of the group voting on them when the choice provided is binary. (And, of course, the group that is !voting only has a chance of representing the views of the larger community when impediments such as block voting and canvassing, which skew the vote in a particular direction, are eliminated, a condition difficult to get to when strong POVs -- especially political POVs -- are a motivating factor in the !voting, as is the case here.)

And to circle back to the beginning of this section for a moment, sure, Bannon's "populist pep talk" to the National Front that brought the party members to their feet is the rhetorical equivalent of Paine's "Let them call me rebel...", but the difference comes in what lies behind the words. Paine was rebelling against a polity that was preventing his people from (in the words of another dude) achieving "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", while Bannon is admitting that right-wing populists are called xenophobes, nativists, and racists, and, rather than rejecting these labels, they should own them, because "history is on our side" and victory will be theirs. There is a substantive qualitative difference between the morality of Paine's words and that of Bannon's.

And given that, one has to wonder why some Wikipedia editors are working overtime and pulling out every trick in the book to prevent Bannon's words from appearing in an article that they are obviously pertinent to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And it more and more obvious that it not just Bannon's words, Springee just doesn't want it explicitly said that right-wing populism is about xenophobia, racism, and authoritarianism, among other delightful things. She just removed a quote I added from a historian who said basically that. This is quite clearly POV editing in blatant violation of WP:NPOV.

If experts on a subject say "X", then we report "X", and it's irrelevant whether they say it in a journal article, a book published by a university press, a book published by a commercial publisher, a media outlet, or their own personal blog. The reliable source involved is the expert, and there is absolutely no excuse for Springee to remove it from the article, as they did here. This behavior needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's clear, BMK, that you think this quote is illuminating and revealing. But why does it need to appear in 4 different articles? Because that's what it seems like you are fighting so hard for. Not for its mere inclusion in an article where it is relevant, but your insistence that it appears in 4 different articles which might be, well, a little repetitive considering the overlap in the subjects. Can't you see the inclusion of this article in two articles as a "win"? Because, at the end of the day, even the most successful editors don't get their way 100% of the time. Surely, a 50% success rate on this one quote shouldn't be enough to cause you to walk away from editing Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, because it's pertinent to three articles. (I've given up on Right-wing politics): Steve Bannon, who said it and because it reveals the nature of his thoughts, the National Front, who he said it to and whose members accepted it with their acclamation, and Right-wing populism which is what the quote is about. As I said above, I frequently add the same information to multiple articles if it is pertinent to more than one. And, really, the only strong overlap between these three articles is between the "National Front", a right-wing populist party, and "Right-wing populism", an overview article. Bannon is much, much more than simply a right-wing populist, and he had no real connection to the National Front until that particular appearance.

To answer your questions - no ,I never expect 100% success - I've been around here too long and have edited too much to hold such an unreasonable expectation -- and, as I said, I've already given up on it appearing in Right-wing politics, having de facto accepted the argument that it didn't represent the full range of that subject. But as for the others - well, the Bannon article is an obvious place for it to be, the NF article is an obvious place for it to be, but the nature of the quote, and the insight it offers into the nature of right-wing populism, means that it's really not a "win" if it's not in that article, and, really, it should be in the "Definition" section, not stuck down in the "France" section.

Bannon's uncensored acceptance of the xenophobic, nativist and racist nature of right-wing populism, the idea that brought the crowd to its feet, is an extraordinary admission for someone to have made. These are things that Marine le Pen, in her attempts to "de-demonize" the party and take it mainstream, has sought to avoid having the public identify with the NF. She would never have made the candid admission that Bannon did and told her people to own those attributes as a badge of honor. That is why it's so important that it's not dry academics saying these things, it's someone who says "Be proud of being a xenophobe! Wear your racism as a badge of honor. When people call you a nativist, say 'Yes I am a nativist, and proud of it!'" Those thoughts, expressed in the way that Bannon expressed them, are powerful, which is why Springee and company don't want them in the article. Because they're true and they're enlightening and they're powerful. They need to be in Right-wing populism for all the reasons that Springee so desperately wants them not to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: BTW, when you say "this quote", I assume you're talking about the Bannon quote. I just want to note that in the comment just above yours, I pointed out that I added a quote from a different person, and Springee and company are now trying to prevent it from appearing in the article [22], revealing once again the POV nature of their editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

BMK, remember that CONSENSUS is policy. If you make a change and other editors object then POLICY says try to get consensus for the change. If consensus doesn't exist, the change is reverted. Note it doesn't say consensus to revert, it says consensus is required to keep the change. You can make your case on the talk page. Thus far I've objected on several grounds. Other editors can weight in. If they disagree with me then I think you will have your consensus. If they don't then you don't have consensus. Springee (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, the argument you made that the Shenkman quote "failed varification" just fell to pieces. See my note on the article talk page, where I explain that you can download Rosenberg's paper and in it there is absolutely no sign of the language that Shenkman used, because that was Shenkman's gloss on what right-wing populism has to offer the common man after the failure of the elites, and not Rosenberg's, as you insisted it was.

I suggest, that with the high visibility of this discussion, and the number of people now watching Right-wing populism, you would be best advised not to go around deleting properly sourced pertinent information simply because you disagree with it. Such very public blatant violations of WP:NPOV can lead to problems. And, remember, your behavior - among others - is what this report is about, not the content dispute, which you keep dragging into it. It's your attempt to use every trick you can come up with to keep information you object to out of articles, because your personal POV opposes it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't comment here often, & I don't usually even read long discussions here about things like US politics, but the cleverness of Levich's replies attracted me to read this. Looking also at the articles, I think it's very clear that the quote (in full context) is appropriate in the articles on Bannon and the National Front: it shows his views, and it shows theirs. Right wing populism is a more general matter than the views of either, & it is not as clear that it sufficient encapsulates the entire movement--personally I think it pretty much does, but it's not as obvious. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: Thank you for that considered opinion. I would remind you that the Definition section of the article cites numerous reliable sources which confirm that the attributes cited by Shenkman and used by Bannon are intrinsically part of right-wing populism, hence the use of both of these quotes is both justified and supported.

Do you have any thoughts on the question of whether Springee and other editors attempting to block the use of the Bannon and Shenkman quotes are doing so out of a personal political POV, in violation of WP:NPOV? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@DGG: Fixing ping. Please see previous comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Reading the definition section, this particular set of three is nowhere given as the essential characteristics. (There's even an explicit denial of "racism", xenophobia is mentioned but not emphasised , and there's discussion of carious meanings of nativism.) The part I think makes most sense is "a cluster of categories since the parties differ in ideology, organization and leadership rhetoric". Attempts at exact definition of political movements usually cause confusion. The key point of what Bannon said is not the terms he used, but the defiant challenge to conventional political morality.

Much more important, I refuse to assume that the personal political POV of any of the editors here is the motivation for the arguments. You need to think more about the meaning of NPA. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I "assumed" nothing - I don't recall knowing Springee's edits from any earlier time. I have , however, observed editing from a strong political POV, in the articles mentioned here. I'm sorry you disagree with that, but that is what it is.

Your gloss on the definition of right-wing populism is, I think somewhat off, but that is (again) not for discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, from past interactions, Springee seems to have a problem confusing policy with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and advocating for (yes I'll agree with Beyond My Ken) WP:CENSORing things that they don't like. Bannon is notable. Bannon is, particularly, notable as a populist leader [23]. Bannon said notable things to a particular group the National Front that is described and sourced in the Right-wing populism article as "prototypical populist radical right-wing party". That there is even a question here does not appear to me due to policy. It certainly looks like Springee is filibustering and misrepresenting both wording and policies in service of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT point of view.

Also, an edit like this[24] by Springee, after Beyond My Ken wrote several paragraphs and checked both the article and sources to make sure that it was Shenkman's own words and not something he was quoting or summarizing, I believe is an attempt to goad Beyond My Ken. It appears similar to Sealioning. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

6Years, by posting here you open your self up for review. You are a new account as of less than 2 months back[[25]]. Your first edit wasn't a typical grammar fix or adding a fact to an article. No, it was the creation of an AFD page! [[26]] Yes, new editors always open with an AfD discussion. Slatersteven was rightly suspicious and asked you about your history here, did you have a prior account [[27]]. You gave an evasive answer. Based on comments from another editor I repeated Slaterseven's question. After that you pinged Doug Weller [[28]] then started following me to other articles [[29]]. HOUND may not have been your intent but it was hardly the advice Doug Weller gave you. So are you here because you have a legitimate complaint or because you are hoping to pile onto someone who suggested that your behavior certainly looks like you had a prior account? Perhaps we shouldn't answer and just let someone kill this train wreck.Springee (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe I have a right to comment on your behavior and how it is coming across (whether you intend it that way or not), and I note that you started targeting me with your accusations in apparent retaliation for Bishonen's topic ban of JWeiss11 very shortly after you commented there. I don't think I need to answer any of your insinuations further.[30] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this the topic ban you are talking about? I'm not sure what I said that bothered you [[31]]. Springee (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It's the fact that you began running around accusing me of being a sockpuppet very shortly after your post there, showing that you were trying to continue Jweiss11's attack [32]. First at my talk page, then you ran off to another person's talk page, now you're doing it here. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUCK applies here... Buffs (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Then file an SPI report if you believe it's so obvious, and stop WP:Casting aspersions without specific evidence to support your opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Not only is Buffs wrong (and seems to be deliberately doing this trying to get an angry response from me), I have proof. [33] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

My evidence is based on 6Years' edit history. He's clearly not new to WP and seems to have a sudden, inordinate attention solely focused on this article. As such, both WP:SPA and WP:SOCK apply. I base this on behavior. The "evidence" provided doesn't "prove" anything. It's one editor's opinion on a narrow subject line, not the current issue. Furthermore, the account assessed was not 6Years' latest account, so it was made prior to comments here. My point's been made and can be actioned here if an admin deems it necessary; this will be my last comment on the subject. Buffs (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Propose closing this thread

This is nothing more that an open sewer of an ANI. Would an admin please close it. Springee (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The nature of the mess at AN/I and AN is driven by the most prolific contributors there. At AN, BMK is #1, and at AN/I he's #2, last I checked. A good step toward making it less of a "sewer" would be to remove his effluent at its source. This thread he started is an example of the problem, and a chance to address it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Returning to the purpose of this report

Another data point in the nominal topic of this (overall) thread, which is behavioral problems. Consider this edit by Springee on Talk:Right-wing populism in which they reject xenophobia, racism, authoritarianism etc. as "alarmist" terms, this despite the fact that the Definition section offers numerous scholarly analyses which say that these things are intrinsic to right-wing populism. "Most researchers agree [...] that xenophobia, anti-immigration sentiments, nativism, ethno-nationalism are, in different ways, central elements in the ideologies, politics, and practices of right-wing populism and Extreme Right Wing Parties" is how one puts it. Despite this, Spingee views these attributes as merely "alarmist" terms, used to scare people about the bogeyman of right-wing populism. This is a very strong indication that Springee is editing not for neutrality or accuracy, but from a personal political point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

TWO people said that "most researchers agree" and are "practices of right-wing populism and Extreme Right Wing Parties". You're stretching here. At this point, you are trying to equate via WP:SYN that popular right wing people are inherently racist, et al. That's absurd on its face. Buffs (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Not "two people", two reliable sources, one of which summarized what "most researchers agree" on - and if you look at the paragraphs above that one, you'll see other academics (like Cas Mudde) who agree. If you think that they are all incorrect, then please come up with neutral reliable sources that say that right-wing populism is not xenophobic, racist, authoritarian, nativist, enthno-nationalist etc. I don't think you'll be able to, because -- as the rest of the Definition section shows -- these attributes are commonly cited by academics.

But, I do note that you're talking about the content dispute, when this report and this section are about behavior, specifically whether Springee and other editors are editing from a personal political point of view, and are not editing neutrally. Do you have anything to add to that, as opposed to attempting to litigate what belongs on the article talk page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is problem conduct by Springee. This [34] was way over the line on the part of Springee. Particularly vexatious is comments like [35] that show WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior when Beyond My Ken had already written quite a thoughtful response on why Shenkman's comment was not simply a paraphrasing or summation of Rosenberg's. The reply "No you haven't"[36] which is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes level behavior. When Springee did finally provide a quote (after first insisting they had when they hadn't [37]), the quote did not satisfy the wording nor back up what Springee said [38]. In that discussion Springee has also continuously ignored Drmies' admonition that "There is no such thing as a "scholarly section"" and keeps on insisting that Shenkman, despite being the author of the piece, cannot be quoted because despite being in a WP:RS and Shenkman undeniably being a repeatedly published, recognized topic expert on the grounds that it isn't a scholarly journal. I can't decide fully whether that's a Moving the goalposts issue or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but it's part of an overall WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem that's manifesting as a combination of WP:BATTLEGROUND and Sealioning-looking behavior. Regardless, the net effect seems to be that Springee is hoping to provoke someone into crossing a line, and when others aren't biting on their bait, Springee themselves are getting flustered and then crossing the line. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Color me a little skeptical on your edit history, but this looks like a WP:SPA. Buffs (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an actual comment on the specific links I provided to illustrate the pattern, or are you just trying to attack me personally hoping you'll get a reaction? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You know, Buffs, that being a SPA isn't actually against any policies. Most editors start editing a specific topic area and later, some (but not all) became generalists. But there are many editors who persist in focusing on specific interests like politics, football, anime, music or wrestling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Look at editor's history...WP:DUCK applies in spades. I'm not against WP:SPAs per se, but the focus of this one appears to be harassment. Buffs (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs:You're wrong, you're out of line, and you seem to just be hoping that you can get me to respond in an angry way. I'm no sockpuppet.[39] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So...a link to comments of another user that don't pertain to you or this situation? I'll stand by my assessment. Buffs (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Quoth Drmies, regarding me: "plus the editor who initiated it is, as far as we can tell, not a sock, and I happen to know this was already investigated.". Now stop it. All you're doing is proving you can't be civil. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) You are alleging editors pushing a POV. I think, to the contrary, that you are pushing POV and it's quite obvious. It's impossible to state that without explaining the points which support such an opinion. Likewise, you (and the RS author) are conflating "right wing" with "extremists"/"extreme right wing" as if there is no difference; there most certainly is. I disagree with 6Years' assessment. Buffs (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pushing a POV? Nope. I am reporting the opinions of subject experts that right-wing populism is xenophobic, authoritarian, and racist, among other things. The POV editor is the one attempting to move heaven and earth to prevent those assessments from appearing in the article on right-wing populism. That's really the bottom line here: a POV editor does not want the views of subject experts to be included in an article on the subject because they disagree with them, calling them "alarmist". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The opinions espoused here are literally saying that half of the US (for example) is racist, alarmist, authoritarian. Those creating these papers are either highly partisan or attempting to conflate analysis. Those citing these sources here are (intentionally) conflating extreme views with the mainstream conservatism. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your statement is ridiculous on its face. "Half of the US" are not right-wing populists, even if something under half of the electorate voted for a right-wing populist presidential candidate (which was hardly obvious at the time of the election) -- but in any case, we report what reliable sources say, regardless of what your personal assessment is of what they say. If you think they're incorrect, find reliable sources that say otherwise, don't make arguments based on your personal beliefs or analysis, which would clearly be WP:OR.

Again, to return to the proper subject of this report, what we see in the comment above is that the objection to the disputed material isn't based on anything but the personal political POVs of the editors attempting to prevent the material from being used. They disagree with what is being said because it contradicts their own ideologies, not because the material isn't properly sourced or is irrelevant to the subject matter. They think it's "alarmist", for instance, and come up with other silly unsupported arguments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I was considering a reply to Buffs but the entirety of Buffs' last statement has nothing to do with this report and seems to just constitute WP:IDONTLIKEIT with respect to content. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there are several purposes to many of the posts here. One is to attempt to show that I am a bad actor by pointing out what is obvious to them, which is that the information from reliable sources I'm attempting to add is just plain flat out wrong, and also dangerous, and shouldn't be added because of that. They do this because that's what their ideological stances tell them is the case, and they cannot see beyond those POVs.

The other is to muddy the waters as much as possible, by returning again and again to the content dispute -- which is not the subject of this report, and which do not get handled at AN/I -- in order to deflect from the charges I am reporting here, of editing in a POV manner without regard for neutrality, which is the actual subject at hand. By referencing the content dispute over and over again, they hope to create the impression that this is all about content, and not about their behavior, and thereby get the report closed or ignored. It's an effective tactic, because the report gets lengthier and lengthier, with more and more sidebars and ancilliary discussions, so they can then pop up to say that the whole thing is an "open sewer" and ask for the report to be closed without action. [40].

Attacking you is simply a continuation by other means of the earlier incidents in this case: the IP reverting my article edit who was a signed-out editor, and the blatantly obvious Joe job account which showed up with a name that attacked Buffs and conspicuously agreed with me, with the intent of getting people to think that I might be behind the imposter (which I wasn't). Same same. Deflection and muddying-the-water. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You cannot just say "<Content X> is from a reliable source and should therefore be included". Context is everything. WP:SYN needs to be considered. etc, etc, etc. That you keep adding this nonsense IS the problem. That isn't a content dispute, but a behavioral problem. That you choose to do so in the condescending manner you've done is also indicative of other issues such as a lack of civility. Buffs (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bannon quote material, as it currently exists in the "France" section of Right-wing populism:

When the party was at a low point because of Le Pen's disappointing result in the presidential election and concerns about her ability to govern the party[106] Steve Bannon, former advisor to Donald Trump before and after his election, gave NF members at a party congress in March 2018 what has been described as a "populist pep talk".[106] Bannon advised the party members to "Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker. ... History is on our side and will bring us victory." Bannon's remarks brought the members to their feet.[107][108][109]

All necessary context is provided, and there is not a lick of SYNTH, just a bunch of reliable sources to support every single fact reported.

But here you are again, bringing up CONTENT here, when this report is about BEHAVIOR, such as -- come to think of it --the attempts by you and Springee to deflect the focus of this discussion away from behavior by constantly bringing up content. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

And yet his analysis remains spot-on, Buffs. You and Springee have continually tried to argue the content here, rather than participate in the discussion of content in the appropriate place, all the while insultingly casting aspersions yourself. You even started tag-teaming me, accusing me of being a sockpuppet after I provided the linked evidence showing Springee I'm not and casting aspersions on me, I can only assume in hopes of getting an angry reaction so that you could cry for "civility". And when you make statements like "The opinions espoused here are literally saying that half of the US (for example) is racist, alarmist, authoritarian" and "Those creating these papers are either highly partisan or attempting to conflate analysis", all you do is show us that your objection is not based in policy but rather in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for being dragged into this. I have issues with both users involved here. Both seem to be warriors for truth. Atr this time I think an IBAN is in order, and hopefully they will leave each other alone.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not here as a warrior for truth, I am here to provide accurate, relevant, and reliably sourced information to our readers. Others are attempting to prevent such material from appearing in one of our articles, based only on the fact that they disagree with it, or don't like it, or find it "alarmist". That's not editing neutrally, that editing from a POV.

