Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kremlin IP editing American political articles
Line 1,248: Line 1,248:
:: [[User:Noloader|Jeffrey Walton ]] ([[User talk:Noloader|talk]]) 22:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
:: [[User:Noloader|Jeffrey Walton ]] ([[User talk:Noloader|talk]]) 22:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}

: Please forgive my ignorance. This discussion is now closed. What action has been taken?


== Kremlin IP editing American political articles ==
== Kremlin IP editing American political articles ==

Revision as of 23:27, 6 July 2020

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Disruption by MWise12 and Netoholic at Boogaloo movement

    I thought about opening a report at ANEW because much of this issue revolves around edit warring, but it's a bit less cut-and-dried than issues I usually bring to ANEW.

    There has been continued disruption both from MWise12 and Netoholic over at the page about the Boogaloo movement. Both editors appear to be determined to whitewash the article away from describing the movement as "far right", and are continuously reverting without joining discussions on the talk page, or without gaining new consensus for contentious changes that have already been discussed at length on the talk page.

    MWise12 background

    MWise12 first appeared on the page to first soften the wording identifying the movement as "far right". I reverted, asking them to discuss on the talk page. At this point there had already been discussions about the descriptor on the talk page, largely from bad-faith SPAs but some in good faith; here is a snapshot of the page at the time MWise first made a change. I assumed at that point they hadn't seen the talk page discussions. However, MWise, instead of discussing, edited the page once more to remove the descriptor completely.

    They then tried to introduce WP:OR interpretation into the page regarding the 2020 boogaloo killings, by insisting on including a Facebook post by the alleged perpetrator, and there was a brief edit war:

    • MWise12 introduces the change: [1]
    • GW revert: reverted, summary This has nothing to do with the boogaloo movement. Details about this person/the incident could go at 2020 boogaloo killings, maybe, though I fail to see why the specific memes he posted on Facebook are encyclopedia material
    • MW revert: [2], summary It gives us insight into motive - this was not a "far right" attack.
    • GW revert: [3], summary feel free to draw your own personal conclusions from his memes, but that's absolutely not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:OR

    MWise12 then went over to the 2020 boogaloo killings page to try to insert the change there: [4]. I was growing uncomfortable with the edit warring and did not wish to step over the line, so I started a talk page discussion at Talk:2020 boogaloo killings#Meme, though another editor also found the addition inappropriate and reverted it as I was starting the discussion. In the conversation MWise12 did not appear to see any problem with his WP:OR analysis of the Facebook post.

    Netoholic background

    Netoholic first edited the page on 17 June, in what quickly also became an edit war in which they tried to remove the photograph at the top of the page.

    I will note for full disclosure that Netoholic posted on my talk page (User talk:GorillaWarfare#reverts) to write How many reverts are you up to today at Boogaloo movement?. I hadn't realized, but I had accidentally breached WP:3RR—I had not realized that reverts from the previous day had been within the 24-hour time span. Since then I have been more careful to check if I have reverted too much, and also more hesitant to revert in general

    I will note that Netoholic was rude and WP:ABF in the discussion, writing its sad an arbitrator is so disinterested in doing the right thing here (and is also pinging for backup) when I had suggested a potential compromise, and pinged the others involved in that very same discussion to see if they were okay with the suggestion. Throughout the conversation (see Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 1#Removal of image), Netoholic moved the goalposts around what would assuage their concerns, making my attempts to come up with a suitable compromise completely impossible. However, my attempts to do so turned out to be unnecessary, as the discussion resulted in a pretty clear consensus to keep the original image in the article. I thought this was the end of it, until Beyond My Ken posted in that discussion: having failed to achieve consensus on this talk page to remove the image from the article, is attempting to subvert the Commons' deletion process to get what he wants, even though there is no policy-based reason for removal of the image there. Sure enough, Netoholic had opened a deletion request on Commons to try to subvert enwiki consensus. Though the discussion appears to be still open, aside from Netoholic it is unanimous that the image is appropriate and should be kept.