For myself, although they will almost certainly not believe this, if the material in question had said exactly the opposite, I would still be trying to add it to the article, because it would still be relevant and reliably sourced, and our readers deserve to know it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not care about the rights or wrongs of the content dispute, only the twoing and throwing here. This drama is not helping and it may be that an IBAN will mean others can have a look and fix any issues without (as I was) being dragged into this dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

Why isn't this matter at WP:AE under the American potitics 2, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people at WP:General sanctions? Buffs has said The opinions espoused here are literally saying tha t half of the US (for example) is racist, alarmist, authoritarian. [41] At least the portions of this article that deal with American right wing populism are covered, are they not? If this article is not covered by the general sanction, perhaps it should be and an arbitration clarification or modification is needed. I don't see WP:ANI resolving this type of dispute because it's just going to flare up repeatedly without stronger measures and controls. Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

As this is about Steve Bannon, who is most certainly an AP2 covered figure, I can't see how AP2 wouldn't apply. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This thread is so long and hairy that it probably won't generate a clear consensus here. Why don't we check if the users have received the required notifications, and give any that are needed. If notice has been given, the participants are welcome to file reports at WP:AE if they wish, but keep in mind the behavior of all involved in a report may be scrutinized. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean, yeah. That'd be a good start. Simonm223 (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think Beyond My Ken was correct in analysis then @Jehochman:, "By referencing the content dispute over and over again, they hope to create the impression that this is all about content, and not about their behavior, and thereby get the report closed or ignored. It's an effective tactic, because the report gets lengthier and lengthier, with more and more sidebars and ancilliary discussions, so they can then pop up to say that the whole thing is an "open sewer" and ask for the report to be closed without action. [61]." And here we are, with "this thread is so long and hairy..." because of two editors (Springee and Buffs) who consistently and constantly tried to bring up content while their conduct (such as [42], or claiming to have answered questions they haven't [43], or vexatiously accusing people of being sockpuppets) is the issue. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

They are both being noticed about discretionary sanctions. Should they proceed to violate the notice, the next report should go to WP:AE. Let's hope that won't be necessary. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, feel free to report anybody here at WP:AE if disruption is ongoing. If they have ceased, wait to see if the behavior resumes. I am not making a judgment one way or the other about any editor at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I second this motion. I appreciate the notice on my talk page and, to be blunt, don't know why it hasn't been enforced sooner. Send this to AE should any of it continue and let's move on. Buffs (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess I have to place the note here that Buffs just called me a troll[44] in addition to all the false insinuations trying to "obliquely" call me a sockpuppet. Conduct, again. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

No, you don't. Buffs (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Jehochman: I did consider whether this would fall under AP2 or not. Obviously, Bannon is (or was) a major current AP2 figure, but the articles under discussion -- originally Right-wing politics and now Right-wing populism -- have a world-wide focus, and in fact are much more European- and Latin American-centric than they are about US poltics, even though US politics are certainly part of both. For this reason I thought that AN/I was a better venue for discussion of behavioral problems in these articles, despite Bannon being American.
  An additional consideration is that the campaign to prevent certain material from appearing in right-wing populism has spread beyond the Bannon quote to a quote by writer-historian Rick Shenkman (founder of the History News Network, now part of Georgetown University), who, wile he is American, is not a AP2 figure by any definition, and whose quote was not about American politics, but about right-wing populism world wide. The article the Shenkman quote came from discusses a paper that American political psychologist Shawn Rosenberg delivered at a conference in Lisbon, the scope of which, while again discussing American politics, was right-wing populism in general.
  Despite my initial decision to come here, if the collective community wisdom is that this issue is best dealt with at AE under the AP2 umbrella, I accept that, and will file an AE report if the attempts to keep out this properly sourced and relevant material continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

If the material in dispute relates to American politics, regardless of the article having a broader scope, I think AE is a good venue. If the content is strictly non-US, then you are right that this is the venue. You may still consider one of the more specialized noticeboards. I would come here only as a last resort when you can't find another other place to go. As you can see, the heavy traffic of comments by whoever is watching this page can produce a noise to signal ratio that's not ideal. Jehochman ^Talk 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have certainly noticed that. Thanks for the advice about the specialized noticeboards, which, frankly, I hadn't considered, but probably should have, NPOVN in particular. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Bannon is an influential figure in US politics, he's not some irrelevant fringe figure with no real influence whatsoever. What he says is then picked up by major news organizations and Wikipedia should cover that in an appropriate way. There is always going to be resistance of believers in a political ideology to cover statements by influential figures that are seen to be politically incorrect and cast that political ideology in a bad light. E.g., when the fascist movement started in the 1920s it was not what it later became when the fascist allied themselves with the Nazis. Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:Beyond My Ken

I've just noticed that BMK has canvassed at least one user with a non-neutral post.1 Mr rnddude (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I was not soliciting new !votes in a non-neutral manner, I was providing information to @Count Iblis: -- who had already expressed an opinion in this AN/I discussion about the Bannon quote -- about where their comment should be placed, i.e the RfC at Talk:Right-wing populism rather then the behavioral discussion on AN/I. I might be wrong, but I don't see this as canvassing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (September 2019)

User:STSC is continuing to make POV edits regarding contentious China-related issues. This was raised in 2015 by User:Feminist in the aftermath of the 2014 Hong Kong protests, and has come up sporadically since then.

The latest batch of questionable edits surround the ongoing 2019 Hong Kong protests. Here are some examples:

• Implying that police violence only took place against “violent” protesters (12 September). This is not reflected by coverage in reliable secondary sources. Innocent bystanders, peaceful protesters, and even press and medics have been injured by police tear gas and rubber bullets.

• Writing that a general strike held by protesters “failed” (12 September), a claim that is also not reflected by any reliable secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources reported that the strike snarled traffic routes, and was both "massive" and "unprecedented". To write that the strike "failed" or was "not so successful" is pure POV; a view that has not been published by any reliable secondary source.

• Referring to the protests as “riots”. In Hong Kong, the term “riot” has hefty legal ramifications. Given the fluid and most often non-violent nature of the movement, reliable sources have not broadly characterised the protests as “rioting”.
  • 15 August
  • 8 September – the cited sources do not use the term riot in relation to the Sheung Wan protests, as the edit summary falsely suggests

• Changing Tiananmen Square “massacre” to “protest”, even though the legislative motion in question specifically applied to the June 4 massacre, not the 1989 protests as a whole (9 September, 10 September)

• Denying that “protesters” are citizens, or falsely suggesting that crowdfunded newspaper ads were not funded by “citizens”, but exclusively by “protesters”, which is a claim not reflected in any of the cited sources (8 September, 12 September). Meanwhile, STSC portrays pro-Beijing protesters as "ordinary Hong Kong residents" (12 September). The difference in how the two groups are characterised is suggestive of bias.

• Using misleading edit summaries to blank content without explanation (9 September, 12 September)

• Removing mention of Hong Kongers’ self-identity as Hong Kongers (i.e. as opposed to Chinese)

• Blanking “potentially libellous” content from the article for Junius Ho, a pro-Beijing legislator (2 August, 6 August, 21 August, 10 September, 10 September). In order for something to be libel, it must be false. However, the “potentially libellous” content in the article is all well-sourced to reliable secondary sources.

Considered altogether, these diffs are additional evidence that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push a particular political agenda. Citobun (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Out of all these diffs, the only one that rises to the level of a behavioural issue as opposed to a content dispute is this. Several of these look, honestly, like improvements from the perspective of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I'd suggest, at most, that STSC be cautioned not to use misleading edit summaries. But to claim WP:NOTHERE no. That's overreach. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(For instance, STSC's argument that a small-sample survey from a potentially biased source isn't WP:DUE seems quite solid.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the extent to which respondent's sentiment to being considered Chinese changed was documented at less than the margin of error for the survey. As a result, it's questionable the extent to which Wikipedia should be making interpretive statements of the raw data per WP:SYNTH notwithstanding the issue of the small sample size and risk of bias in sample selection, which is a bit of a black box here. We know they conducted phone interviews with a live interviewer but there's no information about the interview script, or number selection. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

For additional grounds why this particular edit on STSC's part was actually probably a net good for the project see also WP:PRIMARY as the removed source is, in fact, a primary source. I use this as an example of why it's for the best not to initiate AN/I complaints to settle content disputes. However I should note that STSC did not deny that the protesters were citizens. STSC clarified that the citizens blocking traffic were protesters. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(Oops, hit publish too fast) I mention that one in specific because there are some complaints on this list that fail verification in similar ways. I'd suggest that the Citobun's POV may be colouring their perspective on STSC's edits. I do not think a boomerang is at all necessary here, but I would suggest that this complaint be closed promptly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You can find elements of some questionable edits that are constructive in some way. Others are purely blatant POV-pushing. Regarding the Ho example, potentially controversial content on that page is well-sourced. His polemic makes him one of the most notorious politicians in Hong Kong. It isn't "potentially libelous" to write about these incidents as long as it is all well-sourced. Citobun (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Simonm223 seems to have hit it on the head. I concur in general that, for example, "Tienanmen Square Massacre" is the appropriate verbiage to be used. While the protest indeed spanned a longer timeframe, he appears to be expressing support for those killed in the crackdown/massacre. Buffs (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by STSC - Just recently user Citobun has been blocked for harassment [45] but he/she still does not want to give up his/her hate campaigns against other editors in content disputes. STSC (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment if this is in fact part of a pattern behavior wherein Citobun has targeted STSC it might be appropriate to reconsider whether a boomerang was appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I was told by an admin (User:NinjaRobotPirate) that I need to provide more substantiation to claims that STSC is engaging in unconstructive POV-pushing. I have therefore provided ample evidence above. Please read the policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This clearly does not constitute a personal attack – it's about content. On the other hand, STSC repeatedly accusing me of undertaking a "hate campaign" is indeed a personal attack. So is your baseless claim that my supposed POV is "colouring [my] perspective". I have barely ever edited the protest page. Citobun (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I had raised the concern on the article (or the set of article) for POV pushing and the emerge of a few SPA account. Experienced editor that synthesis source, that made up new thing from source is not that surprising to appear in the article. Just are there any admin dare to lock the article and allow editors to settle stuff on talk page first. Matthew hk (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Regardless of this specific complaint, and the long term interpersonal conflict it appears to be part of, I concur with Matthew hk that edit protection would be a good idea on these articles. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment and question about BLP violations I recently removed this defamatory/libelous statement [46] from Talk:Joshua Wong (originally posted [47],[48], went to look at the editor's talk and came here. I am actually quite surprised to see users allowed to use the talk page for posting rumours about living people and then discussing them like a forum? I thought the WP:BLP policy applies everywhere. What is Wikipedia's mechanism to address such issues?--DreamLinker (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seem a serious BLP violation by User:STSC (edit: the ip 94.134.89.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), i misread the talk page. 09:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)) regarding Joshua Wong. Unless the user genuine believe the fake news / misinformation on state-owned newspaper inside the Great Firewall of China. BTW, his father seem a highly educated professional, which at least South Horizons is an expensive private estate. To add my point, even they are Vietnamese-Chinese (i did know some personally), it is a serious OR and UNDUE accusation on linkage to their political spectrum . Tung Chee Wa was from Shanghai/Zhejiang, Bernard Charnwut Chan is a Thai-Chinese diaspora and so on. Carrie Lam and her family have/had British citizenship too, so do predecessor CY Leung . Matthew hk (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I dismissed that rumour as I could not find any reliable source to confirm it. Even if it was true, being a Vietnamese person does not mean he would be a bad guy in Hong Kong. STSC (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your so called "dismissing of the rumour" was actually not a dismissing, but rather indulging in gossip and using the talk page like a forum to discuss unsubstantiated rumours. This is a serious BLP violation. We are not supposed to further discuss unsubstantiated claims (which is exactly what you did). I also wonder what do you mean in comments such as [49] where you say I agree. The "5 deaths (all suicides)" in the infobox does sound like they were suicide bombers for their "revolution". I don't know if you are doing this intentionally and trying to game the system by casting aspersions, but no English speaker would confuse "suicide" with "suicide bombing". I want to WP:AGF here, but your behaviour is somewhat close to what is described as Sealioning. I trust that you will take the advice and refrain from such behaviour.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

(1) A user wanted to include a piece of information in the article, I replied there're no reliable sources to back it up. Am I not allowed to do that in talk page?

(2) A user expressed his/her concern about a piece of information maybe misleading in the article, I replied and exchanged my opinion on that issue. Am I not allowed to do that in talk page?

STSC (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I will describe what happened

(1) A user posted unsubstantiated libelous content on a talk page which was clearly a WP:BLP violation. Instead of removing, you engaged in discussing claiming "you've heard something similar". Then you added you don't don't have sources so cannot say it is true to false. We are supposed to remove unambiguous BLP violations, instead of commenting that "yes, I have heard something similar" and using the talk page like a forum

I would rather give the user a chance to reply and back up his/her claim in the talk page. STSC (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your second edit which I pointed out is an example of a borderline edit which (while not breaking any explicit Wikipedia policies), tends to either show a deliberate attempt at Sealioning or a non-understanding of English (though I find it hard to believe the latter). It makes it hard to assume good faith, that's all.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If you have any issue, why don't you discuss it in the article's talk page? Your problem is you don't even participate in that discussion about the deaths but tried very hard to make a meal out of nothing on here. STSC (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I am commenting on your behaviour, not the content. This is the correct venue, not the article talk page.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You disagree to my opinion about "suicide" in the infobox, that's very much about the content. Just say my opinion is not to your liking. STSC (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Like I said again, the issue is with your behaviour, your civil POV pushing.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Not at all "POV pushing". I hardly engage in edit wars. I just make edits and corrections per WP:NPOV in a relaxing way. You and your friends do not seem to be able to accept in a real world there're people with different views from yours. STSC (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

We also don't give let users post unsubstantiated libelous claims about living people, in the hope they maybe they will back it up someday. That's pretty much against BLP.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I dismissed the claim because I myself could not find any sources, not because I know Mr Wong personally. I don't believe it's true but I chose to let the user justify the claim if he/she can. STSC (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Letting someone justify a BLP violation is not OK. It is still a BLP violation. Anyway, I trust that you will understand.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, you may say it's a false claim but please don't use the term "libelous claim", you have insulted to all Vietnamese people. STSC (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Saying stuff like "please don't use the term "libelous claim", you have insulted to all Vietnamese people" is precisely the problem with you. This [50] comment is definitely defamatory and libelous but you seem to not accept it. All I see here is a refusal on your part to even understand the basic fact that the comment was a BLP violation.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

To say someone is Vietnamese is libelous and defamatory? You don't see that's insulting to Vietnamese people? STSC (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that there is nothing defamatory or libelous in [51], correct?--DreamLinker (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You avoided my question. STSC (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

When you answer whether [52] is libelous or defamatory, I will answer your question. Your answer is important because it indicates if you understand WP:BLP, which is actually quite relevant here, since we are discussing your conduct.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I asked you the question first but you avoided it. I take it you agree it's defamatory and libelous to say someone has Vietnamese descent. STSC (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, so not answering means saying yes. Wow.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I consider this comment [53] to be libelous/defamatory statement and a BLP violation, since you are so insistent.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, this seems like over-reach based on the diff presented. STSC acknowledged they'd heard the rumour, said there were not reliable sources and that it shouldn't be included. That's precisely how one should respond to a BLP question like that.Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but posting random unsubstantiated rumours is very obviously a BLP violation and should have been removed immediately, instead of acknowledging the rumour itself. I would find it extremely unsettling if editors are allowed to post such rumours and let it stay anywhere on Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your initial dif was somewhat misleading. This isolates STSC's comment separate from the IP who made the initial statement. It's quite evident when reviewing the correct dif that STSC was, in fact, stating there were no RSes supporting the assertion regarding the subject's background. This is patently ridiculous. Simonm223 (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There are 2 issues. First, it is unclear if STSC even acknowledges that [54] is a BLP violation. Second, instead of removing the comment, they decide to say "I have heard something similar...". We don't do that. The BLP policy is very clear that we do not allow BLP violations (particularly unsubstantiated ones) to remain on Wikipedia. I am actually quite surprised that you would think it is OK, given that this is the exact kind of behaviour which makes women and minorities stay away from Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• This was a few years ago, but it demonstrates that STSC has been pushing for a pro-Chinese government POV to an extreme degree, justifying the "elimination" of a religious group: Not every cult is harmful. Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China; such process should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society.[55] That is quite shocking IMO, but that said, "detestable" views itself are not blockable. It should be assessed whether these pro-Beijing views were pushed in a disruptive way and how they communicated with others. --Pudeo (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

No need to bring up here this old FG issue of 2015. Arbitration Committee had dealt with it long time ago. STSC (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ok multiple issue here. For boomerang i don't think Citobun well communicate to other editor either. See his practice on oppose a merge in Talk:Shenzhen Bay Port (i mistook his was an admin or someone high enough to hide the log?) Also, the revert in City University of Hong Kong. Reaching CIR level? May be not , but just like at Talk:2019 Yuen Long attack#Requested move 27 July 2019, a bit ad hominem instead on based on the issues and for RM, the evidence.

For STSC on Wong's article. It is nothing really wrong as the misinformation did wide spread in Mainland China. Blanking the talk page thread my be the best practice, but believing the ip from Germany (an international [Chinese?] student at Germany? VPN? Intentionally attack the page due to Wong's visit at Germany recently? We don't know) in AGF and reply them, is reasonable.

For this edit Special:Diff/915348212. The source material was discussed in Talk:Hong Kong/Archive 12 ""Despite the territory's current political association with the mainland, most of the population self-identify as Hongkongers rather than Chinese.". Please really start a discussion on it before remove it, or just restore the original wording , also cut the reason due to synthesis. You can't due to the reason you don't like the source then say it is UNDUE and when you like it it is DUE. I would only say HKU POP is respectable source, widely reported by local media. The opinion poll did reflected in 2008 many citizens considered themselves Chinese, but there is a trend in recent year there is more people to choose Hongkongers. But it mean nothing as the opinion poll provided options HK-Chinese, China-Hongkonger, and it is a quantitative survey so that no one know the meaning of HK-Chinese and China-Hongkonger. Also, 1000 is a good number for statical purpose. HKU POP did even reported the standard error or something similar. Matthew hk (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you want to say every Western source is not reliable. Then i have nothing to say because The Economist also use the same HKU POP opinion poll as their source material in a reporting [56] Are there bias in these opinion poll due to some people refuse to response? May be, but it is out of wiki editors to judge. Matthew hk (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Without digging into the wonkiness of methodological questions, which is (honestly) beyond our remit, it's simply put a violation of WP:SYNTH for us to be interpreting the results of this WP:PRIMARY source. If this is a respected survey, then I'm sure WP:SECONDARY sources can be found that will interpret the results. The language that I removed was clear WP:SYNTH and as such inappropriate. However, that's neither here nor there as STSC's edits are easily in the realm of a content dispute there. The edits regarding the survey certainly don't rise to the level of a behavioral issue regardless of how you feel about inclusion. I think you and I agree entirely that this entire AN/I issue is inappropriate for this forum based on the difs provided. DreamLinker's claim that STSC should be guilty for the sins of the IP because they didn't oppose the IP's edit request hard enough are patently absurd. Pudeo's mention of Falun Gong material from 2015 is deeply irrelevant to any current edit discussion except to establish that STSC is a person who holds opinions about things. And that is true of every editor on Wikipedia. And then there's Citobun's initial complaint, which I contend, based on it being part of a pattern of harassment against STSC as established in this dif, should probably pull a WP:BOOMERANG. I don't think there'd be any harm in cautioning STSC about avoiding misleading edit summaries, but considering the misleading use of difs and misleading commentary regarding edits that the complainants here have presented, STSC's comportment, as presented seems mild. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment by STSC: User Citobun pointed out 8 "questionable edits", has he discussed these edits in the articles' talk page? No. Has he tried other dispute resolutions? No. What he's actually doing here is using the ANI process to harass his opponent in content dispute. We can all see his so called "evidence" is as thin as paper but it doesn't matter for him because he's still got the satisfaction of having me harassed by way of this ANI. I've been stalked by this user Citobun since 2014, and he already has a failed ANI against me in 2016. He has been warned by admin EdJohnston and NinjaRobotPirate not to abuse other users but he continues his stalking and wanted to have another go at harassing me by ANI here. There must be a deterrent to prevent users like him from abusing the ANI process to harass other users. STSC (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not stalking nor harassing you. I have provided ample evidence of chronic POV-pushing despite multiple people raising concerns about this in the past. Yet you carry on as usual. As it pertains to a "chronic, intractable behavioral" issue, this discussion is best suited to take place at ANI. Citobun (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been stalking me and harassing me for about 5 years. My God, I don't even know you. STSC (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Based on what i read so far, In my belief Citobun's arguments are far more convincing than STSC. 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) DoctorHell (talk)

I would say before went to ANI, it would be a good gesture to open a thread in the talk page, state the problem (e.g. completely no source, synthesis of source, or just 3RR with 24 hours), state the wording on the newspaper or academic paper or reliable source, invite the party involved to participate in the discussion. Use dispute resolution tool etc. Yes there is rare case that the user completely not engaged in any talk page discussion or just running circle to protect his point of view, but then these are the step to show the user is CIR or NOTHERE. Matthew hk (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

1. STSC be warned to avoid misleading edit summaries.
2. Citobun be given a short-duration block for WP:HARASSMENT and advised not to bring complaints about STSC up again unless they do something actionable.
3. Edit protection be applied to articles related to the Hong Kong protests until such time as the current situation concludes. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, particularly the second action. I don't see any evidence of harassment by Citobun in this complaint, where some valid issues have been pointed out by multiple editors. I don't see this complaint as disrupting Wikipedia either. Blocking people for bringing up legitimate issues at ANI only serves to create a Chilling effect on Wikipedia. More importantly blocks are supposed to prevent disruption, not be used punitively and I also note that for the evidence of harassment presented here [57] is from July and has already been acted upon.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Citobun was [58] blocked for harassment in July for PAs against STSC. And their response two months later is this trumped up AN/I filing. I don't think that a clearer picture is needed than that. They clearly have personal issues with STSC and they are clearly allowing those personal issues to cloud their judgment around proper comportment on Wikipedia. I don't think they need to be indeffed, but they do need to be reminded to behave. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• And that's the second time Citobun pulled a block in a situation where they were tangling with STSC over a Hong Kong article [59] - the 2017 edit warring block, if you look at article history, it was Citobun in a 1AM situation, and STSC was one of the M in that equation. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• [60] Here's the history in question. The page is essentially inactive now so it's easy to find the appropriate edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I found the 3RR/N case that led to Citobun's first block and while both were blocked for edit warring at that time, Citobun was admonished by the blocking admin to avoid PAs on that occasion too. This is a long-standing grudge that has to be put to bed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I see an edit war (that too dating back to 2017) for which both STSC and Citobun seem to have been blocked. The other complaint is from July for which Citobun was blocked. I don't see anything in this particular ANI filing which would would remotely count as harassment.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – Simonm223, what gives? This ANI filing is clearly not harassment nor a personal attack. I've already responded to that claim above, though you chose to ignore it. Citobun (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - the second action, the issue here is about STSC, not Citobun. DoctorHell (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose #2. It makes no sense. I'm ok with 1 & 3. Buffs (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

STSC should be warned. In particular, they should (1) demonstrate an understanding of our WP:BLP policy (2) avoid misleading edit summaries. Any future violations should be blockable.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose as it leaves Citobun without any response to their vexatious and unnecessary AN/I complaint. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

What is vexatious or objectionable about this AN/I complaint? You keep making completely baseless claims that I am attacking people. I have already linked you to the policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Read it. I have provided ample evidence to back up my original allegation. I have not made any personal attacks here, nor harassed anyone. Stop making these baseless accusations. Citobun (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Between Citobun and STSC, I view STSC as the greater problem due to the POV slant of his editing and violations of biographies of living persons policy. This is fully demonstrated by the diffs already presented in this thread. I think that a warning to STSC should be sufficient to get the message across.Krow750 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support, though STSC should also be warned to cease making politically slanted edits of dubious veracity that are not backed up by citations to reliable sources. I provided multiple examples of such edits in the original filing above, which neither STSC nor Simonm223 addressed, instead choosing to frustrate the discussion by making baseless personal attacks against me. Citobun (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support Citobun has provided amble evidence. The issue here is STSC's behaviour, not Citobun. I believe to penalize Citobun is to shoot the messenger. DoctorHell (talk) 3:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support in addition to the first proposal (either one or both is ok). Buffs (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

IvanScrooge98's edits in the area of Germanic languages

Hello. Over the last year, IvanScrooge98 has made a series of dubious edits in the area of Germanic languages (specifically IPA transcription). The issue reminds me of LoveVanPersie. What's the same is this:

• Inability or (even worse) unwillingness to read the relevant literature - in other words, issues with WP:COMPETENCE and sometimes also with complying with WP:RS.
• Issues with WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT.
• Relying on other users to clean up after him (or at least to notice his mistakes, he tends to clean up after himself after that).
• Relying on other users to teach him phonetics/phonology for free instead of reading the literature.

I should've reported him sooner, definitely.

First the discussions, which IMO show his lack of competence:

• In this discussion, he asked me whether we could manufacture a pseudo-consensus regarding the use of the secondary stress mark in IPA transcriptions of Swedish, regardless of what reputable sources say about the subject (so that he could keep editing in the area of Swedish phonetics). Other discussions about that include User talk:Kbb2#Blekinge and User talk:IvanScrooge98#Long consonants in Swedish - I think that they prove that he hasn't improved his knowledge in the area of Swedish phonetics and phonology at all. He had a year to do that.
• In this discussion, he was pointlessly arguing with me that Swedish [ɪɛ] can be understood as anything other than a sequence of two vowels, which is unlikely (especially if you only consider those of our readers who can only read English IPA - in English, [ɪɛ] [mostly written as [iɛ] or [ie]] can't be compressed to [jɛ]). Plus, the pronunciation with [j] is possible in Swedish. Maybe not in all words, but it is possible and I gave him a source for that. That argument, as well as this discussion was a waste of time for everyone involved and a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What else should you call repeating "I'm not convinced" or "I don't agree", no matter what I say? Pronouncing "copy-edit" as [ˈkɒpjɛdɪt] (or [prəˌnʌnˈsjeɪʃən] for "pronunciation") is impossible in native English. Here's a quote from Geoff Lindsey's "English After RP", page 25: [S]ome of the words which are most commonly mispronounced by non-natives are ones in which weak FLEECE and GOOSE are followed by a vowel, such as association and situation (see Chaps. 8 and 9). In such words, non-natives very often fail to separate the two syllables in 'ua' and in 'ia'. Here, FLEECE should be taken to mean HAPPY, which isn't a true phoneme in English (HAPPY = KIT in older Received Pronunciation, hence the transcription ⟨ɪ⟩ in some sources. Other sources use ⟨i⟩, which is a symbol that means "either /ɪ/ or /iː/".
• In this discussion, I noticed that he misheard [trɔlˈhɛtːan] for [²trɔlːˌhɛtːan], which means that he knows little about the Swedish pitch accent. He was partially right about the long consonants though.

Now the diffs.

• He's made a series of mistakes when transcribing German:
  • He transcribed /ən/ after /m/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [61]
  • He transcribed /ən/ after /ŋ/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [62]
  • He transcribed /əm/ after /t/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [63]
  • He mistook the syllabic [ɐ] for the non-syllabic [ɐ̯] just because it was preceded by a vowel: [64]
  • In this edit summary (of an edit that's a part of [this edit war), he told me that we should either transcribe [ʁ] everywhere (no source does that) or use [ɐ̯] instead of it (which is a solution used in a minority of sources). This shows that he's not reading the literature (AFAICS, he also wasn't aware of the fact that [aɐ̯] and [aːɐ̯] fall together with [aː] for all speakers who consistently vocalize their /r/ [though in regional SG there may be a difference of [aː] (phonemically /ar/) vs. [ɑː] (phonemically /aː/ and /aːr/)] - ⟨aɐ̯⟩ and ⟨aːɐ̯⟩ is just a convention used for the sake of phonemic identification, mostly for speakers of Swiss Standard German). The relevant discussion on his user talk page is here. In it, he admited that he can't really distinguish between a uvular approximant and [ɐ̯], which is an amateurish mistake. Most sources use ⟨ʁ⟩ or ⟨r⟩ after short vowels and ⟨ɐ̯⟩ after long vowels.

The relevant discussion on his user talk page is here. These are amateurish mistakes that nobody who's well-versed in the area of German phonetics would make.

• He's made a series of edits in the area of Icelandic phonetics, here are some of them: [65], [66], based solely on Help:IPA/Icelandic and Icelandic phonology#Vowel length (I guess he didn't know that Wikipedia is not a source and that they can be incomplete or even plain wrong).
  • This edit has an alarming edit summary - he shouldn't have performed it if he wasn't sure of the correctness of the IPA. Here's basically the same kind of an edit in another article.
• He edit warred with me on Henryk Sienkiewicz over a regional IPA: [67].
• He's made a series of dubious changes to Swedish IPA:
  • Somewhere in this discussion it becomes apparent that he changed tone 1 to tone 2 in some transcriptions based on his assumptions and/or his untrained hearing (again, how can you mishear [trɔlˈhɛtːan] for [²trɔlːˌhɛtːan] if you claim to be competent enough to transcribe Swedish into IPA?). I'm not sure what those edits are ([68] is one of them) exactly, but they were performed roughly between August 25, 2018 and September 1, 2018.
  • Here, when fixing the Swedish IPA, he forgot to change the first vowel to [æ], which is an obligatory allophone of /ɛ/ before /r/ in stressed syllables. Again, an amateurish mistake.
  • In this edit he basically told me that he WP:OWNS Help:IPA/Swedish (that's how I understand it anyway) and I should just accept that edit based on the fact that he knows what he's doing (whatever that means, he didn't feel the need to clarify that).

I propose a topic ban for editing anything IPA- and phonetics-related in general in the area of Germanic languages (excluding English, with which he seems to have no problems). With such disregard for WP:RS we have no idea what he's gonna screw up next. It's not our role to clean up after him.

It'd be great if someone could check his edits in other areas (Italian, French, Slavic languages other than Polish, etc.) Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, you did not understand (or pretended not to) my argument regarding Swedish [ɪɛ], involving instances where an English speaker might use /iə/. The examples you put are just unrelated.

What should I say about the rest? My fault is that when I see a transcription that is more or less incorrect or does not follow what appears to be the implicit consensus stated in the help, I tend to try and correct it myself instead of using template tags such as {{fix}}. I must admit that, and all can do now is promising I will use them more often when I am not sure about my editions, however late this may be coming. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 07:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: If they can read IPA it's impossible that they'd confuse [ɪɛ] for [ɪə]. Pronouncing English /ɪɛ/ as anything other than two consecutive vowels is a non-native mistake (and, in Swedish, unlike English, [jɛ] is a possible pronunciation of /ɪɛ/!)

You need to have the WP:COMPETENCE to perform those fixes. That you can gain by reading the literature (WP:RS). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A concern is that editors are coming to conclusions about IPAs based on their own opinions as to how indirect sources in literature such as textbooks should be interpreted or as a result of their own WP:OR. Surely IPAs should only be added if directly cited WP:V? Help:IPA/Italian is a further snare in that it seems to encourage original work.SovalValtos (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand the concern with this but I still think it's the optimal approach. It's preferable for Wikipedia to contain pronunciation information than not to contain it. It is also preferable for our IPA pronunciations to line up with IPA help pages, which means occasionally transliterating into IPA from other pronunciation systems or making trivial tweaks to what is in sources like dictionaries (remember that there is often more than one acceptable or established way of transcribing something in broad phonemic notation, for example in Czech the vowel <o> can be transcribed as /o/ or /ɔ/, it doesn't matter, but we use /o/ to be simple and consistent.) IPA help pages can be created from reliable sources in such a way that any native or competent speaker of a language can interpret them and know how to transcribe anything by analogy to the example words given next to each phoneme. Calling that OR is not that far off calling translating OR in my opinion. The main purpose of the help pages however was to help users unfamiliar with the IPA make sense of transcriptions (hence the "nearest English equivalents"), and when they were first created they were made intentionally over-broad and simple. I am not sure how much that still rings today as certain pages such as Help:IPA/English have become overcomplicated to the point of just becoming summaries of technical phonology articles like English phonology. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Surely IPAs should only be added if directly cited WP:V? Yes please. It's preferable for Wikipedia to contain pronunciation information than not to contain it. Not if it is just made up by random people with no basis in anything but their own opinion. Calling that OR is not that far off calling translating OR in my opinion. Obviously translation can be OR, and if there is a question of two different meanings/translations then the correct way to settle it is by consulting reliable sources. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Presumably a Wikipedia IPA help page should not be used to justify one editor's preferred transcription as was done by User:IvanScrooge98 in this edit [69] having previously changed another editor's preferred version in this edit [70] without source? Later in this edit [71] he persisted in adding his version without supplying a reference and without consensus.SovalValtos (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@SovalValtos: I had explained there was no need for further refs other than the one I had provided, as Modern Greek pronunciation is constantly predictable from the spelling. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 11:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This may not be directly relevant to 'edits in the area of Germanic languages' but I think it reveals the perhaps over self-confident attitude of User:IvanScrooge98's own opinion as to the value of his edits rather than those of others. I note that he did not add an acceptable ref after than the one he had earlier suggested was rejected [72]. Neither did he use talk to attempt to achieve consensus. His opinion that no ref was needed reveals an unacceptable approach to WP:V policy, as applicable to himself, when in disagreement with other editor's edits; his unilateral assertion is that his edit is exempt for some reason of his own.SovalValtos (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I quote SovalValtos. Just have a look at this sample list of edit summaries: [73]. He was also blocked in en.wiktionary and nl.wikipedia, and his talk page contains quarrels with many different users. This may not be directly relevant to the thread but might be helpful to frame the individual.Yniginy (talk) 11:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like Trollhättan is indeed pronounced as I have heard in every single recording I have listened to. Just to say. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 11:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: Perhaps. But Karlstad and Vigdís Finnbogadóttir aren't. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: I clearly meant it as a reply to I noticed that he misheard [trɔlˈhɛtːan] for [²trɔlːˌhɛtːan], which means that he knows little about the Swedish pitch accent. Apparently you misheard it but were convinced I had, which means we are at least on a similar level when it comes to knowledge of the Swedish pitch accent and neither of us should correct the other. Regarding Karlstad, the present audio separates the two consonants, but we do not know whether it is the regular pronunciation or some kind of “more careful” one, considering how Karl is normally uttered. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 12:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: A year ago you were changing tone 1 to tone 2 in Swedish transcriptions based on your hunches. That transcription was a part of your editing spree. Whether it was correct is, I think, less relevant than the bigger picture itself.

I'm not convinced that you should use your untrained, non-native ears (which are like mine in that regard) to judge the pitch accent in Swedish, especially in words with three syllables or more. The fact that multiple people oppose a topic ban for you doesn't give you a carte blanche to do as you wish. It's better not to provide IPA than to guess it. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbb2: yes, but you seem to have done the same when you first added the stress, instead of either removing the transcription, tagging it as incomplete or looking for a source.

I am not taking it as carte blanche, don’t worry. I have understood when I should edit and when not. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 13:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. This is really unnecessary and premature. ANI is your last resort; you shouldn't bring anything here until other resources have been explored. Seems like you learned nothing from the friendly caution FeRDNYC gave here just a couple days ago. It also seems you didn't notice the warning at the top of this page, which tells you to be concise: I mean, do you seriously think admins and veterans who frequent here are going to read and understand all of what you wrote there? Invite editors well-versed in the area for their opinions at a more appropriate forum (like WT:LING). At this stage this is simply a content dispute. So seek for arbitration, not sanction.

  IvanScrooge98 is a prolific editor in this area and, as far as I've encountered and as far as the languages I'm familiar with are concerned, a very competent one. And there are few competent IPA editors, let alone such prolific ones. So far I see no reason to believe he will not be persuaded when confronted with reasonable evidence that disagrees with his behavior. So if he's not, then maybe you haven't been doing a good enough job convincing him. Have you, for example, asked for a third opinion? (I know I've been asked by Ivan, which I was about to get to, but then this happened. Thanks for your patience.) I advise Ivan to stick strictly to WP:BRD, i.e. always prefer the version before you arrived at the article whenever your edit is challenged until it is settled in a discussion. I advise Kbb the same. Nardog (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nardog: You're probably right. I'll let this discussion come to an end in a natural manner (unless more users join and decide that a topic ban is a reasonable solution after all - that could happen too) and will start a discussion at WT:LING. Though I don't see how this report (apart from the wording of a few sentences, which could be improved) could be understood as a personal attack. I saw sufficient reasons to report him and so I went ahead. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Agree with the above, this is premature. I did as you asked and checked Ivan's scant contribs in Czech and Slovak and found one incidental error which anyone could be forgiven for and is of little consequence. I have more bones to pick with some of the English transcriptions being added (not just by Ivan) which I will gladly elaborate on in a more appropriate venue. Also, responding to one specific point raised above, if IPA help pages like Help:IPA/Icelandic are wrong (as in actually wrong, not just intentionally broad, which is by design), then I think our priority should be fixing them first before we get into disputes over individual pronunciations. I recommend using sources published by the International Phonetics Association to adjudicate any disputes around IPA help pages, as no one can sensibly claim that those are unreliable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• I checked the Icelandic edits that are linked to and they are fine. The first vowel in Katrín is indeed long and IvanScrooge98 was right to correct that.[74] Haukur (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I checked the German edits that are linked to. I see no basis for claiming that any of them should be “an impossible pronunciation”. On the other hand, I know that Kbb2 rejects variants very strongly. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @J. 'mach' wust: Then you also don't know how syllabic consonants are formed in German. The first three mistakes in transcription are, in fact, an impossible pronunciation (which is how I phrased it). The first two would be heard as [m̩] and [ŋ̍] [which is a correct pronunciation and not necessarily very informal] by native speakers (their established transcription is [mən] and [ŋən], nobody would write them [mn̩] or [ŋn̩] except for few phonologists, these transcriptions are very abstract by the way and so is [tm̩]) and the last one as [pm̩], which is a serious pronunciation error. Neither German nor English allows the schwa in /mən, ŋən, təm/ to be dropped (in that manner anyway, the first two can be pronounced [m̩] and [ŋ̍] in German).

The pronunciation of /eːər/ as [eːɐ̯] is colloquial and shouldn't be transcribed in an encyclopedia.

Please leave the topic of Help:IPA/Standard German out of this. I have nothing against posts that genuinely support Ivan but your message shows a similar lack of research in the area of German pronunciation as Ivan's edits themselves. IMO it's also alarming that a native speaker that's been dealing with IPA for at least 15 years (if I'm not mistaken) would endorse those specific edits. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I have dealt long enough with German pronunciation to be extremely skeptical when somebody claims that some plausible transcription should be a mistake or impossible or not allowed, especially when these bold claims are not backud up with any sources. You are accusing IvanScrooge98 of making mistakes and of using impossible transcriptions, but you have not given proof to substantiate your accusation. I therefore oppose a topic ban. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 22:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: You cannot be serious right now. Insisting that [mn̩], [ŋn̩] or [tm̩] are plausible pronunciations shows that you have no idea what a syllabic consonant is. Again, an amateurish mistake. I really hope that you're joking, because you're a native speaker of German. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I certainly was not joiking. Substantiating your accusations would help you more than personally attacking me. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 22:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: It's interesting that you, a person who's been dealing with IPA and German pronunciation for more than a decade, haven't provided a single source yourself. My source is the 7th edition of Das Aussprachewörterbuch, pp. 39–41. I'm sorry but this is either a provocation or your knowledge in the area of German pronunciation is seriously questionable. Nobody who thinks that Atem can be pronounced [ˈaːtm̩] has been dealing with IPA for more than a couple of weeks. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

First: Why should I have to cite any sources? I am not making any claims, let alone accusations. Please read and understand WP:BURDEN. Second: I wonder whether you have actually consulted the Aussprachewörterbuch. It does not say anywhere that the transcriptions IvanScrooge98 has used are “mistakes” or an “impossible pronunciation”, as you have claimed. It just explains the conventions used in that dictionary – IvanScrooge98 has not followed them, but that obviously does not mean that IvanScrooge98’s transcriptions are “mistakes“ or an “impossible pronunciation”. Third: I feel silly for having to point this out, but a dictionary could not possibly prove your point that certain pronunciations are impossible. You would have to find peer-reviewed phonetic literature that uses hard empyrical data. I seriously doubt that you are ever going to find it. Empyrical data is likely to prove you wrong by showing that the pronunciations you so insultingly reject are really possible and do occur. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@J. 'mach' wust: Someone please warn this guy and remove the conversation. This is a case of deliberately spreading misinformation. I'm ending this per WP:DONTFEED. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. If you are trying to win an argument by claiming your POV is obvious and then implying that anybody who does not agree with your POV is stupid, you are not going to succeed. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 19:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Luckily no one understands what this IPA stuff means anyway, so it doesn't matter except to those involved. EEng 02:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, that is what helps are made for. To help people understand. By the way, I’m thanking everyone who’s taken the time to constructively intervene so far. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 07:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Don't ban IvanScrooge98. Although I have differences with that user, at least he's providing information (both English & foreign words) on phonetics & pronunciations. If you are a native speaker of other languages (ie., French, Spanish, etc.) & knows the rules of phonetics & pronunciations, do provide the correct information. Banning that user would be total loss to Wikipedia. NKM1974 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@NKM1974: We're discussing a topic ban (so that he wouldn't be allowed to edit in certain areas), not a block. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 08:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You can place me firmly in the category of "dealing with IPA for ... a couple of weeks". I.e. I'm looking at IvanScrooge's edits and physically trying to replicate the sounds proposed.