    Netoholic hasn't edited the article much besides this image issue and the June 26 issue I'm about to describe, though they have participated here and there in talk page discussions. In a conversation about how the article had received an enormous number of pageviews, Netoholic felt the need to insert the comment: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex. [5] I was surprised to see such a claim made by an experienced editor, who has apparently decided that the sourcing in the page is (at least in part) "fake news". It was also surprising to see this term apparently used in the same way as by Trump, to refer to news with which one disagrees. I suggested that if Netoholic was serious about such a change to the sourcing Wikipedia accepts, they should take it to either RSN or VPP, but it appears the comment was meant more as a snipe at the editors and less as a constructive suggestion of change. Full discussion is partway down the section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive_2#Inclusion of a tweet by the DHS.

    June 26 disruption

    In an attempt to keep this from getting even longer than it already is, I will not go into similar detail about the intermediate editing of the page. However I will note that both editors actively participated in talk page discussions throughout this time, and so were aware not only that there had been substantial discussion about the inclusion of "far-right" in the lead but also that those discussions had not resulted in consensus shifting away from using the term.

    Fast forward to yesterday, when MWise12 showed up again to undo a whole slew of work by myself and other editors: (edits between 2:09 and 2:48, 26 June 2020‎). This included, once again, removing the "far-right" descriptor from the lead. They did not initiate a talk page discussion before making this change once more. Another edit war ensued, this time with Netoholic showing up almost immediately after my revert to join in the edit war:

    • MWise12 removal, 02:48, 26 June 2020, summary Changed in light of new information
    • After making the change, MWise12 created a talk page discussion, 03:25, 26 June 2020. Discussion here continued while the edit war went on, see Talk:Boogaloo movement#Department of Homeland Security's statements
    • GorillaWarfare revert, 04:01, 26 June 2020‎, summary not without consensus
    • Netoholic revert, 04:17, 26 June 2020‎, summary far-right is disputed. WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion
    • GorillaWarfare revert, 04:22, 26 June 2020, summary per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". As I stated, there have been multiple conversations about this which have resulted in the descriptor remaining. If you wish to gather new consensus, feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. WP:STATUSQUO
    • Netoholic revert, 04:48, 26 June 2020, summary a lot of sources have come out in the last 10 days. There is no consensus, perhaps an RfC?
    • Britishfinance revert‎, 09:20, 26 June 2020, summary m, per Talk Page discussion, there is as yet no consensus to use this (given that most other sources conflict). thanks. BF
    • Netoholic revert, 12:16, 26 June 2020, summary per current talk discussion and a surprisingly large number of edit requests viewable in Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1, there is clearly controversy around this term. Please open an RfC rather than edit warring.
    • Britishfinance revert, 14:15, 26 June 2020, summary rv per Talk page discussion; there is no consensus for this edit (and evidence it is not appropriate). RfC not needed, just please don't edit war but get consensus on Talk Page. thanks. ~~~~
    • MWise12 revert, 16:14, 26 June 2020, summary Evidence is very appropriate; you have no consensus to keep this out
    • NorthBySouthBaranof revert, 16:20, 26 June 2020, summary return to prior consensus

    Now, I fully accept that it's possible the sourcing may have shifted away from describing the movement as "far-right", and posted earlier today to write that I intend to do a full audit of the sourcing in the page as well as a search through more recently-published coverage to determine if the weight has shifted away from describing the movement as far right. I also believe it is probably time to get formal consensus about the inclusion of the descriptor, though I want to do my audit first to determine if I still support it being used.