1) To go from m to n without a vowel between requires a pause. In transition without a pause, there'll be a schwa (an "uh" sound) (i.e. muhn). It's not (afaict) possible to do otherwise. The "m" sound is made with the mouth closed (it's a bilabial sound, meaning that it's made with the lips). So if you open your mouth while saying "m" it becomes "muh" (i.e. mə). In tandem, the "n" sound is made with mouth open and tongue pressed against the alveolar ridge. So, in transition you get "muhn" ("mən").

2) It's more plausible to go ŋ to n without a schwa. Try saying "singn", but not "singuhn". It's possible, but difficult and unnatural. The tongue has to slide forward from the velum to the alveolar ridge without creating a pocket. The reason is that the dorsum (back of tongue) touches the roof of the mouth when making a velar sound (ŋ), whilst the tip of the tongue touches the roof of the mouth when making an alveolar or post-alveolar (n) sound.

3) Tm is a lot like mn. You get a "tuhm" (təm) sound. Again, when making a "t" sound, the mouth is open. When making a "m" sound, the mouth is closed. You can again do "t pause m".

I hope my explanations make sense, and forgive me that I don't know the terminology well. I cannot replicate these sounds, or if I can, it is absolutely unnatural. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The tongue has to slide forward from the velum to the alveolar ridge – It’s because of filth like this that Wikipedia is blocked in some countries. Please, think of the children! EEng 10:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User Nicoljaus

User Nicoljaus returned his version ([75], [76], [77]) in article John of Kronstadt, did not allow me to edit the article at all. He does not write neutrally. I suggested to write according to Kizenko ([78]), ([79]), but he doesn’t want. He wrote that it will be a fan club ([80]). I consider this to be an absurdity. I am sorry, if my edits were edit warring. Aleksei m (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See WP:AN3#User:‎Nicoljaus reported by User:Aleksei m (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, where should I write or can I correct his phrase? Aleksei m (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The best way to solve this is talking it out, which I see you folks have been doing on the talk page. I will chime in my 2 cents there to try to move this content dispute along. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What Aleksei m does is ordinary trolling. All his comments, all his nit-picking is nonsense. He himself will not contribute anything constructive to the article. He has one goal – to remove from the article all the negative facts about John (anti-Semitism, the patronage of the sect, the excuse of Kishinev pogrom, the shameful escape from Kronstadt) and make the Life of the saint from this article. To do this, he will seek a ban for his opponents. So he acts everywhere.Wlbw68 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This is boomerang territory. I tried to engage at the talk page, and got a combination of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT problems. This dispute? Over the use of the word "moreover". Aleksei seems impervious to logic, and is incensed that someone would use the "moreover" instead of "however" or "also". Perhaps a language barrier? Or just a competence barrier. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I explained why it is no need to use the word "moreover" and did not receive substantive objections on the Talk Page of the article. Aleksei m (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's a language barrier here, as "moreover" does not connotate what Aleksei seems to think it does. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Never-ending dispute

• The Real Housewives of New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• AnAudLife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KyleJoan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AnAudLife and I have been involved in a dispute regarding the sorting of The Real Housewives of New York City article since June due to their bold edit that did not adhere to WP:BRD. Since said edit, we engaged in an edit war, for which I received a block. During this block, AnAudLife proceeded to form a conclusion based on their own argument with zero user involvement. After the completion of my block period, a formal discussion on the article's talk page commenced. However, after a while, it felt as if they and I were regurgitating the same points over and over, which prompted me to request for a third opinion on the matter (given here), open an RfC, and request dispute resolution, all of which have not resolved the dispute. Now, I am starting to think that the reason for this lack of resolve is due to what I perceive as AnAudLife's refusal to accept that not one (myself), not two, not three, but four users believe otherwise and that the only person on the article talk page that explicitly supported their theory has been checkuser-blocked.

Another isue that I would like to address is the constant broadening and narrowing of the scope of the dispute. After a third opinion was generated, AnAudLife, fully knowing that the dispute has always been about the sorting of a specific name on a specific article, broadened the scope out of left field. Then, during the RfC, it was back to the sorting of the specific name. I believe this confuses the discussion and makes it harder to assert points.

In relation to the scope, AnAudLife keeps contradicting themselves. Regarding the subject of one's nationality and the part it plays in determining indexing, they originally stated: Myself and others still don’t know why you think her nationality is a factor at all. Then it became: That is why this conversation was started, sorting indexing, alphabetizing...should be done according to the name itself, not exclusively the nationality, acknowledging that there's merit in the opposing view without acknowledging the shift in their view in regards to the dispute. During this process, they also referenced a WP guideline without addressing that the exact guideline was used to challenge their view.

AnAudLife has also exhibited a tendency to regurgitate points that have already been discredited. In regards to their claim that Alexandre de Lesseps is a Count and Luann maintains she is still a Countess . . ., I referenced two articles from the New York Daily News and the Miami Herald, respectively, that says the exact opposite. They then kept arguing their point, citing a dead link from a gossip site to support it.

They also failed to adhere to WP:OR, with statements such as . . . I’ve spoken with 2 English professors casually regarding this debate . . . and In order for Luann to carry the title of Countess, she had to become a French citizen and maintain that citizenship . . . without citations.

And finally, a personal attack in the form of an accusation of bullying. KyleJoan^talk 20:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's ... a lot of discussion about whether to alphabetize it as "Lesseps, Luann de" or "de Lesseps, Luann". A lot. I understand it's easy to get sucked into this kind of thing. Eons ago I was sucked into a long argument about capitalization. Luckily I had a friend who noticed the dispute and pointed out to me that it really doesn't matter. I have some small hope that I can do the same for you. KyleJoan, I promise that it really doesn't matter how it's alphabetized. For that matter, AnAudLife, I promise that it really doesn't matter. The first one of you to realize that "wins". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Floquenbeam. I think at this point I have realized that it doesn't matter that much. However, I still take issue with the way the discussion was conducted. I don't know if you ever felt gaslit during your dispute, but I certainly have felt that way multiple times during ours, especially being accused of bullying, which was why I felt compelled to open this ANI discussion. KyleJoan^talk 21:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you start this dispute here? When the moderator on the dispute page (that you initiated) here hasn't even written the RFC on MOS?

I honestly can't believe most of what you just wrote on this page and I refute most of it. I invite everyone to read my contributions elsewhere on this topic, addressing every point you make, leaving nothing out.

Why are you starting yet another argument in another place before allowing completion on the dispute page?

Also, I didn't think I've ever accused you of bullying, but I have certainly felt that way myself with the never ending disputes and accusations. However, if you feel as if I have bullied you, I do apologize.AnAudLife (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I've never felt bullied by you. Never said it. Never felt it. Regardless, thank you for the apology. KyleJoan^talk 21:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was so long ago that "gaslit" wasn't really a thing yet. I mean, certainly not before the movie, but before it became a popular reference. But yes, at the time I did honestly feel that way. With time and distance, I realize he probably honestly felt the same way. The "bullying" accusation is sub-optimal, but (a) if you take it as an honest description of how AnAudLife feels, it's useful info even if not objectively true, and (b) you're kind of accusing them of intentionally gaslighting, right? Seldom are these things 95% Person A's fault, and 5% Person B's fault. Usually they're 45% Person A's fault, and 55% person B's fault, and it takes a lot of real, honest effort to figure who the 45% is and who the 55% is, and at the end of the day, after all that work, the difference between 45% and 55% is so small that the best solution is "why don't you guys kind of avoid each other for a while?". For something as low stakes as this, is it really worth finding out? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"gaslighting" dates to the 1930s. --Jorm (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm in no position to determine whether someone does something intentionally or not; I'm only saying that I feel gaslit, especially when every single one of my grievances contains direct links to specific instances of the problems I presented and they're still being disputed. I also do plan to avoid the dispute from now on. I think this ANI discussion is my final attempt to ensure that I address these problems in case they ever arise again in the future. KyleJoan^talk 21:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Wow, that's... special. Is there even a MOS guideline for this? I have seen "De Word, William", "Word, William de", an algorithm that says De Word for single syllables and Worsmith, De for multi-syllable, I have seen "de Word" but alphasorted as Word, and so on. It's a muddle, so I am not surpised it's not settling. Much as I hate the MOS, this is really a job for a style guide. Best of luck. Guy (help!) 22:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a vague, horrifying recollection that Belgium and the Netherlands traditionally treat the nobiliary particle differently (one omitting it and one including it in alphabetization), so it's...difficult to write a broad rule for this that won't make swathes of people unhappy. Choess (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Different nations use different rules. The content issue that I was trying to resolve at DRN is whether the national rule should be based on the nationality (citizenship) of the person, or on the national origin of the surname. I thought that I had agreement that the matter would be resolved by an RFC, which I was in the process of drafting. Their arguments weren't going to affect me, because I was drafting it to be a neutral RFC to be resolved by the community. I had asked the participants in the DRN where to post the RFC to get the most responses. I am now asking the community here where I should post the RFC. I have failed the DRN discussion because DRN does not handle a case that is also pending in another forum including ANI. I am still willing to try to address the content issue with an RFC after any conduct issue is resolved here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I felt that the DRN had become a proxy forum for more regurgitations of points already made, and I knew this ANI discussion wouldn’t affect the neutral RfC Robert McClenon was drafting. My intention with this ANI was to address behavioral issues related to the dispute. If the dispute itself could still find a resolve, then great. KyleJoan^talk 01:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Although I thought KyleJoan planned to avoid the dispute from now on, as I stated previously, I personally would still like to see the RFC that Robert McClenon is drafting come to fruition to be discussed with other users. I'm not sure that this specific case can ever be definitively and satisfactorily decided, especially without further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general. I noticed when KyleJoan begins a dispute she visits other users talk pages and asks them to visit said dispute and give their opinions. Is that standard procedure? Can I do that as well? AnAudLife (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@AnAudLife: To clarify, I'm distancing myself from arguing for the acceptance of one theory over another regarding this dispute. I still find your behavior problematic and will continue to respond to questions and comments revelant to said behavior as well as previous discussions that took place. Speaking of problematic behavior, it's difficult not to feel gaslit when viewing statements such as I'm not sure that this specific case can ever be definitively and satisfactorily decided, especially without further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general because you know good and well that you have personally initiated two MOS discussions, which others can find here and here, that did faciliate further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general, so the idea that the deliberation process on this matter did not go far enough is outright false. KyleJoan^talk 03:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I fail to see that my "behavior" is any different than yours, you have argued your position just as vehemently as I have so there's that. When this journey (yes, that's what its starting to feel like) began, I felt that this case particularly was all that needed to be addressed, but then as other editors weighed in it became obvious that a more broader guideline needs to be established, not to mention all of the outside information available, it's mind-boggling. So the scope changed a little, it is not the end of the world. Either way it's a win for Wikipedia if we clarify this AND other cases in the future where this may happen. The discussions you spoke of, which I have NEVER denied initiating....nothing came of them. Nothing was concluded. Nothing was decided. Conversation dried up and that was that. Nothing changed. I'd like to see a RFC written by a NEUTRAL party and have other editors, not just the ones you recruit, to offer their opinions. Now if we're allowed to ask others to join in the conversation, then I will do so as well. AnAudLife (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@AnAudLife: One key difference between our behaviors: I've legitimized your view. Never once did you legitimize mine. You simply changed the scope of the discussion multiple times and took bits and pieces out of my analyses and presented them as if they've never been said in the discussion (i.e. acknowledging that one's nationality is a factor in indexing after weeks of denying it, referencing WP:MCSTJR, etc.), therefore, gaslighting. I'm going to stop engaging you now. I'll continue to address my concerns regarding your conduct if anyone else would like to discuss it. Thanks. KyleJoan^talk 04:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't even know what gaslighting is and certainly didn't do anything underhanded or intentional. I merely stated my position and presented facts, when you would bring additional points to be discussed, I discussed them, you changed the content, you set the tone, I simply followed suit. You consistently brought up nationality, I had to address it, right? As well as all the other points you brought up? And if you must know, in this case, it's a mixed bag. Luann de Lesseps is French, Algonquin and French Canadian, born in America, married to a Frenchman. How's that for confusing? I'm sorry if you feel I did something wrong, I certainly didn't mean to and not sure that I did. Is this just because you don't like to be challenged? No one does but isn't that what we're all doing here, trying to better Wikipedia? Isn't that the ultimate goal? AnAudLife (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC

I have posted the RFC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RFC_on_Sorting_of_Names_with_Particles . Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal A: Interaction Ban

The above uncivil back-and-forth between User:KyleJoan and User:AnAudLife is oddly clarifying, in that it shows that we have two users who do not like each other and do not get along, and their interaction is a problem. I propose an interaction ban between these two editors, with the usual exceptions. I will complete posting an RFC within 48 hours, which should resolve the content dispute. The interaction ban will prevent the conduct dispute from interfering with resolving the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Genuine question: Is pointing out patterns of behavior complete with direct quotes and direct links and addressing how said patterns make one feel considered uncivil? I really tried my best to focus on content, so I apologize if some of my comments went beyond that. That was not my intention. I always aim to use discretion to maintain civility, and I'm sorry for the times that discretion was lost during this discussion. KyleJoan^talk 07:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – Genuine question: What does all this mean? Does this mean when you post the RFC that neither one of us can comment on it? And that if we run into each other again like say 6 months from now that we can’t change each other’s edits...or challenge the validity of their content or even converse on each other’s talk pages? And that we can’t ever address each other again? While I joined Wikipedia in 2012, I didn’t begin actively editing until this year so I am new to it and am learning as I go along, please pardon my ignorance with what you’re proposing and help me to understand fully. While I’ve felt attacked and belittled and falsely accused, I still don’t hold it against KyleJoan and have also apologized if they felt slighted. AnAudLife (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @KyleJoan and AnAudLife:

Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

• edit each other's user and user talk pages;
  
• reply to each other in discussions;
  
• make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
  
• undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
  
• use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.

From WP:IBAN. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

So you can both post to the RFC, just not comment on each others' posts. You have been commenting on each others' posts at too much length. You will notice that it also says that a no-fault two-way interaction ban is used to prevent a dispute from spreading. Also, you haven't been interaction-banned yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not plan to engage the other user, but if I can't raise concerns regarding their conduct or even reference their conduct at all, then I'd like to ask for another solution. KyleJoan^talk 21:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support (if I’m allowed) Assuming the other user abides by the ban, I can't imagine there would be a problem with this at all. I would feel a bit safer and happier if I knew this would end the turmoil, the reverts, the arguing. BUT, if they continue to revert or undo my edits or contact me in any way on Wikipedia, will I have a means to report them? AnAudLife (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose (if I get to state a position). I feel that the interaction ban does not address the conduct concerns I raised about the other user. Now, if anyone would like to raise concerns about my conduct in this dispute and reference specific instances of when said conduct needed correcting, then I would like to hear them and have the opportunity to address and correct it. KyleJoan^talk 23:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The statement by User:KyleJoan that "Now, if anyone would like to raise concerns about my conduct in this dispute and reference specific instances of when said conduct needed correcting, then I would like to hear them and have the opportunity to address and correct it" shows a lack of self-reflection. We have already tried to raise a concern about her conduct, which is that their focusing on the other user's conduct is tendentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel the need to restate this, so believe me when I say I always aim to use discretion to maintain civility, and I'm sorry for the times that discretion was lost during this discussion. Aside from that, I'm really confused. How am I supposed to reference conduct if I'm not able to point it out directly? Also, if asking for an evaluation of my own conduct to ensure the discussion remains balanced is improper, then I apologize for that statement as well. KyleJoan^talk 01:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This feels like an overreaction to a first appearance at ANI, where, at most, there has been some mild incivility with probably not-overly malicious intent. And We have already tried to raise a concern about her conduct, which is that their focusing on the other user's conduct is tendentious feels like an overstatement; all I saw was a couple of editors advising taking a breath and walking away. KyleJoan has asked for specific diffs where they could have improved, and that feels like a good-faith request that shouldn't result in a sanction. Grandpallama (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Grandpallama. This seems like overkill. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Aggressive editor behavior

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

---

Hello,

Recently I made an edit to a page that was reverted because an "in use" tag (which was on for almost a day, and is continously put on the page despite sporadic editing), I had scruples with the current edits, and the editor told me to "Go Away!" in big bold letters, see here. Totally unneeded. A remark on my talk page would have been nice, and would have sent the message way better. I do not want to edit war, and would like to squash any animosity, but this behavior is making it hard. This is also recent:

"He needs to back off, calm down, and come back in a few days to see what he makes of the article then. He also needs to think more carefully about many of his spray-gun arguments." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/915702345

SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• This is the latest episode in SuperWikiLover223's hysterical campaigns here. He has already today tried and failed to get the article deleted, having previously supported its creation after his split with Machiavellianism scale in pschology. This was followed up by a section at the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard He has been highly obstructive, edit-warring and hampering my attempts to refocus the article by many removals of referenced material, ignoring the "in use" template. He needs to back off, calm down, and come back in a few days to see what he makes of the article then. He also needs to think more carefully about many of his spray-gun arguments. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You have not addressed the aggression and persist to call my behavior "hysterical". This is what I mean. I would like to gain an accord but it is becoming difficult.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

SuperWikiLover223, just today, you have been talking about this particular article at AfD, NPOV and, now, at ANI. And yesterday, you created a related article Machiavellianism scale, separate from Machiavellianism (politics). While Johnbod could have been more civil, this looks like forum shopping. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but to be fair the split-off of Machiavellianism scale (psychology) was pretty much agreed on talk, by me & others. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

How am I forum shopping? Never knew reporting aggression is forum shopping.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• SuperWikiLover223's recent edits are bizarre. Adding personal opinion to articles, no-hoper AfD and so on. I think the time has come for him to slow down and start asking for advice. Guy (help!) 21:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Screw this, if no one is willing (or simply ignoring due to favoritism) to see the other editor's errors, I just wasted my time. Nevermind this report.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BOOMERANG. Guy (help!) 21:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

When did I say I was above reproach? I think this is diverting from the original discussion, but since it is deliberate, I choose to let it slide. That's fine.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• You can't simultaneously AfD an article, and claim that you're the only editor who can save it. I've certainly seen (and suffered) Johnbod being super-aggressive at defending his articles. But that doesn't (obviously) excuse this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse what? Trying to AfD an atrocious article filled with NPOV and CFORKs? You people are hilarious. Seriously consider making a comedy trio.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to tone down on the aggression yourself, SuperWikiLover223. El_C 22:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you my father, EL C? Is it past my bedtime as well? Oh please. Give me a break. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I am the admin looking into your conduct, which does not really inspire confidence, I'm sorry to say. El_C 22:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, while User:SuperWikiLover223 is not doing themselves any favours, neither is Johnbod - repeatedly calling someone else's behaviour "hysterical" is getting into personal attack territory and certainly doesn't aid in gaining consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, twice, and that only because I copied my response at the section at the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard here. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Not so sure about that retirement...see Special:Diff/915728943 (edit summary), Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Machiavellianism_(politics) creffett (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: I suggest you reopen the thread and note the change in username (the new one is charming).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Who the heck approved "KingofGangsters" as a user name, for heaven's sake? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A good reminder that declared retirements should not close discussions, given how frequently they're used to avoid sanctions or unwanted outcomes. Grandpallama (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted the closure. I apologize for the premature closure and the delay in reopening. I thought we were done here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

KOG violated an agreement made with me to stick to 1RR and to leave the discussion of our agreement on his talk page. Given this behavior and that it could be an attempt to conceal the agreement we had I have blocked for 1 week. This user has emailed me previously, I made it clear discussion needs to take place on his talk page. I think this can be closed now. --WGFinley (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Long-term financial vandalism at selected pages

This is the second time asking help for this matter due to continued vandalism. Last time it was archived without even a reply. Last post:

A Mammootty fanboy is repeatedly exaggerating the budget of Mamangam (2019 film) and reducing the budget of his professional rival Mohanlal's Marakkar: Arabikadalinte Simham, disregarding sources. This is the nth time this guy is fudging the budget, even after multiple range blocks. IPs are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (and probably more). Because of a single guy, both pages were page protected. Sometimes also damaging other pages by reducing the box office numbers of Mohanlal films and exaggerating Mammootty films, a terrible version of that can be seen in the 10th and 11th IPs. Another trick of this guy for reducing the budget of Marakkar is exaggerating it first to a HUGE number beyond expecting and then reducing it in the next edit to a desired low figure like he was correcting it. Probably unaware that there is a page history and people can see.

New IPs: 1, 2. This guy has now created user accounts, Ayisha1209 [81], you can see other edits are all exaggerating the box office numbers of Mammootty films and the same "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit PHP7", now blocked and created M0hamedr0shan007 the next day [82], same activity and articles and the "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit PHP7" and there is Xskullxxrider, Bharathkm54321. Please use a check user or anything and find out who this is. 2405:204:D285:C47F:955F:3C32:2586:C082 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• A film about breast cancer screening is a worthy project and I hope those involved can resolve their differences. EEng 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  What does that mean? 2405:204:D30A:9DB9:854D:97BC:7D37:892A (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Mamangam. At least I'm keeping your thread from being archived. EEng 01:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion disrupted by Meatpuppetry

• Bosanska Krajina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (destination for proposed merger and its TP is place for merger discussion)
• Turkish Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (problematic page, protected three times in last two months)

It started with editors attempt to organize response against merger, with one editor alerting another editor to "take an eye onto discussion" at User_talk:Peacemaker67#Turkish_Croatia, former quite assertive and demanding in "discussion"; then this later editor alerting third editor, emphatically asking third editor if they can send them (second) an email.
This exchange predictably resulted with involved antagonistic editors resorting to requesting assistance of like-minded people and campaigning outside English Wikipedia, namely by placing couple of inciting request at Croatian Wikipedia - two evident are instances of this behavior HERE and HERE (we can only presume what was going on beyond these pages (WP:STEALTH)) - to which few responded in attempt to give boost to their (systemic) biased POV by means of "voting" on the merger. Another dedicated (and up until that moment uninvolved) editor, myself included, tried to get their attention on this behavior, but we were dismissed with comments of explanations and justifications. And, not only that they voted more then once(!) each, they also, apparently, using WP:Single-purpose accounts as well. Obstructed discussion at: Talk:Bosanska_Krajina#Merger_discussion. As an aside, I would also like to examine the possibility of extending the page protection (current pg. protection expires in couple of hours), at least until the ensuing merger discussion and disruption of it has been resolved.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It actually all started with editor who disrupted ([83], [84]) a long-time more or less stable content [85] of the article „Turkish Croatia“, and who began edit warring. Later he alerted admins ([86], [87]) and one of them protected the page, but with problematic content, and opened merger discussion. By the way, the page was protected only once, not „three times in last two months“. Some other editors (among which were also those who previously took part on the talk page of the article) reacted to behaviour of the disruptive editor and opposed the merger, giving reasons for that, including facts, sources, references.

During the merger discussion, there was no one who clearly supported the merger, but only made comments. Perhaps because there are a lot of sources that prove the notability of the article, as standalone one. Most of sources were systematically ignored and removed from the article by disruptive editor. He added his POV sources instead, which have almost nothing to do with the original content. And, as for my „double“ voting, I clearly stated that I confirmed my previous discussion on talk pages „before the merger discussion had been officially opened“.

Instead of contributing constructively to the article dealing with distant past, this editor uses the article as some sort of political pamphlet, and uses words like neologism, hapax, claptrap, pseudo-history, Austrian-Hungarian conspiracy theory etc. to describe the term and original content of the article. Could anybody explain how, for instance, an at least 300 or 400 years old term (Turkish Croatia) can be neologism, or how the term with a lot of various sources in English, German, Italian and Croatian language ([88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93]) can be hapax?

The most important things to be stressed here are:

1. The article is a significant integral part of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian history, but the Croatian history as well.
2. The article deals with distant past and not with recent history, e.g. Bosnian War or Croatian War of Independence in the 1990s.
3. The article refers to the territory which does not overlap with the area of Bosanska Krajina, neither geographically nor chronologically.
4. The original content of the article has a lot of references from independent and reliable sources.

--Silverije 22:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Dum felis dormit, mus gaudet et exsi litantro.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not Sure If This Belongs Here.....

I have been having some edit conflicts with user User:KStrain2000 - the most recent issue being with List of programs broadcast by Family Channel" I put in a reference stating that Speechless was a Disney Show since User:KStrain2000 decided that it should be listed under the "Disney" section, which is under the "Former Programming" section in List of programs broadcast by Family Channel. This station aired Speechless after Family Channel decided to no longer air Disney Programming (see "Loss of Disney Channel programming rights and other changes" in the "History section of Family Channel - several references are given. Speechless did not start airing on Family Channel (nor was it even made) until after Family Channel ceased airing any Disney programming.

In the Wikipedia article for Speechless there is no refer3ence to Disney owning it, at all. I found a reference for the List of programs broadcast by Family Channel to state that Disney was owned by Disney; however, a little while after I did this, User:KStrain2000 reverted that edit, stating "Speechless doesn't need a reference because everyone already knows it's owned by them; those Nick animated shows weren't by Nickelodeon themselves and Strawberry Shortcake isn't a Family original".

I reverted the edit and fixed it so that the shows no longer aired under the "Animated Series" section for "Nickelodeon" in the "Former Programming" section; but the fact that User:KStrain2000 stated "Speechless doesn't need a reference because everyone already knows it's owned by them" is extremely rude; I didn't know they were owned by Disney since no reference (nor was it ever mentioned) showed that Disney bought rights to Speechless - that's why I found (and provided) a reference stating that Disney bought rights to it (Disney is listed in the fifth paragraph in the reference I provided - https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-features/speechless-tv-show-wheelchair-planet-episode-jj-disability-801320/).

Also, in another past edit User:KStrain2000 made (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Family_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=909636189) involved the plot summary "Bro WTF is wrong with you?"

Two rude edit summaries; I know that's not exactly punishable but the most recent one - stating that "everyone already knows it's owned by Disney" is false - am I wrong to think that a reference shows that Speechless was bought by Disney? Like I said before; the reason I put the reference in was because Family Channel lost Disney programming rights before it aired Speechless. TheBlackKitty (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left a reminder to be civil in edit summaries. Let me know or post here again if they don't take heed and attempt to be less combative and dismissive in their summaries. KillerChihuahua 14:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I will do so if anything else happens. TheBlackKitty (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Harassment from User:RichardWeiss

This guy's started showing up on my talk page, screeching like a howler monkey about a single edit I made to a random IP page. Nine years ago. I don't know who this is, nor do I remotely care. I do, however, have an issue with him throwing his feces all over my nice clean talk page. Could someone do me a solid and put a cork in him? HalfShadow 19:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's unpick this.

• Here's RichardWeiss' original message
• Here is HalfShadow's response, and RW's response to that
• Finally, Here's another post by HS on RW's talk page, and, uhh, Notification, of this ANI filing

This is silly, and should not have made it to AN/I. All parties involved need to chill, and go back to whatever they normally do here. Yes, RichardWeiss (talk · contribs) should pay better attention to time/dates of edits, and perhaps refamiliarise themselves with WP:SOCKPUPPET and the related policy. However, HalfShadow (talk · contribs) should probably stop referring to other people's talk page edits as "feces", and is encouraged to consider the responses they leave on people's talk pages a little more.

I have not dug into either editor's history any futher - they've both been around the block for long enough to consider themselves "old hands", and should really, really know better.

Seriously, folks - calm down. It's just an encyclopaedia.

Trouts all round, methinks. -- a ^{consensus is queer oppression | argue | contribs} 20:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear. Both of you go have a cuppa tea and try to be nice. Not impressed with either editor's behavior here. KillerChihuahua 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

He comes on to my page shrieking about something that happened quite literally a decade ago, like I'm supposed to scratch my chin, say "Oh yes, I remember that!", the camera does the swirly effect thing and then I narrate the event. What dimension is this guy from? HalfShadow 20:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's try this again. "He came on my page, referencing something I didn't recall. I told him 'I'm not sure what you're referring to, would you please give me a link or a dif?'" and he did, and I said "Oh, that was 10 years ago, did you realize that? Old news. I'm not sure what you're expecting from me now?" and he said "my error, I'm sorry!" and we were done.

Also, "shrieking... what dimension is this guy from?" both very snarky. May I suggest you take the time to read WP:CIVIL? KillerChihuahua 20:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

My guess is he was logged out, saw the notice for the first time without the date, and then came to you. That's the most benefiting of the doubt excuse I can make for it. Other edits seem sane. spryde | talk 20:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, that is how it looks to me, also. He also seems to be a bit confused about what the suspected sock tag is, and is not. He seems to have taken it very personally. I'm not sure what else HS did or didn't do at the time, but the tag alone is merely suspicion. KillerChihuahua 20:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Perhaps both move on and get busy building an encyclopedia. Wm335td (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you should read HalfShadow"s user Page ... the guys has Benn blocked before for not being civil .. Boomerang Jena (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Jena Fi, what are you talking about? His userpage says nothing about blocking or civility or anyone named Benn or Ben. It hasn't been edited in 2½ years, so it's not a matter of the page being changed after your comment was made. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe "benn" is a typo, "been" would make more sense. Blackmane (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I meant the User talk page . and yes it's Blank .. he deletes everything! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HalfShadow&action=history and look at his Block log. Jena (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay; I took it as a pot-calling-kettle-black statement ("he got someone else blocked for incivility, and now he's doing it"), and since the userpage didn't say anything of the sort, I was confused. HalfShadow has seven "justified" blocks (thirteen total, minus some that got overturned as inappropriate, one that was a pure accident, and some that changed block settings), of which four were related to personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Are you talking about HalfShadow's block log? He has a fairly extensive log, from 2009 and 2010, with ONE block last month (and FWIW, it was for harassment, but it's completely unrelated to this instance.) Many editors have difficulty learning the behavioral rules here; they come from other areas of the Internet where incivility and outright personal attacks are the usual way of handling even minor disputes. That HS had trouble in 09 and 10 is clear. That he's mended his ways is also clear. He overreacted to this situation, brought it here, was told to calm down and have a cuppa, and so far as I can tell hasn't escalated or pursued it. He's dropped it, and presumably is having the recommended cuppa somewhere calm and peaceful. Not seeing why you'd bring this up. This was over several hours ago. KillerChihuahua 00:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

While you were writing this, I was recounting the blocks and changing my comment. "Thirteen minus bad equals seven" is wrong. I was planning to change it to eight "justified" blocks (sixteen blocks total, minus three that got overturned as inappropriate, one that was a pure accident, and four that changed block settings). Nyttend (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And so far as blanking is concerned - I find it annoying myself. Its still perfectly acceptable, and is specifically allowed per user talk page guidelines. We had huge Rfc's about it and everything. You can blank your talk page whenever you like. KillerChihuahua 00:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua's said it a good deal better than I could have. I don't like it one bit when people blank their talk pages (it's confusing and makes it hard to follow the history), but unless the page is up for deletion for some crazy reason, there's absolutely no reason that a non-blocked user may not blank his own talk page, so there's no reason to make an actual objection to the practice. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

This argument has no effect on the issue at hand. Make a separate report if you want to continue this argumentHeartGlow30797 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in and I believe that this is not harassment. The person in question was very respectful, however he may be wrong. Him being wrong is not the point, harassment is not an issue present.HeartGlow30797 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what part of "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" this falls into, but a close of this is probably for the best. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have the right to reply to this thread, which I just discovered. On New Year's Eve 2010 an ip made 2 comments (the only edits they have made) to a thread about me on this page, here and here. [@HalfShadow: then slapped this tag on the ip's user page. All fine so far. However, they made the comment "...unless you can give me compelling evidence as to how this IP's only edits can be to AN/I in a topic concerning SqueakBox" (see [94]. Note that instead of doing what they were required to do at this point, which was to file a sockpuppet check, they put the onus on me and on the ip to prove our innocence. They did not inform me of what they had done so I had no right to reply. I discovered this a few weeks ago while doing routine maintenance. I was User:SqueakBox in 2010, this name was changed by an admin, they aren't separate accounts but the same account and I checked what linked to SqueakBox and discovered this ip page. My discovery had NOTHING to do with me logging out, that would assume this ip address was genuinely linked to me, which it was not. I was in India on that last day in 2010, and have never edited from a German ip in my 16 years here, nor have I been to that country since 1984. So HalfShadow made a wrong assumption and didn't get a sockpuppet check, this was an attack on both myself and on whoever was using the IP at the time, falsely linking us together because HalfShadow could not be bothered to do a sockpuppet check. There is no statute of limitations on past Wikipedia actions and I considered this serious enough to take to HalfShadow. I didn't do so in an aggressive fashion so to my mind HalfShadow has compounded their 2010 attack with a 2019 attack by bring me here for alleged harrassment. The only harrassment which ahs occurred is when HalfShadow slapped his suspicions on page that had nothing to do with me and didn't then bother checking. I have re-opened the thread in order to give myself the right of reply. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands."

Please look at Psalm 100, known as "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.", present version this, demanding that you (you!) revdel a copyright violation. Nothing happened in several hours.

The psalm is known in the King James Version, Wikisource, as "Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands."

Beginning in January 2018, Yoninah and I have improved coverage of the Psalms. She, knowing Hebrew, their original language, added the Hebrew text with its English translation, "A song for a thanksgiving offering. Shout to the Lord, all the earth.", per [95] - Yesterday, Elizium23 removed that as a copytight violation, with a fat tag for the article and a tag for Yoninah. When I removed the tag for the article, Elizium23 had another tag for me, and the request to revdel that I still see!!

We have now four threads, Yoninah, two on Elizium23 (sorry for the one I started, I had not noticed the other one, and the one Yoninah started has the numbers of all Psalms that have Hebrew text and translation, showing me how many are still missing). and my own.

We need to sort out:

1. Is this translation of a biblical text a copyright violation?
2. Even if yes, does it need a revdel?
3. For the announced investigation: are 5 psalms five cases? (I'd say no.)
4. How can we help our readers to the original language of the psalms and a translation? Leaving them alone with the King James Version - in old-fashioned English - doesn't help help them to understand the original meaning.
   1. Can we make a tranlation in Wikisource?
   2. Can we request permission from the publisher?
   3. Other ideas?
5. How can we spare our readers the lengthy tags in article space? In general, not just here. The discredit the information. One line in article space, the rest on the article talk page should be enough, no?

Not an incident? May be, I am not familiar with ANI. I am most concerned about the tags in articles that are highly visible, and called by many other articles, see Der 100. Psalm. (So far: palms 1, 23, 42, 51 are also tagged) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I, for one, am very confused. If we start with the premises that the bible's original text is not copyrighted, and likewise, the King James Version is in the public domain, then it would seem to me just fine. Similarly, if one follows the link in the copyright template, the chabad translation is quite different, if more literal. My hunch is that the tag is simply a bit of a mix-up, but I would be happy to hear others' thoughts. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly you mean by "just fine". The King James Version (KJV) is public domain, yes, but it often represents the original Hebrew badly, and it's also in an old-fashioned English. Just compare the two translations above. Should we inform our readers about that? I'd say yes. How, that is the question. Another example: Psalm 42: KJV has "As the hart panteth after the water brooks." The other translation - now removed - has: "For the conductor, a maskil of the sons of Korah. / As a hart cries longingly for rivulets of water". Note in both cases, that the author credit is missing in the KJV, on top of the language. Also: using KJV only supports a Christian bias. The original is Hebrew and Jewish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ancient biblical texts are in the public domain. Translations, whether they are Jewish or Christian, which were published before 1924 are in the public domain, and there are plenty of them. More recent translations are presumed not to be in the public domain, unless there is good evidence to the contrary. Any distinctive quotation of a specific translation should be attributed to the translator, and should be brief if the translation is copyrighted. Original content published since 1924 and republished on Chabad.org is subject to the crystal clear copyright notice at the bottom of that web page. These are the basic principles that seem pretty clear to me, unless I am missing something. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

For example, the Jewish Publication Society of America Version of the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures) was published in 1917, is in the public domain, and is freely available online. It may not reflect the full range of modern scholarship but I would submit that no single translation meets that standard. It is always best to use fully free translations, unless there is a convincing need to quote non-free content instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair use of modern religious texts is often quite generous (see [96], [97]). However, Chabad is pretty clearly copyrighted. But they seem amenable to letting their work be used in periodicals if you first contact them for permission ([98]). Emailing them could clarify the copyright status, the date of the particular translation, and to gain their explicit permission. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless their permission is in the form of a release under a free license, the choices remain fair use or deletion. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't really know how we've handled it here, but the situation with the KJV is unusual: it functionally has perpetual copyright in the UK. See King James Version#Copyright status for details. Of course, this doesn't affect its standing in other jurisdictions. Nyttend (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Cullen: the Jewish Publication Society source, while public domain, is completely unacceptable for a modern-day readership. The language is archaic and anachronistic. The Chabad translation is adequate, although it does not always reflect the classical Jewish commentaries, some of which are cited on the newly revised psalm pages under "Background and themes". It's important to note that the KJV often skips the incipit and starts the psalm with verse 2 of the Hebrew; using the KJV as the English translation would thus omit the translation of many verses. Yoninah (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So, first of all, a general apology for skimming too quickly before bed and misunderstanding the issue! I don't think we should be offering our own translations. Translation, especially from a language like biblical Hebrew, is not a mechanistic and one-to-one affair (hapax legomena, anyone?). As such, that strikes me as very much WP:OR. Strictly speaking, no, I don't believe the translation offered was a copyright violation. At the same time, I think this problem will reoccur and be a headache, and we don't have much choice but to acquiesce. So we do need, I think, to cite to a usable translation. And while I will always champion the KJV as part of the history of English, it certainly does not follow the Hebrew particularly closely. The JPS version, while not ideal as Yoninah notes, might be the best we can do given the current copyright regime. Its wording can indeed be awkward, but it is (for my money) far less anachronistic than the KJV and much more faithful to the Hebrew text. Note the translation of verse 1 of Psalm 100: "A Psalm of thanksgiving. Shout unto the Lord, all the earth." That's pretty close to the deleted version. So, for now, I think my position would be "the JPS text until something better comes up." Just my opinion, of course. If we DO start translating, I have lots of opinions, beginning with Genesis 1:1! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Previously responded here, but to answer your questions:

1. If it is a translation that is still in copyright (as Cullen said, published before 1924), is not published with a compatible license, and is not used as fair use (again, we're not lawyers here, but I'd say copying an multiple Psalms isn't fair use), then yes, copyvio.

2. iff 1.

3. *shrug* not my department.

4. WP:COPYLINK, perhaps? I'm seeing plenty of opportunity for holy wars (pun entirely intended) over choice of translation, but if there's a source like Biblegateway which legally hosts copies of the translations you're interested in, you could put that in the external links. I doubt the publisher will give permission given that anything they let us use gets an open license (i.e. anyone can take it off of Wikipedia and use it freely), but I guess you could ask.