    However, I wanted to start this discussion around the behavior of MWise12 and Netoholic first, because the edit warring and disruption from the two of them is really getting in the way of constructive collaboration on the page. The refusal to discuss before making controversial edits, and the continuation of edit wars while discussion is occurring, is getting extremely disruptive. I will also note to any reviewing admins that the page is covered by the American politics discretionary sanctions, if that is useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    In regards to the editing vs discussing, I apologize for being too quick to edit before discussing and will make sure to fix that in the future. However, I will point out that I didn't even come close to breaking the 3RR. I also disagree that we ever reached a valid consensus to keep "far right" in the lead. Just because I was too busy to continue debating for a few days does not mean I accepted your position. MWise12 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your description of your behavior regarding Carrillo's Facebook post appears to continue to misunderstand WP:OR, a policy which begins by stating (emphasis mine) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Including this content to try to make claims about Carrillo's political affiliations, when the sources made no such statements, is OR.
      As I stated on the talk page, it's fine if you're too busy to continue a conversation. But the conversation was not just between you and I, there were other editors involved. Furthermore, if you believed consensus had not been achieved, you could have re-opened the discussion at any point rather than edit-warring your preferred version of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reject the characterization of any of these edits as "disruption" - GorillaWarfare is simply using language priming to poison the well. GorillaWarfare has above admitted to violations of 3RR and cannot possibly characterize only one side of this as "edit warring" while trying to escape the same label. In fact, when content is disputed, the WP:ONUS is clearly on those seeking inclusion, and so any reverts seeking removal of disputed content are implicitly -less- "disruptive" than the reverts pushing the material back into the article. WP:BOOMERANG should be deployed and GorillaWarfare given a ban from the Boogaloo topic area for her disruption, edit warring, and misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I honestly could not have asked for a better example of the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that Netoholic has been exhibiting, which makes collaborating them extremely difficult. In this short paragraph they manage to:
      • completely sidestep any discussion of their own behavior
      • call for an unwarranted boomerang ban against me from the page
      • characterize my use of the extremely commonly-used term in dispute resolution, "disruption", as "using language priming to poison the well"
      • inaccurately state that I've admitted to multiple violations of 3RR — I did acknowledge a singular breach of 3RR that was not only accidental but only a violation in the strictest interpretation of the policy: nearly 24 hours had elapsed and it was a completely different day, and the reverts were on completely different edits to the page
      • incomprehensibly accuse me of "trying to escape" the label of edit warring—I listed my own edits in the groups of edits I described as an "edit war"
      • once again misuse WP:ONUS; I've already pointed out to them that that consensus was achieved, and now they've shown up ten days later to unilaterally state that there was no consensus. They could have reopened the conversation or started a formal consensus-gathering discussion, but instead they chose to edit war while also handwaving at "lots of sources" and claiming that somehow ten days elapsing rendered the previous consensus stale ([6])
      • falsely claim that repeatedly removing the content is somehow less disruptive, in contravention of WP:STATUSQUO ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo")
      • baselessly accuse me of "misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC" — I was already quite clear on the talk page that I intended to fully review the sources and then, assuming the weight of the sourcing still supports the "far-right" label, start an RfC. I started this ANI discussion because MWise12 and Netoholic were continuing the edit war (which I will note I stepped out of yesterday) while I was trying to urge everyone to discuss the issue like we're supposed to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, that was Netoholic, fighting over that caption a while ago? I remember seeing that. And now they're edit warring over "far-right" and that DHS statement? The evidence for "far-right" is so overwhelming (I mean, in Military Times?) that these edits are simply ridiculous. The argument for that Facebook post is ridiculous as well, and suggests CIR. I think both should be topic-banned from the AP2 topic area, and I'd do it myself if I hadn't just scolded Netoholic for some disruption pertaining to the Dixie Chicks. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies: Understood. I do not have the time these days to gather diffs, but many of those who watch this page will remember the histories of his many previous sanctions and dramatics. The first one I knew was when he tried to edit an absurd definition of "philosopher" into our article Philosopher so that, among other POV nonsense, he could call far-right blogger Stefan Molyneux a philosopher in the first sentence. Fortunatey he got a TBAN and the article now says "Molyneux ...is a far-right, white nationalist podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views." I mean, if anyone is inclined to post the evidence here, there would be no doubt what to do. Sorry, I will drop out now. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies - "weird POV edits"? C'mon, that's so baseless its barely even an WP:ASPERSION. In the specific case of the article being discussed here, its clear from the current talk page discussion that the situation is not so cut-and-dry, and that there are valid points on either side. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shit, SPECIFICO, you're right, and I remember that Molyneux nonsense. And I looked through the history (where I didn't find myself, not in that dispute), and that's like a time sink of 1500 edits. For the record, I closed a tiny discussion, see Talk page, Archive 8, not involving Netoholic. Yeah, I support an AP2 ban, at the very least. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Netoholic challenged the label "right-wing" on boogaloos and the photo of Hawaiian shirts with military garb and guns. Both of these are very well documented. Back in 2014, the diff SPECIFICO was looking for was this one where Netoholic gives a right-wing racist his own platform to define himself in a friendly manner as a philosopher. These sorts of edits make me conclude that Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence. How low must he go before we ban him? I think we're there already. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No idea why you pulled a random single edit diff out to make your point when you should have linked to the full RfC on use of "philosopher" which, by the way was -not- a landslide, but resulted in not using it - a decision I disagreed with and yet have upheld as consensus to this day. That is the -same- as I did for the issue about the Boogaloo image, and what I would do for the use of "far-right" in that article if an RfC later shows that consensus. My god, get some perspective - not everyone who is skeptical of strong terms being stated in WP:VOICE is "defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence". Holy cow - is this what political rhetoric has become? No quarter given, everyone is the worst extreme? This is not acceptable behavior, Binks - its BATTLEGROUND and I reject it. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, no, that's not the same as you did with the boogaloo image at all. When that discussion turned out in favor of the image being kept, you went to Commons to circumvent the outcome by trying to get it deleted there. This is the permalink to the discussion at the time when you started the Commons deletion discussion; it shows that you only initiated the discussion after the discussion here on enwiki had ended with agreement that the image should be retained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have had a few interactions with this editor that have been unnecessarily uncivil and ended with both parties edit warring. I think a history of combative, acerbic and uncivil editing is evident when looking at Netoholic's history. They rarely discuss issues at talk pages and when they do it's rarely civil. I feel like they are disruptive and unwilling to change, at least in regards to subjects relating to right wing politics. They are uncivil, frequently accuse other editors of acting in bad faith and regularly involved in edit wars.Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah here they all come. Since Bacondrum is casting ASPERSIONS without links, I'll have to contradict him. The ONLY article we've closely interacted was recently at Virtue signalling after he'd first nuked the content then submitted a ridiculous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtue signalling which SNOW-failed. Things didn't go his way - that's the only reason he's piling on here. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And right on cue for the vitriol. Case in point - doesn't listen, doesn't want to change, not interested in being civil. A disruptive editor. Have a short look through their edit history, the combative and uncivil nature of this editors interactions with other users becomes clear very quickly. It's not Netoholic's fault they are being "piled on", it has nothing to do with their own behavior, it's everyone else's fault that they are constantly engaged in edit wars and other argy-bargy.Bacondrum (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look at some of the bad faith accusations directed at GorillaWarfare above. Anyone who has interacted with GorillaWarfare knows those are unreasonable and unfounded accusations. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah here they all come. I think that this outlook basically shows the problem. Yes, of course the AP2 topic area is contentious, but it's precisely because of that that we have to try and maintain at least some degree of civility and WP:AGF-attude towards each other, even when we strenuously disagree on matters of sourcing, weight, interpretation, and how to summarize these things; sometimes people with differing outlooks on the world can legitimately disagree on even the entirely-encyclopedic way to handle a contentious topic. You have consistently refused to extend that faith towards the people you disagree with on political topics. See eg. here, here, here + here, and here, just for some recent ones. --Aquillion (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The diff-less accusations against me in this thread are what is uncivil and wildly-lacking of AGF (did you see "Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence" above?), yet you don't comment on them. You had to go back a month to find 4 diffs in my history (of which none are uncivil and, in fact, one is openly compassionate), some others are trying to go back 6 years. Is it possible that this thread, like happens too often elsewhere in AP2, piling-on and double standards are being used in order to just attempt to take a chess piece off the board? -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm I've seen a whole bunch of diffs by now, and I don't think the chess analogy is very helpful here. You're badgering every single person here--there are better metaphors to use. You're not so much a chess piece as a big concrete block in the middle of a busy sidewalk. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I were silent, you'd say I had no defense or take it as a tacit admission of guilt; and the impartial readers would not know the context of why people might be piling on. I have the right to respond. Whats disappointing is that your analogy characterizes me as an immovable object which is simple 'in the way' - is that really fair? Is that how you AGF and treat me civilly? -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The very fact that we are here, and I am giving reasons for why I think you should be banned from this topic area, means I have given up your good faith. Isn't that obvious? I believe you have a right-wing POV, at the very least, that renders you incapable of editing our articles neutrally, of following our policies, of participating in a collaborative project which aims to write quality encyclopedic articles. I don't know what's uncivil about that, by the way. I haven't called you names, although maybe you can guess what I think about people who abuse Wikipedia in order to whitewash articles on right-wing, far-right, white supremacist topics. So yes, I think you are in the way. In hindsight, the Molyneux business six years ago should have led to a (topic) ban. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: Just for discussion, is there anyone in this thread that you believe has a left-wing POV? And BTW, I am not right-wing - I simply think that strong POV language (sometimes anti-right, sometimes anti-left) in our articles should be tempered from extremes where evidence is not there to support it in our WP:VOICE. Even in regards to the original purpose of this ANI report, GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" - not even a majority - so our objections to its inclusion are at least reasonably valid (we'll see how the RfC turns out). I do nothing here on WP based dogmatically on my personal POV - hell, my interests are wildly esoteric and I don't even focus on political topics... unlike some editors in this thread that seem to dedicate themselves to that area daily. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could always acknowledge that you have been uncivil and disruptive and try to do better in the future. Refusing to see the problem isn't helping. Civility and collaboration are cornerstones of Wikipedia, they are not optional. You make it really unpleasant for everyone else when you make acerbic comments and edit war, and it's not necessary. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely getting this many other editors noses out of joint should make you question how you are conducting yourself here? Bacondrum (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remember butting heads with Neto last year over the Women-in-Red AFD thing, the NPROF thing, the WikiProject Men thing, and the Chairman/Chairperson move, among others. Neto was blocked in July 2019 for edit warring and after that, the account's activity was significantly reduced until March 2020. Plenty of good edits in March and April, but once they come into conflict, forget-about-it, back to the same old. Edit warring at Magdalene Visaggio and bludgeoning Talk:Magdalene Visaggio#Birth name; at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Edit war; at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, and see various threads on that talk page; improper use of SYNTH tag and edit warring over it at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery (1 2 3); plus, the edit warring described above in the OP.
      Neto's first block for edit warring was 15 years ago. Admittedly, their block log isn't actually as bad as it looks at first (I guess we didn't have rules about wheel warring before 2006), but it seems whenever they actively edit, they actively edit war. Three edit warring blocks in the roughly one year between June 2018 and July 2019, and since their return to full editing in March 2020, it's quickly become a repeat of the same edit warring behavior. And it doesn't seem limited to AP2. I think a sitewide 1RR restriction would help reduce disruption. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to or in place of an AP2 topic ban? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to, I guess. My concern is if it's just an AP2 tban, Neto will change their topic area but not their underlying approach. For example, the stuff last May through Nov was gender stuff, not AP2, e.g. [7], [8] (discussing [9]), [10], [11] (suggesting, for lead image of Woman, [12] and [13]), [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Now it's AP2. What'll be next? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those links are just discussions. Do you think my particular viewpoint on those discussions is what makes me deserve a sanction? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you really not see how your general approach is uncivil and combative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)
    @Netoholic: No, I don't. Do you see any problem with your edits that are listed in the OP? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A while back, I too had experiences like this with respect to pages dealing with the political views of college professors, and in particular, with the POV that US academia has been taken over by leftists. (Or maybe taken over by Drmies and me.) It's worth looking at Talk:Political views of American academics, and particularly Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC about HERI survey and Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC on inclusion of HERI data chart, where Netoholic tried to push such a POV, and his position was soundly rejected by the RfC respondents. There are similar discussions at Talk:Passing on the Right, about a book that takes a minority view among secondary sources, and at Talk:Neil Gross, a BLP about a respected scholar of academic politics, where I had concerns about BLP violations intended to discredit the page subject. Assuming that WP:ACDS#Awareness has been satisfied, it seems to me that an uninvolved admin should consider using DS under AmPol here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, all those links just show me participating in discussions and expressing various viewpoints that at best turned out to be non-majority in the RfCs, but hardly radical. "US academia has been taken over by leftists" is YOUR words, not mine - I've never said anything like that. I have to ask - do you disagree with the ample literature that shows that the population of left-wing academics far outnumbers right-wing? The scholarly data that shows that its a widely-held, majority view. But since you have identified yourself and Drmies as being left-wing academics, I have to ask, are you seeking sanction on me just to WP:USTHEM? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said anything of the sort about either Drmies or myself in that parenthetical joke. And I never called you radical. My concern has always been your failure to adhere to NPOV (whether you profess to see it, or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Netoholic Look, I think all most of us want from you is to tone down the bad faith accusations and stop leaving acerbic edit summaries, basically tone it down, be civil - we can disagree without the nastiness. And don't edit war, if you disagree, take it to talk and have a civil discussion. If you can agree to tone down the combativeness I think everyone would accept that in good faith and move on without further action needed. Believe me as someone who can also get carried away (as we both did recently), it's better to try and keep things friendly. We are not piling on, we are asking you to reign in the combativeness. Bacondrum (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have as an individual Arbitration Enforcement action placed Boogaloo movement under indefinite 1RR. I have also topic banned Netoholic from the topic for 3 months and placed them on indefinite 1RR in that topic area. The community can, of course, choose to impose other sanctions. I have no comments at this time on Mwise or Gorilla Warfare. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but having been away, am only seeing this now. I have edited on this article with GW, and concur with the evidence posted by GW above. Both editors demonstrated a sustained desire to whitewash this article regardless of any factbase (or even consensus), put forward, including:

    • The forum-shopping regarding the attempt to delete photograph showed an extreme determination, which even the Wikicommons community objected to here.
    • Bad faith statements noted by GW above that: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex, despite the good referencing in the article.
    • Repeated attempts to re-insert a controversial DHS tweet into the lede, despite having no consensus for it, that it conflicted with a large number of references from WP:RS/P sources, and despite referenced concerns put forward them it was politically movitived (As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement).
    • The statement above GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" (i.e. as if every source has to call the movement far-right for it to be valid) is another example of an extreme determination to dismiss all evidence in favour of their own agenda (bordering on sealioning behaviour).

    I cannot see how such conduct is appropriate in the already difficut areas of AP2 editing. WP works when a discussion is had over references with a good faith desire to chronicle what they say – take away that good faith, and it collapses. GW is a strong editor, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to prove the obvious to these editors; I am not sure other editors (myself included), would have done that, particularly given the significant amount of IPs/SPAs that this article attracted all trying to whitewash it (eight most viewed page on the entire project) Britishfinance (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Britishfinance, wow. "fake news industrial complex" is way out there into WP:CIR territory - it's a complete repudiation of WP:RS. Guy (help!) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Britishfinance, thank you for that note. Your comment on "22 out of 59" supports something bigger than the narrow topic ban just instituted by Barkeep49 (though I appreciate it, Barkeep--it's a good start). Yes, that's one of those things where you can't decided if it's incompetence or POV-pushing, but I disagree with JzG--that's not just CIR territory, it's irredeemable POV pushing. I just ran into another example of this, small but telling: the proposal (which is getting overwhelming support) to move "Dixie Chicks", which Netoholic calls "a fanatic rush". No, we need a larger topic ban here, per AP2, on all the political and cultural material. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that the "22 of 59" thing is bizarre—Netoholic has repeated it in several places now, despite me having pointed out that, like many articles, this article includes sources that are somewhat tangential and don't describe the movement directly. In this case that includes sources that describe: the meme but not the movement, the phrasal pattern "____ 2: Electric Boogaloo", and the 2020 boogaloo killings (which were originally not known to have any boogaloo connection). Additionally, NorthBySouthBaranof pointed out that I took a conservative view to counting the sources. A deeper dive into this is perhaps more appropriate for the RfC than here (link to the RfC, where I've addressed it in more detail), but it does seem to be a bad-faith attempt to portray extremely solid sourcing as a minority view based on numbers alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh ... Netoholic continually exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed that after Netoholic failed to achieve consensus on enwiki to remove the lead image at Boogaloo movement (discussion), and after they failed to gain consensus on Commons to have the file deleted (discussion), two days ago they then cropped the already-cropped image on Commons to a point where it barely illustrates the subject: commons:File:Virginia_2nd_Amendment_Rally_(2020_Jan)_-_49416109936_(cropped).jpg (see the file history section). I'll note that they edited the image directly rather than creating a new file, presumably so the image change would not be noticed on enwiki. This seems to be a clear example of tendentious editing, especially given users had already expressed to Netoholic their disapproval that Netoholic had tried to circumvent the enwiki decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I think Netoholic feigning innocence and claiming he is simply being piled on is gas-lighting. This editor has never acknowledged their frequent incivility or edit warring. Now there are apparant efforts to game the system being brought to light, at this point I think they are here simply to battle and push a right-wing agenda calling Wikipedia "part in the fake news industrial complex". After reading that comment and looking at the editors attempts to get around guidelines regarding images, I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks GW. I had not seen that. An(other) extreme action to take after being turned down at two fora. Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare, that's outrageous. Guy (help!) 16:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just slap a WP:NOTHERE block on Netoholic and just get it over with. MiasmaEternalTALK 00:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • One last comment re claims by Netoholic that GorillaWarfare should be sanctioned for edit warring. I believe GW's history on Wikipedia speaks for itself, a diligent and high quality editor. If they have been edit warring it is for the same reason many people end up in edit wars with Netoholic - they've been goaded by a disruptive and uncivil editor who appears to be gaming the system. Bacondrum (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair to Netoholic, I actually believe the case in which I exceeded 3RR was primarily due to reverts of MWise12, not Netoholic. I did not pay close enough attention to how many reverts I was making in the time period, which was a failure on my part, and the responsibility for it is mine and not the other parties in the edit war.
      I understand Netoholic wishes to see me sanctioned for it (see their talk page), and I suppose that is a decision for reviewing admins to make. It does seem retaliatory on Netoholic's part, given they have only seen fit to pursue a sanction ten days after the incident now that they themselves have been sanctioned, and not closer to the incident when they could at least have argued such a sanction would be preventative. I've already said that I have been much more careful since that incident to watch 3RR and more hesitant to revert in general. I think this is evident in the June 26 edit war, where I stepped away after two reverts despite it leaving the page in a state that did not reflect the established consensus for several hours, and instead discussed the issue on the talk page for quite some time, eventually culminating in