5. The revdel tag will go away as soon as an administrator handles it.

^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 12:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So I don't exactly know where to point to policy here, but I have always taken it as a given that, on Wikipedia, we always refrain from including the full text of any work of significant length. Now, many Psalms are short (this began at Psalm 23, a classic masterpiece weighing in at 6 verses.) But if we consider that there are over 150 Psalms, each with its own separate article, it adds up! My NABRE edition runs 97 pages in normal-sized print. There is no "fair use" involved in scraping every word of every Psalm from Chabad and the JPS without permission. Furthermore, I do not envision JPS granting CC-BY-SA permission to us for the aforementioned every word of every Psalm. Even if they did, I believe it would be beyond Wikipedia's remit to reproduce them here. That is what Wikisource is for! Wikisource is where we publish full-length renditions of freely-licensed works, and we point to Wikisource whenever we need to cite such a work at length. Now, the good editors Yoninah and Gerda Arendt are diligent, WP:GA and WP:FA powerhouses, and they are rightly concerned with top-quality content. How do we have articles on the Psalms without top-quality renditions of them in the original and in Modern English? Well, the same way we have articles on the Simpsons episodes without full-length videos; the same way we have articles on Shakespeare's plays without editors re-enacting them, and so forth. I think Wikipedia's job is to provide plenty of out-of-universe exegesis, context, commentary, history, and reception, and none of that requires the full-text. And if they really want full-text, we have already given them ample public-domain options, and we can just live with the "archaic" (IMHO, poetic and beautiful) language therein. Elizium23 (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see sources like Chabad.org being included in the external links. But we really need to tweak the public-domain JPS translation. We cannot write "Yahweh", for instance, which is not accepted by classical Jewish sources or Orthodox Judaism in general ("God" will do just fine). I'd also like to note that the Hebrew text being copied from the Chabad site includes cantillation notes, which are really unnecessary for a straight Hebrew reading. Yoninah (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to understand what is happening in this thread, but I'll try and clear the air on the topic of copyright: If a website with an "all rights reserved" notice contains text that is unambiguously in public domain, then that text is in public domain. They can't change the copyright unless they own it. If it's a translation being copy and pasted into the article, and that translation is not in public domain, then it is a copyvio. Whether or not it's editorial appropriate to mass copy the verses into the article, if they are public domain, is up for you article's editors to decide. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Judaica Press English translation is most assuredly not public-domain. That's the whole reason I raised the complaint. English editions are still for sale at JPS' website. I can't rightly object to whatever Hebrew text you wanna include, I wouldn't even know how to determine if it were some kind of copyright-encumbered transcription anyway. Our issue is with the modern English Judaica Press translation, which is clearly marked on the linked Chabad website with a current copyright claim, "all rights reserved". And I am confused about why you say we cannot write "Yahweh" — Wikipedia has a neutral POV, not a Jewish one — out of fairness, the Psalms articles must represent both Jewish and Christian patrimony and not exclude or favor one or the other. So by all means, complement the KJV with a rabbinic translation. But you can't come in and say "Yahweh out!" to the Psalms. Elizium23 (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23--with all due respect, I believe you have what in my business we call "versionitis," that is, a mistake regarding two different versions of the same text. The modern JPS bible (or "NJPS") is most assuredly copyrighted, and no one is arguing it is not. The 1917 version, sometimes called "Old JPS" or "OJPS" is in the public domain. If you don't believe me, believe the JPS themselves when they say "The 1917 edition, now in the public domain, is not available from JPS in print form." They then go on to offer a free download, since it is a public domain document. As such, there is no problem with using the 1917 version or sourcing to it for Wikipedia purposes, and I think it is a good counterpoint to more floral translations--though, as is often noted, it owes a lot to the RV. We'll all muddle through this together! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: if you can satisfactorily prove that Chabad.org has reproduced the PD 1917 English translation, and that's the text that Yoninah has included on these articles, then I will gratefully retract alllll of my complaints. But I am not sure you can. Why would Chabad use a 1917 translation, when they have obtained express permission to use a "new and improved" 1980s version as advertising to sell JPS books? Elizium23 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Right -- I am suggesting we replace it with the 1917 version! It's not ideal from anyone's point of view, but I think fills a void that currently exists. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 06:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It already appears to be identical to what's in the King James Version, which is public domain. I can't see the text which was removed, but this, as far as I can tell, is clearly not a copyright violation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC) This was incorrect, my apologies. SportingFlyer T·C 05:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel or not?

What I can't believe is that the revdel tag still sits on Psalm 100. Can an admin please decide NOW if the copyright violation - if accepted - is severe enough to need a revdel, and if yes, do it NOW for all psalms listed by Yoninah, and if no remove that tag (which as far as I know is only on that one psalm? The same translation will still be listed in the external links, among other translations, including the mentioned biblegateway. The tag doen't create trust in our content, imho.

For the next step: If we decide against the Hebrew text in that version, I suggest that we - for the sake of fairness - also remove the KJV text which is anyway always on top of the external links in those palm articles already expanded. Poor readers then can open some windows to study the differences, instead of seeing them at a glance. I can't judge if the older translation of the Hebrew would be of value instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• KJV is public domain. The issue is copyright, and nothing else. Please don't try to cloud the issue. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  I am sorry, I don't understand. KJV is not the question. The question is if the translation of the Hebrew text is such a severe copyright violation - if any - that a revdel is needed. More time passed with the tag saying "Blatant copyright violations" on Psalm 100. If revdel is needed, the elapsed time since it was posted is shameful. If it's not needed and the article wrongly tagged, even more so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Gerda Arendt, Infrogmation was responding to your statement that I suggest that we - for the sake of fairness - also remove the KJV text. The problem that needs to be dealt with here at AN/I is the copyright dispute, nothing more. The question of including the KJV is a content dispute and can be dealt with on the article talk page, or failing that, any of the resources at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE.

  Also, please stop calling things "shameful." Your repeated use of it is getting close to being a personal attack. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  If "shameful" is not the correct word for "I feel ashamed for it", please forgive me. English is not my native language. I will have to look up what Infrogmation may mean. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  If I say something is "shameful", it means not that I feel ashamed, but that you should feel ashamed. Hence, "the elapsed time since it was posted is shameful" is saying that admin (all of them) should feel ashamed that none of them has gotten to this request yet. I'm glad you explained that's not what you meant–until now, I thought that's what you meant. :-) – Levivich 22:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any question that there's a copyright violation. For example, text in this diff is clearly the same as copyrighted text from this website. In my experience, it can take two or three days for a {{copyvio-revdel}} template to be cleared by an admin. As we all know, there aren't enough admin to handle all the admin tasks (nudge, nudge, Gerda, ye with 10yrs and 200k edits). If there are no good, public domain, modern translations of the Psalms from Hebrew into English, someone who is capable should write and publish some... then we can use them in our articles. – Levivich 18:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Everything you said has been said above, while I said above that my experience with ANI is almost zero. Until this gets resolved one way or the other, I will remove links to Psalm 100 from articles for which I feel responsible. I feel awful sending people to "Blatant copyright violations". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Gerda Arendt, please don't do that. That's outright disruptive behavior. creffett (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  No one should feel responsible for any articles, because none of us are responsible for any articles. – Levivich 18:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict:)

  Note to self: Chandos Anthems, Chichester Psalms, Der 100. Psalm, Jauchzet dem Herrn, alle Welt (Mendelssohn), Nun jauchzt dem Herren, alle Welt, Service in B-flat major, Op. 10 (Stanford), Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  After edit conflict: you can't tell me how to feel. If I write a featured article such as Der 100. Psalm, and it sends to an article with a "Blatant copyright violations"-tag I feel like cheating every reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, ah, don't shoot the messenger here; if you feel that copyvio tags are "shameful" then, as one of the active editors of Psalms articles along with Yoninah, y'all should've considered copyright issues before copying the disputed text into the articles in the first place. The reason the tags are there is because we have to clean up after someone who misappropriated content that never should've been here in the first place. When I added the tags and reported the articles, the wheels were set in motion. Now you're quite impatient and attempting to jump the queue: as has been explained, admins have quite a backlog in all areas, including copyvio reports. Sometimes it takes a week or two for an admin to clean up, revdel, and remove the tags. In the meantime, nobody's gonna die; I am sure our dedicated readers will forgive Psalm 100 for having an ugly tag on it for a week. Please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by removing links from "your" featured articles. This will all be handled. There are plenty of good options to us going forward. This, too, shall pass. Elizium23 (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I was forced to revert @Graeme Bartlett: who seemed to believe that the Hebrew text was why I filed the complaints. No, folks, I have no problem with the allegedly PD status of the Hebrew text. It's the JPS English translation we're concerned about here. (And I have no reason to suspect that Chabad.org is hosting the 1917 PD JPS translation rather than the 1980s copyrighted one.) Elizium23 (talk) 06:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely to me that an ultra-Orthodox organization like Chabad would host anything from a relatively liberal interdominational group like JPS, no matter the copyright status of the content. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I must apologize; I am not communicating well. As I said above, I don't mean to suggest that chabad is hosting the 1917 text--rather, I am suggesting we replace the chabad quotations with the 1917 text, which, while perhaps not optimal, is decidedly in the public domain. As for revdel'ing the old versions, I guess I would say better safe than sorry, but that's above my pay grade. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think we can rely on supposition here. Certain chapters of Chabad have been used as fronts for global political corruption. It's not outside the realm of possibility that the site uses NJPS rather than OJPS, unless they specifically state which one they use. (That said, I've never been a particular fan of using mass revdel simply because some old versions of a wiki article inadvertently had some lyrics/translations that were still under copyright.) Softlavender (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I understand the use of revdel when someone has blatantly copypasted a large swath of original work from a book, article, or website. I do not understand the use of revdel for instances where a translation of an ancient text or an old song, which translation is now found to still be under copyright, was inadvertently used in a wiki article but is now removed. These are good-faith errors that do no real harm to the copyright-holder, being visible only in old versions of text invisible to the public. Heck, revdel was not even available until around mid-2009, and was not in wide use until 2015 or so. I don't think there is any reason to plaster copyvio demands for revdel on things like important Wikipedia articles that had, in good faith, provided English translations of important old material. In my mind it's a waste of administrative time, and serves no real purpose while disrupting and damaging the appearance of valuable and important articles. I propose that we drop this and remove the tag, when a clearly fair-use translation has been established and provided on the article (or at least when the questionable translation has been removed from the article). Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• I do not think that revdel is required for text that has been used legally. Perhaps the copyright is not compatible, but it is still legal to have a small piece on Wikipedia. However it is in appropriate because our mission is to have free content, and other commercial uses may not be legal. So that means it just needs to be removed from the current version(s), but that revdel is not actually needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose revdel; support immediate removal of tag; support confirming precise copyright status of any translation visible on live version of wiki article. Per my comments just above (and Graeme Bartlett's points). Softlavender (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• UPDATE: MLauba has now completed the revdel, zapping 37 good-faith versions/edits to the article, and making all of those edits invisible to editors. Was this really necessary and useful? Softlavender (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• The primary purpose of Revdel in these cases is to avoid the text in question being reverted back into the article, compounding the problem. As with all copyright matters, we apply a precautionary principle, meaning we'll err towards removal of the material, which is why I decided to action the tag. That being said, the text in question, as some editors note just above, is minor, and I pondered outright declining the request for quite a bit. The exposure here weighed in favour of redaction, however, in addition to the fact that in practice, the content in question is 100% of the psalm itself, which by the letter of the rules is not acceptable. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

An unrelated issue has come to my attention as a result of this discussion. It looks to me that Jewish Publication Society has been spammed with "references" to various Chabad related websites that have nothing at all to do with JPS. It is now past my bedtime in California. Can other editors remove the spam references/links from that article? Is this a problem on other low visibility Judaism articles? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

It's great to see that one article has been cleaned up. That only leaves 32 more articles with infringing text: Psalms 1, 2, 8, 13, 22, 23, 24, 36, 39, 42, 45, 46, 47, 51, 70, 75, 91, 93, 96, 97, 110, 126, 127, 130, 131, 133, 134, 138, 139, 147, 149, 150. (I did not tag all of them manually with copyvio because that is a manual and arduous process. I thought it would be enough to tag 5, leaving the door open for a WP:CCI, and report them as-is to WP:Copyright problems. Elizium23 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose revdel on any other articles; support immediate removal of tags on any other articles; support confirming precise copyright status of any translation visible on live version of wiki article. Per my comments above (and Graeme Bartlett's points). There is no consensus that revdel is needed for this extremely minor issue, and if no live version contains copyvios, there is no reason to disappear hundreds of edits. I think Elizium23 has lost perspective. Pinging Diannaa for perspective. Softlavender (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Antandrus (talk · contribs) is accusing me of 'defacement' by following procedure, removing blatant copyvios, and adding tags to articles. I deserve an apology, because following Wikipedia policy and procedure to protect you from legal action is the opposite of 'defacement'. Elizium23 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm only sorry I did not remove the defacing tag sooner.

This is copyright paranoia, to suppose we will be subject to "legal action" because of the presence of some copied and pasted verses from a Hebrew psalm, in old revisions of an article which a casual reader cannot even see. Antandrus (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you actively and willfully lying now? It is false that the copyrighted text was invisible. It was live, visible, and active before I followed Wikipedia procedure to remove, tag, and report it. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Back off. You're just wrong and sometimes you have to have the humility to admit it. Your previous addition of this tag was also on a version without the material. No, I'm not asking for your "apology", just that you tone it down. Antandrus (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• The articles are already listed at WP:CP: that was done on September 16. If there's copyright content, it needs to be removed, and revision deletion is appropriate as well in my opinion. I would revdel such edits; I have done so in the past, lots of times: national anthems, copyright translations of PD songs, stuff like that.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

[Subheader changed by Softlavender - point seems moot now]

There is no proof yet whether the Chabad site or the books they quote from use OJPS (public domain) or NJPS (still under copyright) translations. So these claims of "blatant copyright violation" are as-yet unfounded/unproven. Softlavender (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed: A quick search from [99] and [100] (both clearly marked as public domain) shows the phrase is equivalent to the KJV and is in the public domain. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• As in all copyvio matters, the point is moot. Unless there is conclusive proof that the material is free for use, the default assumption is that the material is copyrighted, a practice that isn't limited to Wikipedia BTW. The onus is on who adds the material to demonstrate that they have the right to do so. That's explicit in WP:C but also our terms of use. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Why do you dispute the conclusiveness of this? See [101] and then match it up with the link above, the text is clearly public domain. It's also on wikisource. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• MLauba, please indicate where in WP:C it is explicit that "the default assumption is that the material is copyrighted ... The onus is on who adds the material to demonstrate that they have the right to do so". Softlavender (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Softlavender and SportingFlyer: How are we not on the same page here? This edit contains text that is a word-for-word copy of this page. And that text is different from the PD KJV links posted. So what am I missing? How is it not an obvious copyright violation? – Levivich 00:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Update: I forgot it's already been revdelled ... nevermind. – Levivich 00:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• There is no indication on the Chabad site whether that Hebrew-to-English translation is OJPS (public domain) or NJPS (still under copyright). The translation itself is not original to Chabad. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Are we looking at the same page? No indication? There's a disclaimer at the bottom that says English translation, (c) copyright The Judaica Press, all rights reserved. And another one below that: "© 1993-2019 Chabad-Lubavitch Media Center". – Levivich 00:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• OK, then I was misled by what was said far above this subthread, that stated what I stated. I'm going to strike some of my previous comments. Thanks for pointing that out. Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• My apologies - this is generally a confusing thread. Even though I looked at the original website I think I conflated the issue with the KJV text. Having looked into it, chabad.org is clearly copyrighted and anything we have copied directly from chabad.org should be deleted and revdel'd. We should keep the KJV text or similar translations on the article, and no reason why we can't use chabad.org as a reference if needed. SportingFlyer T·C 03:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Revdel done

Revdel was done for Psalm 100 by MLauba, and the tag removed accordingly. Two questions: Is that a good solution? All edits since June 2018 are now a secret for whoever is interested, and the revdel suggests that something criminal took place. Can we solve the concern that nobody should accidently bring that content back in a different manner. How about an edit notice appearing when one of those old versions and describing that unfortunately copyrighted material i part of these version, so they should not be stored? Or would it even be technically possibly to protect those versions from being edited? - I still believe that replacing one translation of a well-known psalm by a slightly different version, which is older but copyrighted, should not involve so much secrecy as revdel over more than a year, in the name of transparency.

The other psalms

What should we do about the other psalms which host uch a translation? The easiest way would be to remove all text, as it was before the expansion. To have only KJV raises the concern of Christian bias for originally Jewish literature. If ANI is no place to discuss that, where else? My talk is open. We could also - perhaps better - use Talk:Psalms. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors

An admin might want to check up on this page, it came to my attention when a bunk of references were removed. I am not sure if it is being targeted or not based on recent edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for some days...people are invited to use the talk-page to discuss things. Lectonar (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I would revert all the recent changes to status quo before the reference removal, but cant right now in my given surroundings. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

KrishRoyceInc issues

KrishRoyceInc has been blocked before for editing while logged out to make controversial edits. There are 3 open SPI items out there for this user who is clearly masking his real IP, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KrishRoyceInc. The reason why I am here is this user is now making other edits that I feel warrant bringing here despite the SPI being open.

This user just made two redirects at [102] and [103] followed by minutes later the IP user changed a page to that name [104]. These changes are a clear example of vandalism as they are inaccurately now changing pages.

Additionally this user I guess was tired of all their articles getting moved to drafts, so they just created their most recent one as a draft, but they are now linking to it from the mainspace [105] [106].

This user clearly knows that its doing because any of the controversial edits are made while logged out, but to be clear, I am bringing them here for WP:NOTHERE separate and apart from the open SPI. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that this isn't a content dispute. I'm not seeing evidence of NOTHERE. I cannot speak to the sock allegations, that's out of my purvue. KillerChihuahua 14:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Not a content dispute. The two issues here are 1) the user is making disruptive edits while logged out to avoid WP:SCRUTINY including edit warring and 2) they have been copy pasting content from other articles to create articles without proper attribution. I will elaporate future below. StaticVapor message me! 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• It seems that KrishRoyceInc will create articles by copying parts of other articles and fusing them together into these super messy articles that others have to clean up. Then any furthur editing after creating the articles, is done via their various IPs that trace back to Italy ([107], [108] and [109]). You can see an example here, where the IP edits the article less than five minutes following it's creation. You will also see at Draft:The Glorious Perfection, the IP edits the article one minute after KrishRoyceInc creates it. There is no way a random reader found this obscure draft a minute after it was created. Clearly same person based on the singular focus on articles and drafts created by KrishRoyceInc, the only other edits being linking to said articles. Except the new IP 79.37.163.88 is now introducing deliberate factual errors to The Undisputed Era and The O.C. (professional wrestling). They will also use the IP to edit war reverting without edit summary as seen here, most notably on The Riott Squad article, and on The Boss 'n' Hug Connection. The Riott Squad even had to be protected to make the redirect stay there. Clearly the logging out is to avoid warnings and WP:SCRUTINY. Article's that have been copy-paste created without CC attribution by this user include Draft: The Rascalz, Draft:The Absolution, The Boss 'n' Hug Connection, Draft:The Glorious Perfection, Draft:The North (professional wrestling), Draft:Shirai Sisters, Draft:The Kabuki Warriors and The Riott Squad (now a redirect). Also of note the majority of the drafts were published to the mainspace, but moved to drafts due to the such poor condition of the articles, due to the copy paste merging of separate articles into one. Check users cannot connect IPs to users but this is an obvious WP:DUCK. This is a good forum for this as the SPI has not been responded to for days and the disruption is ongoing and needs to stop since it is getting worse (now adding deliberate factual errors to BLPs).StaticVapor message me! 17:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Competence of SHISHIR DUA

• SHISHIR DUA (talk · contribs)

I have numerous concerns about this editor. A quick glance at their talk page sees a large number of warnings over a relatively short period of time, as well as two blocks in a few weeks - unsourced content, disruptive editing, and copyright.

I came across them with concerns about the creation of a larger number non-notable articles - by my count they currently have 6 articles at AFD, with another 3 at PROD.

I have tried to explain to them how notability works and the other issues above, but my comments appear to have fallen on deaf ears, and the editor is now hopelessly attempting to become an administrator, see this (deleted) and this.

I don't doubt that they are a good faith editor, but they are one who severely lacks competence. They have already had two blocks and in the absence of somebody with the patience and skill to get through to them (I have neither, it seems), a third can't be too far away. Posting here for advice/action. GiantSnowman 15:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You can add copyright violation to the long list of issues that SHISHIR DUA has: [110][111] 86.134.77.93 (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@SHISHIR DUA:, it would be really helpful if we could get some response from you here to all the things brought up both here and on your talk page. I'd also be curious as to whether you would consider entering the WP:ADOPT program so an experienced mentor can help you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC) I tried to maintain all the rules according to Wikipedia but due some personal reasons it might have crept in. I apologize but citing that don't doubt on wiki editing abilities and I solemn I'm gonna maintain the policy of wikipedia in future.

Autonomicus

• Autonomicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time for a break here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Agree. The user in question posted in my talk page after I reverted his edits in Talk:Squaring the circle and left the welcome template and a comment directing him to WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK in his talk page. Magidin (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked this editor for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I've now indef'ed based on their comments following the block. Venting after a block is fine; their (now rev-deleted) response was not.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I guess that person must feel that they have grieviously wounded me with their boring, predictable profanities, Ponyo, but it has zero impact on me. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Lots of edits, little communication

TheHistoryBuff101 (talk · contribs) since joining last month has made several thousand edits, only a tiny percentage of which have edit summaries. They've received numerous complaints on their talk page but have never responded. Their main focus lately seems to be on small changes to image captions, such as adding or removing periods from the ends of sentences, in accordance with MOS:CAPTIONS. The edits are in good faith and are generally constructive, though there are a fair number of errors (see e.g. Gulf War).

It's often difficult to see or understand what the changes are, because they are so small and so many, and this has led to accusations of vandalism or disruption. Other editors have repeatedly requested the use of edit summaries. After requests from me on 10-11 September, they made a few edits with summaries explaining what they had done (though not why), but then went back to not using them, making several hundred more edits. The same thing happened following a complaint yesterday by BeenAroundAWhile; they left edit summaries for a grand total of 24 minutes, then proceded to make more than a hundred more edits without them. I'd like them to address these concerns. --IamNotU (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

While leaving edit summaries is good practice and we should all do so, it is not a requirement. And, per WP:FIES, Summaries are less important for minor changes (which means generally unchallengeable changes, such as spelling or grammar corrections which seems to be what you're describing when you say "Their main focus lately seems to be on small changes to image captions, such as adding or removing periods from the ends of sentences".
Editors are also free to ignore each other except in limited cases and I don't believe this is one of those cases. If there is disruption or vandalism occurring, it might be helpful if you could post some diffs, either here or at WP:AIV (I've looked at their last five edits and don't see anything wrong but in the absence of any diffs I can't say if that's the rule or exception). I'm not sure we can do much to forcibly socialize TheHistoryBuff101 if s/he's decided to be the J.D. Salinger of Wikipedia. While I share your curiosity about what motivated their crusade to correctly punctuate sentence fragments this might be a mystery with which we have to live. Chetsford (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If a user is very problematic and also refuses to communicate, there is a case to be made for a block to get their attention and emphasize that this is a collaborative project. However, a case has not really been made here. As noted above, diffs would be helpful so others can easily see the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

And today they did in fact make a post to their talk page: "Hello. I have just received a notification on my talk page that there is ongoing discussion about my editing. While I perfectly understand that I have not provided edit summaries and have not responded to your complaints, I just want to make absolutely clear that I have not been engaged in neither disruptive editing nor vandalism, as the edits I've made have been only about removing periods from certain image captions, rewriting image captions, fixing incorrect links to articles, and removing or replacing unnecessary pictures. I do, however, appreciate your concerns and I'm taking steps to ensure I edit articles the right way." So, without evidence of serious ongoing disruption I don' think there's anything to be done here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've read their response and it's a very positive sign. As I noted, their edits have been in good faith, and generally constructive. I do think that if someone repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits (WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), it may constitute a pattern of disruptive or problematic editing, even if there is no one edit, by itself, that is. My concern is as much for TheHistoryBuff101 as for others, as they've accumulated a number of "disruptive editing" warnings which may or may not be valid. I agree that there's not really a case for a block, but a nudge to follow the advice in Wikipedia:Communication is required to work things out. It seems to have had a good effect, and I hope that they'll continue to be responsive, work with others to allay any concerns, and maintain a good environment for collaborative work. --IamNotU (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. In this case, however, it doesn't seem any questions or requests were posed on their Talk page, just a lot of templates were plastered to it which contained statements. Unless I'm missing something, they ceased editing the articles named in the templates almost immediately after getting hit with each. In any case, though, it's great this was resolved! Chetsford (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford, you're right that most of the previous templates were not really questions or requests (and were mostly unfounded as I noted below them). Just for the record though, I did write a personal message rather than another template last week, requesting explanations concerning the captions edits, with some suggestions, and I specifically asked for a reply. This was the day after the first uw-editsummary template (which in itself I guess is a request for explanations via edit summaries) was ignored. I suppose the third message from BeenAroundAWhile technically wasn't posed in the form of a question, but still it's clear they were requesting explanations. In any case, the response on the talk page will help other editors understand what TheHistoryBuff101 is doing, and they've started using edit summaries, so as you say it's great that it was resolved! Thanks again for your assistance. --IamNotU (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Are there any objections to my presuming that TheHistoryBuff101 does not really spend a lot of time managing their own talk page, and further presuming that I may remove the erroneous templates that have been splattered across their talkpage and that have led to misunderstandings? I will of course leave notes so that subsequent comments will remain intelligible. MPS1992 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

MPS1992, I understand the concerns about some of the earlier templates - that's exactly why I already made several comments to try to help clear up any misunderstandings. But I don't think that extends to deleting good-faith (if misguided) messages from other editors, from someone else's talk page. If you'd like to offer to help TheHistoryBuff101 learn how to archive their talk page messages, that would be generous of you, and I think it would be great! Or perhaps ask those who left the templates to strike their own comments? Otherwise I would think it's best if TheHistoryBuff101 takes responsibility for their talk page themselves, like everyone else... --IamNotU (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Strange legal header added to Talk:Brexit

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

---

An editor added a template to the article talk page I have never seen before (User:Theprussian). [112] Can someone review this template and let other editors know if it actually belongs there. The template makes legal threats, which from what I understand are not allowed on wikipedia. Thanks. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Octoberwoodland, it isn't a legal threat (since it's not somebody threatening action), it's more a warning that because the article topic is connected to an ongoing case, edits to the page could have real-life legal repercussions (presumably administered by the court). As to whether it's correct, no idea, I'll leave that to someone more familiar with Brexit and British law than I. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Also worth noting the thread at the refdesk. I'm one of those who think this template does sometimes have some good uses, but Brexit is not one of those - especially the current Supreme Court case which is being broadcase on the Beeb ... unless there's been some injunction or court order that I haven't heard about, just being up in court is not a good reason for the template. I'm minded to remove both templates, but I'm willing to first hear if there's any good reason for the template to be used. (also @This is Paul:) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. The Brexit article is already contentious and difficult to edit due to the nature of the situation in the UK, with near constant edit warring by various groups of editors who have a hard time agreeing and getting consensus on just about every edit made to it. This tag just makes it that much harder or more difficult to edit that article. I have refrained from editing the article for a variety of reasons, and this notice just makes it clear that most editors should just stay clear of it. I have watched the youtube online debates in the House of Commons trying to understand all the views regarding Brexit, and it is very difficult to edit that article due to the wide spectrum of views editors have. The conflict in the house of commons seems to spillover onto wikipedia. Best to stay away from that article until the dust settles. :-) Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• I saw that too, and dug a little, and found that this template was AfD'd in April and kept. I am tempted to re-nominated it. It is the provision of bad legal advice. The notion that a UK court is going to charge someone unrelated to a case with contempt for something they've written on Wikipedia about a pending case seems like a joke. Has any such thing ever happened? And even if it does, why are we so commonwealth-centric: are we going to warn about images of Muhammed? Or warn people about writing negative things about the governments of Russia, North Korea, Iran, or Venezuela, which may get them into legal trouble in those countries? Saying someone may be liable for something is giving legal advice; we shouldn't do it. Plus, chilling effect. Plus, freedom of speech is a value we should uphold, even if not every government does. – Levivich 22:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  As I mentioned above, I believe there are some times where this template can be appropriate (this not being one of them). Be in no doubt that people editing Wikipedia can be held in contempt of court, just as they definitely have been for editing Facetwitter or whatever. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Man, I just can't keep up with these new social media sites ever since MeerXangaGramTalk launched... creffett (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  I doubt that very much, and until it actually happens, I will continue to doubt it. The point (in my view) isn't whether it's Facebook or Wikipedia or that hot new site MeerXangaGramTalk–the point is whether the editor is connected to the case or not. I do not believe that a UK court (or any other non-kangaroo court) would hold in contempt someone entirely unrelated to a case (like random Joe Q. Public), because they wrote something about a case on the internet, even though the court technically may have the power to do so. It would be a gross miscarriage of justice to hold someone in contempt for violating a "gag order" without that person having intent to interfere with the case. For example, in one Facebook sub judice case, the person who commented on Facebook was a party to the case. A party can certainly get into trouble. Perhaps it would be different for a professional journalist. But a volunteer Wikipedia editor, unconnected to the case? No way. – Levivich 22:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, I'm confused. You linked a story about a case in the Philippines, which is completely unrelated to UK law; it's a civil law jurisdiction (based on Spanish law, apparently), not common law. Is there any similarity between that situation and the one envisioned for Brexit? Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Nyttend: I'm making a global argument, but let's talk UK. UK has both statutory and common law sub judice laws, which either require intent or have an innocent-publication/good-faith-publication defense: [113] [114]. The statute was written after a sub judice contempt case was overturned by the European human rights court (case summary, text). This is why I think it's inconceivable that a Wikipedia editor (acting in good faith, with no intent to interfere with a court proceeding) could be held in contempt (in the UK or any other respectable jurisdiction). – Levivich 01:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  I do like those laws (not) where it says, "it is an offence to do x ..." and you might get arrested, charged, kept in a cell, fingerprinted and DNA'd, put on a database forever, named in the media, and get to pay heavily for a lawyer, "but it is a defence if you can prove y... ". User:Levivich and I might not end up agreeing - I'll merely note, as I did on the reference desk, that the Law Commission produced a paper which explicitly mentions editing Wikipedia (p46). Among other things it also mentions intent to publish (p47). Even the links above talk about "reasonable care" and "strict liability". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's ridiculous in context. The sub judice rule covers reportage that may influence the outcome of the trial. It is pretty close to inconceivable that anything we could add here, would do that. See [115]. Guy (help!) 23:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Based on the content you provided it's pretty clear the only way to commit this offense in the UK is to have access to confidential court documents or proceedings and publish them with malicious intent. The statute clearly states that run of the mill reporting about court cases with publicly available materials is just fine, and since Wikipedia is an internet publishing site which only publishes articles based on public materials I don't see how a Wikipedia editor or Wikipedia in general could ever run afoul of this law. Perhaps that legal warning template should be listed for discussion as proposed by another editor. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The template-in-question should be removed. Is Gina Miller threatening to sue Wikipedia now? GoodDay (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The templates have been removed (with consensus to do so). As far as I'm concerned this thread can now be closed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Putting topic ban on the user

This is off to WP:COIN, best to not have multiple threads about the same thing. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Here is the User:Ruth vanita who is continuously editing articles about Ruth Vanita, Saleem Khidwai and others even after issuing warnings to her about WP:COI. In this revision she tried to put details about her upcoming book and used Wiki as soapbox. Same she did here. Saleem Khidwai is the person with whom she co-authored a book and she added these details about him.
Wikipedia should not be use as soapbox and many of her edits related to herself, her colleague and homosexuality are promotion of her work which is not acceptable. Hence, I think topic ban on LGBT writers in India should be imposed on her so that she can't further edit about pages related to herself, her colleague and her work. Or atleast topic ban on Ruth Vanita will be also enough. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Harshil169, normally this sort of issue should be reported at WP:COIN. The editor should obviously not be editing the article about herself, and should instead make edit requests on the talkpage of the article. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
•  Done-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Optometry definition

Hi,

I’ve been UK Doctor of Optometry for years and I was just adjusting definition of Optometry to include the fact that UK Optometrists can become Doctor of Optometry, via postgraduate degree at a few universities:

https://www2.aston.ac.uk/study/courses/doctor-of-optometry

There is an anonymous user who continuously vandalises the edit and calls UK Optometrists “ophthalmic opticians”, citing sources from 30-40 years ago. Such a term has been phased out in the UK and there are no professional bodies using such a term in the past few decades. I have been qualified nearly 20 years and never been called an ophthalmic optician, as I am addresses as doctor - same as USA.

Can you restrict editorial privileges of this user:

User:2.24.81.187

I wondered if they may have a psychological problem as they relentlessly change my legitimate edit.

Regards

Dr Michael Hope Doctor of Optometry, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhope77 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's an anonymous person from Islington who has been doing this since at least July, via at least 2 IPs: [116], [117]. I don't know whether it's better to semi-protect, or to warn/block, or to rangeblock. Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• As a heads up I chose to notify the most recent IP regarding the discussion. I realize that they might be hopping around but I thought it was at least worthwhile to try and reach them since this issue could be either a content dispute or a conduct issue. I also encourage Mjhope77 to try and explore WP:Dispute resolution techniques to resolve this content dispute. Michepman (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Mjhope77, please refrain from personal attacks like I wondered if they may have a psychological problem. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 12:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Mjhope77 I've semi-protected the article for one month. Hopefully they'll either learn to use the talk page to have a productive conversation, or get bored and go away. If problems continue once protection wears off, let me (or anyone really) know. Requestes for page protection is a click away. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Unattributed copying despite previous warnings

User:Ssolbergj has apparently moved material from Astrium and Airbus Military to Airbus Defence and Space without providing any attribution. This user has been warned previously about the copyright requirements when copying within Wikipedia, and frequently advised about providing edit summaries, but appears to have ignored the warnings. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

These were both articles of poor quality/rarely edited, and i reckoned the content fits better in the common article regarding the current, merged company. Therefor i made a bold redirect. I agree with the point with regard to edit summaries, I apologise. -Ssolbergj (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You need to provide the attribution, as required by WP:CWW. This is a copyright requirement. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:BMW E24 timeline

Hi. The outcome of WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_28#Template:BMW_E24_timeline was to delete the template. However it has now been re-created without any discussion. It is not about whether the decision was correct or not, but this is about following proper process. Therefore I request that the template is removed until if/when a proper review decides that it should be restored. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• It has been recreated by the original creator, claiming that it was "nominated for deletion by troll", but it wasn't, it was nominated by a long-time and very experienced editor. And it's still ugly, and used only in a single article, so I have nominated it for speedy deletion per CSD G4... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

A user with 6 edits who was CU-blocked? Sounds like a troll to me! 158.106.203.154 (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The original "Lukeno94", who made the edit in 2015, has been renamed and (voluntarily) vanished, the account the link now leads to was created (and blocked, see block log) as an impersonation account. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• This template was deleted years ago. Any question now as to whether WP is improved or not by its use is a content issue, not for WP:ANI. OSX has disappeared. Luke disappeared in the midst of considerable argument (if not an actual cloud overhead) because of issues like him seeking to delete templates and infoboxes he disapproved of.

The BMW E24 series is a notable and long-lived subject. A timeline box is appropriate and consistent with our similar pages elsewhere. It's also appropriate to modularise its coding as a template. If the results are currently "ugly", then that's a question for Template talk:BMW_E24_timeline, Talk:BMW 6 Series (E24) and maybe car projects, not here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: As WP:Templates says "... templates are used to add recurring messages to pages in a consistent way" (note "recurrent", and "pages" in the plural), while this template would fit only in a single article (BMW E24), and isn't being used even there. So I suggest you selfrevert your removal of the speedy-template... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Templates are not solely used for recurring uses. There is also a widespread and valid use of them to encapsulate complex sections of coding which don't need to be in the main wikitext of an article. We do this a lot, we aren't going to stop doing it.

It's only "not used in any articles" because it was recently removed from the BMW article, presuambly as part of this deletion effort. That is no reason at all to delete it: if we're objectively better off with it, then we should use it.

As to the speedy template, then the last thing we need is that overlapping with a discussion here. Although I'd have no objection to relocating all of this to TfD, where it belongs. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The template was removed from the article after this thread was started, and not by the OP but by another user (who quite possibly knew nothing about this thread since the edit summary says that the edit re-adding the template was reverted because the template had been deleted...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• And JzC has deleted it as G4 anyway as either an admin supervote, or more likely just to piss me off. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• ... or simply because they agree with me, that is feel that my speedy-nomination was correct (don't automatically assume that *everything* is about you). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• As a challenged speedy, it's invalid to re-add it. In no way is it a vandalism, copyvio or BLP issue. There's a tag on the template linking to this discussion here. At the very least, this was an admin supervote in a content dispute. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, no, it's a perfectly correct G4, because it's an exact re-creation of something that was previously deleted via XfD. Having said that, given that it's four years since the TfD, and only two peope opined on the original discussion, I would have been tempted just to send it back to TfD again. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  Black Kite, Exactly. I had no idea it was challenged, but that would not have been relevant as the sole valid basis to challenge a G4 is that the content is not substantially identical. I saw this thread, reviewed the deleted version per TFD and the current version, they are visually identical, as you verified. The creator's explanation is implausible: it was deleted over four years ago and he suddenly decided it was a troll, so he'd recreate it? I have heard more plausible things from Sean Spicer. He could have challenged it at DRV at the time, he did not. He could have raised it now at DRV, he did not. The rationale here is straight-up WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (help!) 20:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

And I wonder when Andy Dingley was thinking of pointing out that he had a beef with the TFD nominator? [118] - always best when you have a dog in the fight, to admit it, rather than wait for people to hear it barking, right? Guy (help!) 20:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Not everyone here is driven by your personal animosities. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

See also: projection (psychology). Guy (help!) 20:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The correct procedure for challenging the outcome of a deletion discussion with few participants is to post at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, not re-creating the template and then having a new deletion discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe so. But we are where we are, and the question is what to do next. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Knowing you, I am guessing that "leave it be" will not be on the list of options. Guy (help!) 20:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Of course it's not a valid CSD. It was a valid one when Thomas tagged it, but it was then obviously challenged here and I removed the tag to avoid a careless admin deleting it despite. Guy ignored that and deleted it anyway. But as all admins are surely aware "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. ". But Guy persistently just creates new policies, like WP:RSONLY, as he feels fit. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Deletion per CSD G4 can't be "controversial" if the re-creation is identical to the one that was deleted per XfD, and "administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media" (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion) if a page obviously meets CSD G4, so removing the speedy-tag isn't the supervote you seem to believe it is. And as I wrote above any challenge to the deletion should be handled at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• That's a hell of a mis-quote.

"The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, " (emphasis mine). Your quote is not a statement that admins have such consensus, it's a statement that they will only have such consensus, if they comply with the constraints of CSD otherwise (such as I noted above). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read what I write before replying the next time, or maybe the parentheses confused you. So let's try again: "administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media" if a page obviously meets CSD G4", which is what we were discussing. Or in other words, I did not claim they always have that right, only if pages meet the criteria for CSD. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• You wrote, literally, Deletion per CSD G4 can't be "controversial" if the re-creation is identical to the one that was deleted per XfD,

Yet deletion of identical content under G4 becomes controversial (to the level that CSD can't be applied any more) once, "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. " applies. This is clearly stated in WP:CSD. Which is what had already happened here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

No, creating a page that is identical to one that has been deleted at XfD does not become "controversial" (in the sense that it makes it impossible to speedy the re-creation) just because someone removes the speedy-tag. Nominations for A7, G11 and similar can become controversial, since opinions can differ as to whether there is a claim for fame or not, or a page is purely promotional or not, but not G4 (or G5, creation by blocked or banned user, if the creator has been blocked as a CU-confirmed sock). And I stand by that. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• "If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is not uncontroversial and another deletion process should be used. "

It's a direct quote from WP:CSD. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, G4 is unambiguous. A substantially identical copy of material deleted via a valid deletion process. A G4 where the content is visually identical is never controversial. As a non-admin you can't see the deleted version. I can.

The third incarnation was character for character identical with the second. Guy (help!) 22:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's not about whether G4 applies, it's whether CSD applies. Thomas's G4 was correct. But once it has been challenged, you can't re-apply a CSD (BLP etc. apart), so your G4 on the same template no longer was. Maybe you don't know what CSD means? It's not "speedy" as in, "I'm an Admin, I'm too important to wait for others" it's for deletions that are obviously and uncontroversially appropriate. Once they're questioned, and this one has been, that's just not an option. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, If your idiosyncratic interpretation fo G4 were true, every single deletion - especially those contested by armies of meatpuppets - would result in an endless succession of XfDs. Fortunately for our ability to delete anything at all ever, that's not how it works. Same user, same content, G4. End of. Guy (help!) 23:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Peter.shaman: - are you aware of this thread? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The thread isn't about him, but a question about what to do with a recreated template. But he is well aware of the speedy-deletion nomination, as can be seen here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Peter.shaman blocked

Peter.shaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created Template:BMW E24 models, which is word for word identical to the last deleted version of Template:BMW E24 timeline. I have blocked for 31h for persistent re-creation of deleted content. Guy (help!) 20:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you just imagine for a moment all the opportunities a better admin might have had, and used, for resolving this in a better way? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you just imagine for a moment what it would be like not to pour petrol on every single fire you come across? Rhetorical. Andy, we are both cunts, the difference is that I realise it. Guy (help!) 22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Andy "forgot" to mention that he just WP:FORUMSHOPPED this to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Guy (help!) 23:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalistic page move needs fixing

Desertfalcon622 has moved University of Dallas, first to University of Dallas, not UT Dallas, and subsequently to Seth is the biggest guy on campus. Because a bot came along and edited the University of Dallas redirect to fix the double redirect, a page move revert is no longer possible, and administrator intervention is required. (Also, action against the orginal page mover might be appropriate.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 12:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin violating DS

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

---

Lo meiin is a new user who took interest in the I/P area, particularly [State of Palestine] and [List of Asian States' entry on Palestine].

They opened multiple garbled RFCs (1, 2, 3), two of them on the same article at the same time. Personally attacked a user expressing an opinion they didn't like in the RfC ([119]) and expressed bad faith ([120]).

The user doesn't meet the WP:30/500 criteria and was warned about ([121]) civility, editing against consensus and general prohibition, in addition to being given the DS alert.

The user has been given notice: [122].

“WarKosign” 17:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone might handle this here, but WP:AE is the most appropriate forum. ST47 (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't submitted one of these in a while. Will move the case there. “WarKosign” 17:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Copied the case to WP:AE. Do I need to do something to close it here? “WarKosign” 18:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

None of this is true because unlike all other sockpuppets I have used appropriate formats for dispute resolution (RFCs, 3Os, etc) and have denounced deragatory remarks against users like auh2O and have even admitted my mistakes in order to learn and grow from them, and have apologized for them. Furthermore, I am combining generally and substantially recognized states in order to satisfy all editors and to present info in the most NPOV way to end the dispute (this was after myriad discussions in the talk page). By reverting this edit, you are pushing a pro Israeli POV and have too reverted multiple times

Lo meiin (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

I would like to refute these allegations against me, as I have requested RFCs, dispute resolution noticeboards, and 3Os before getting to editing. When I edited, I only combined substantially and generally recognized states so as to satisfy everyone’s view. Furthermore, I have on several occasions denounced derogatory remarks against AuH20republican and others, and have learned from my mistakes and apologized for such behaviour. Due to cultural bias, you are trying to enforce pro Israeli POVs, and I am not trying to advocate for any side, I only strive to be objective.

Lo meiin (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

unlike all other sockpuppets, I have...

Sorry, had to point out the beauty of that line. Hydromania (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Anthony22

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

---

On 13:36, 9 September 2019 Anthony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was "indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia."[123]

On 18:16, 17 September 2019 he violated his topic ban.[124] ("consensus first-team All-American" to "consensus First Team All-American").

On 14:14, 18 September 2019 he did it again[125] ("Born" to "born").

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first edit, whether "First Team" should be hyphenated or capitalized (the source does not use the term at all), but the second is obviously correct as the word was capitalized mid-sentence. I'm not going to block for edits that are clearly constructive, WP:NOTCOURT and WP:IAR for example. Besides, the terms of the ban are vague, what is a "stylistic change" exactly? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I was involved in the original argument that led to the topic ban and I agree. Drmies (talk · contribs) and NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) among others warned the rest of us that the vague wording of the ban would cause problems and they were right to do so. I actually don’t believe that the edits in question violate the ban, since punctuation and case (capital vs lowercase) changes are actually not grammatical in nature. I regret not raising this issue before, but I think it’s worth hashing out now so that Anthony doesn’t get threatened with blocks each day for making good and constructive edits. Michepman (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That's NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) ;) -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 19:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

thanks, fixed! Sorry for the mixup NinjaRobotPirate Michepman (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Time for (1) something close to my simpler, easier-to-understand TBAN suggestion: "no direct addition, removal, or alteration of article prose", or (2) community ban. I would support either. I would not support toleration of "correct" TBAN violations. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Michepman: indeed, capitalization and punctuation are not grammatical matters--but don't tell my kids' English teachers. Drmies (talk)

• As the person who wrote the proposal, I made it quite clear that I intended it to utilize the colloquial usage of "grammar" -- as understood, for instance, by the English teachers of Drmies' children -- and not the technical definition. From that vantage point, I would say that these were definiitely violations of the topic ban, at least as I intended it. At the very least, this is boundary-probing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• The people who voted in support of the topic ban seemed to believe that Anthony22 is too disruptive to be allowed to make uncontroversial or obvious copy edits. Nyttend, who opposed over enforceability issues, said fixing "an computer mouse" would result in a block under the proposal. Supporters didn't seem to care. Anthony22 should let other people fix these errors. The restriction, as proposed, allows him to discuss problems on an article talk page. So, maybe that's what he should be doing. If nobody agrees with him that it's a problem, they can ignore him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually don’t agree that the topic ban is “impossible” to enforce. If anything, it’s pretty easy to keep track of it since you can just go through his edits and see what he’s done. My issue, which I raised then, is more that it’s too restrictive and doesn’t hit on the core issue. It’s not that grammar and orthography changes are inherently bad but that the user had an issue with just ignoring suggestions and refused to engage with editors who objected to his changes. If he was willing to talk through his changes and discuss any problems that come up, I would have opposed every suggested sanction. Michepman (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've rarely seen him object to being reverted. He lets the reverter have their way and just moves on to make more bad edits. How would it make sense to require him to discuss edits where he is willing to be reverted? Such a requirement would have the following effect: none.

The problem has always been the high number of bad edits that have to be reverted, requiring good editors to spend their time examining every one of his many edits, and that the numerous complaints yielded no improvement, strongly suggesting that no improvement is likely to be realized. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Having read all of the comments here, I find that the ban is more disruptive than the behaviour it was intended to resolve. We're going to be here every time Anthony22 edits, discussing whether or not their edit was a "stylistic or grammatical change". I'm not even going to try to enforce it, but there are a few hundred active admins so YMMV. I suggest revisiting the ban and clarifying specifically what is allowed and what is not. Some people here are suggesting that the ban was intended to prevent Anthony22 from editing articles at all, and if so, if you mean to go for a site ban, just say so. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  There is a very large difference between not editing article prose and site ban, a point I made several times in the previous discussion. You might read it for background.

  I have no objection to clarifying the language of the ban, but the solution to an overly complicated ban is not to make it more complicated. It would be impossible to anticipate every one of the dozen or two specific types of edits for which Anthony22 is not well suited. If we continue down that path we will be back here on a weekly basis for some time, repeatedly revising the ban until it reads like a legal contract. Just keep the damn thing short and simple, even if it means denying him a few types of prose edits where he has a higher level of competence. There are other ways to contribute to the project, if it's in fact the project that interests him. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not one of ambiguity. 'Anthony22 is indefinitely topic banned by the community from making stylistic and grammatical changes, broadly construed, to any article on English Wikipedia.' The issue is that Anthony22 is totally ignoring the decision, following their threat to do exactly that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiger_Woods&diff=916360034&oldid=914781378

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:JFKBronxvilleshrine.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=916409259

NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Agree with close. Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive personal attacks from 6YearsTillRetirement and Simonm223 on the Andy Ngo talk page

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

---

• 6YearsTillRetirement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is a discussion on the Andy Ngo talk page about the use of Jacobin as a source. I provided RS (namely, CJR) discussing Jacobin, which in my opinion indicated that Jacobin is on the radical left. I provided links to the source and attributed the quotes I pulled from CJR accurately. I remained civil. These users disagreed with either the source or my interpretation of it, and began to lodge personal attacks, claiming that I was being deliberately dishonest, that I was "cherry picking" quotes, and that I have poor reading comprehension. When asked to strike these personal attacks, they doubled down. These attacks have become disruptive to the ability of editors on the page to discuss how to use Jacobin as a source.

Here are the diffs containing the personal attacks:

[126] [127] [128] [129]

I will notify them upon posting this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to squint really, really hard to find a personal attack in there, I think.--Jorm (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Claiming that I'm deliberately dishonest is not a clear PA? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight was trying to claim a source was calling Jacobin radical. I pointed out, after reading the article, that they didn't seem to have grasped the thesis of it well, as the article they linked to was suggesting that Jacobin was instrumental in bringing socialist thought into mainstream discourse in the United States. Cherry-picking quotes from a source in order to argue for the exclusion of another source is silly and I recommended they move on from that line of debate [130] that's what should be done here too. Let's just move on. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned this is a vexatious posting by Shinealittlelight. The underlying issue is a continuation of bad behavior by Springee as well documented above in the current top section here [131]. As I documented when I finally noticed the section, Springee has a habit of trying to goad people, such as this edit [132] which followed Beyond My Ken writing several paragraphs to address WP:ONUS. The bigger issue is that when Springee or editors Springee is allying with behave in problem ways, they refuse to address the problem behavior, demanding that any discussion of their bad behavior be deemed a "personal attack" or lack of "assumption of good faith". 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Saying that someone is deliberately dishonest and needs to work on reading comprehension skills is a clear PA to my way of seeing things. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Frankly everyone there needs to dial it back some. The heat to light ratio is steadily moving towards the former, and I don't want anyone to have to get blocked over it; not there yet, but sure seems headed that way. Already there are attacks on the article subject and rapidly progressing invective, and not much in the way of actually useful discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to stick my neck out for Simonm223. They have been very critical of my reasons etc but I think they are fundamentally acting in good faith and I don't think they have engaged in disruptive personal attacks etc. 6Years has crossed the line. Accusing others of a "misogynist attack against a female journalist" without evidence [[133]] doesn't help civility. A number of 6years's edit summaries also make bad faith accusations [[134]], [[135]], [[136]]. 6Years has been here less than 2 months so perhaps this is just new editor not understanding WP:FOC. Springee (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to go out on a limb here and AGF. I don't see this being personal attacks; I think perhaps closing this and moving on is the best course of action at this juncture. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 19:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. Shineallittlelight is WP:SYNTHing the publication into a position that there isn't a reliable source to say it holds. And regardless, we don't disallow sources on their political position, only their reliability. There's a reason we've deprecated Breitbart and the Daily Mail, and that's not because they hold right-wing positions, it's because they've got a reliably sourced record of printing falsehoods. There is no suggestion that is the case here. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not the substantive question of how to treat Jacobin, or even the question whether my understanding of the CJR article is correct. Rather, the question is whether it is a personal attack to say that I am intentionally dishonest or need to work on my reading comprehension skills. And of course those are personal attacks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Are you saying you want to make an issue of this? Or are you good with moving forward at this time, without looking to escalate this? I'm asking what you want to see happen. KillerChihuahua 19:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I would absolutely be happy to move forward if an administrator would state that these were personal attacks and that there should be no further personal attacks from these users. I would then be happy to drop it, unless of course the attacks continue. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, you're not going to get that from me, sorry. I find the verbiage used to be pointed but not without merit - the only borderline case is the "dishonest" one, and as that dealt with their argument that you misrepresented a source, that's a valid criticism, if terribly bluntly phrased. Your best bet is to either defend that source and your representation of it as accurate, or drop the subject. KillerChihuahua 19:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it is a personal attack to call someone dishonest on an article talk page. It does not help to improve the article to say this, all that is important is whether what another editor is saying is true or false. If you think an editor is lying, then take it to ANI. Personal attacks, in addition to making the victim feel bad, also distract from improving articles and discourage other editors from participating. But 6YearsTillRetirement has to learn to drop the stick when discussions go against them. In this case it's clear that the other editors will not change their minds no matter what new arguments you present, so it's pointless to continue argue with them. TFD (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep. The personal attacks are disruptive and are stopping progress on the article at this point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've ran into 6YearsTillRetirement disruptive behavior as well, first on the Ngo talk page. He seems to me rather focused to insult, provoke, misrepresent others and their edits/comments, and escalate. What I find more disruptive is when such users, after arguments on the Ngo page, go after other talks I've contributed to and try to disrupt them (e.g.: voting on an Rfc though they are not familiar with the topic and have not read the materials being discussed). Mcrt007 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That comes under hounding. While it's very likely that 6YearsTillRetirement made an informed vote, rather than merely voting against you, "Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

Given that 6YearsTillRetirement has a very short edting history with a lot of conflict, I would suggest an indefinite block. I note they opened their account with the user name Imadethisstupidaccount and their first edit was an AfD, so there is a possibility it is the account of a blocked editor. In that case they should request their original account be unblocked.

TFD (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Quoth @Drmies:, regarding me, "plus the editor who initiated it is, as far as we can tell, not a sock, and I happen to know this was already investigated."[137] Now stop it. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it's quite clear you are a returning user, so sock or not, you are playing coy. That, combined with the hostility underlying your comments, probably means you could do with more scrutiny. Arkon (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

You millennials probably don't understand the idea of lurking first and reading and learning before posting. That used to be standard advice for Usenet. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making the point RE: playing coy, hostility. Arkon (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm supposed to not be perturbed when someone is making baseless accusations like that, even after I show proof they're false? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry pops, any 'proof' you've shown (just your contribs) shows exactly what I said. I'm well aware of how the checkuser tool works, and I think you do too. Arkon (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I didn't "follow" Mcrt007 to that page, I was looking at the topic of campus sexual assault hoping to find articles that my niece should read as she looks at colleges to apply to. I was hoping that something newer or up to date of this[138] might be on the page or in the discussion. But I'm reasonably sure that Mcrt007 followed me to Harry Anslinger previously [139] since they went after an edit of mine from nine days ago[140]. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Sk8erPrince removing redlinks against the guidelines

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

---

User:Sk8erPrince has been removing redlinks in articles because they don't like them. On their userpage they say:

"I don't like red links. They are utterly pointless; if you want to write an article for a subject, then go ahead and just do it. My knee-jerk reaction is to simply remove red links whenever I see them. You can always bluelink the subjects when your well-sourced article is finally done. Here's a discussion where I expressed my thoughts on the matter."

All attempts to suggest that the WP:REDLINK guideline not only allows redlinks but positively encourages them are met with refusal to accept that this is the case. In all cases this editor demands that anyone adding a redlink should prove the notability of the topic by at least creating a draft article, which rather removes the point of redlinking in the first place.

Diffs of redlink removal and my reverts (there are more, but it gives the flavour)

[141]

[142]

[143]

[144]

[145]

this last was following my attempt to discuss the matter User_talk:Sk8erPrince#Redlinks, where I provided a link to a Google Scholar search to demonstrate notability.

I know that WP:REDLINK is a guideline rather than a policy, but either Sk8erPrince's understanding of it is wrong or mine is. Currently his approach to me seems unconstructive and disruptive. I have no wish to engage in some sort of slow motion edit war, which is why I've come here. Mikenorton (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't require admin attention. Please go talk to Sk8erPrince and if necessary work out an RfC between you to settle the content question. Guy (help!) 23:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That particular dispute was resolved by me creating Cotabato Trench. However, I included a redlink to another oceanic trench, which is missing an article, and this redlink has now been removed by this editor on the grounds that I haven't proven its notability. Mikenorton (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is persistent behavior, it can be disruptive because it can result in unnecessary edit wars since there is nothing wrong with red links and this is just a personal preference. It also looks like Mikenorton has already attempted to resolve with with Sk8erPrince on his talk page. I'd like to see what Sk8erPrince has to say and he hasn't edited in a few hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Have reviewed List of earthquakes in the Philippines and, subsequently, Cotabato Trench. Sk8terprince's edits appear disruptive. Three of the six redlinks removed could have been replaced with bluelinks, because articles for them existed. The other three, all Cotabato Trench, are now blue because Mikenorton created an article for the subject. For that matter, there were only six redlinks in the entire article to begin with, and they are all now blue. Sk8terprince also followed Mikenorton to the newly created Cotabato Trench page to remove redlinks from there, insistent that the subject is not notable. Given their complete failure to identify that the subjects were notable on the first page, they should not have shown up on the second page to repeat the same behaviour. There's also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Red_links_in_articles to take into consideration. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Formally warned. User obviously is being disruptive, removing valid redlinks simply because they "don't like them", for some odd reason. The nonsensical arguments on their talk page makes it clear that they're on a personal crusade to delete redlinks, and not respecting the actual policy guidance. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Simulated child pornography in the United States needs a WP:HISTSPLIT

We need an admin to do a WP:HISTSPLIT at Simulated child pornography in the United States. I noticed this article when it came up on WP:RM/TR. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

See also Talk:Simulated child pornography in the United States#Refocused page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Done. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:ASD0202 adding links to historycooperative.org

Special:Contributions/ASD0202 is an spa exclusively adding links to historycooperative.org. Some are in context, others are replacing other refs. I don't think the guest blogging platform is an RS; regardless that's likely to be paid editing. Hydromania (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indef as a spammer. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Hydromania (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism at multiple articles by anonymous editor

For quite some time an anonymous Irish editor has been vandalising the season articles associate with The Middle (TV series). Edits consistently remove content related to the character "Sue Heck" and usually add "UGLY" to reference her. (typical example) It was somewhat of a mystery that the editor was normally only targeting the articles for season 7, 8 and 9. Pending changis were eventually applied to these articles in April 2019. However, the childish vandalism attempts continue to this day. Today, the same editor has refoccused his attacks on the season 1-6 articles. I'm assuming it's the same editor because it's from the same ISP (Virgin Media) and he has conspicuously avoided editing the season 7-9 articles. Based on previous history, which dates back over a year, I assume this was a preemptive strike to see if he could edit these articles. Given the continued attacks at the season 7-9 articles I was wondering if a range block might be a more effective way of managing this vandal. I have compiled a list of IPs below:

• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:10a9:2e47:be84:6f09
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:11b:e8f7:1c79:3a6c
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:18cc:9e39:d8fa:5194
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:2ca5:b766:b66e:415b
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:34e1:8ecb:a81d:eb6f
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:3529:378a:2ec6:4e8e
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:5072:2327:2afc:5008
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:542d:2db9:3eac:e34a
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:5477:ab10:e0b9:be8
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:56f:146f:21a8:9fb8
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:5995:c524:bb99:80f9
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:78b4:f07b:5709:6c65
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:812a:3a46:5f44:673e
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:85ed:f59f:f72b:c2c1
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:8a3:ce7c:a312:bca3
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:992c:8343:8208:4afc
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:a598:a342:b624:70f
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:a971:e175:14aa:2673
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:ac8d:2d59:28fd:e05
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:acc7:2b35:f6c8:bfa3
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:b01b:8544:c9b2:efc6
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:b0eb:9ea5:c339:31ea
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:b546:d8dd:75ed:9c78
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:b8ff:eb41:3afe:33ed
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:bc11:d071:c8a5:a7e1
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:c40b:ce33:910d:3f43
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:cc76:514b:ca91:2b98
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:cc8e:7dab:31a2:63a3
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:d0fa:851e:6374:8abd
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:dc80:21f5:f71f:3c70
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:dd5f:ed86:4e42:857b
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:e494:8f42:a1a7:b317
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:e4b2:2a92:fed9:8792
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:e9eb:72ce:4fd0:1ad6
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:f181:ec16:9c3b:2afb
• Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00:fdec:be0a:dd67:9b8a

With the exception of one IP, all have only edited The Middle articles and even the exception vandalised the only other article that was edited.[146][147] --AussieLegend (✉) 03:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/2a02:8084:42e3:8b00::/64 for six months. The block log shows 1 month and 3 months in late 2018. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Keddie murders edits

I did extensive work on this article last year and recently revisited it to find there have been numerous recent edits made with rambling edit summaries critiquing the sources used as insufficient. The user, Motthoop (talk · contribs), appears to have some personal involvement with the case and disputes the newspaper and book sources cited. I cannot make sense of what s/he is saying in most of the edit summaries. I looked back and they have a history of editing this page, and were doing it long before I was making regular edits to it. They posted on the talk page a few days ago, endorsing a single web article as the only source that contains the ostensible "truth" (mind you, this source was already cited in certain parts of the article), but again, the details are rambling and indicate a personal investment in the case; some of the post seems to be declaring guilt at certain suspects. I responded on the talk page and attempted to explain that just because s/he believes and/or knows certain details about this case, that the policy on Wikipedia is that we have to go by published reliable sources, but I don't think the message was conveyed.

Given the state the article was left in (riddled with typos, informal language, reference problems, and other inconsistencies), I reverted the article to a former version without this problems, but someone is now making edits while not logged in. I've never dealt with a problem like this on here and am not sure what to do here. --Drown Soda (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - From the few interactions I've had with Motthoop, it seems evident they[148] are[149] not here to contribute to this encyclopedia. Lupin VII (talk) 08:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

IP hopper changing language templates to Wikidata format

There is an IP hopper making such edits [150]. I reverted some a couple of weeks ago, yesterday they changed the IP and I have to revert about fifty edits (example); I noticed that {{ping|Fram]] today reverted a bunch of edits made by yet another IP. Irrespectively of what I think about the Wikidata integration, there was an RFC with the results that such edits are not allowed. I left a note on the talk page of the yesterday's IP, which apparently had no effect. Any ideas what to do next? Range block? Edit filter?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC)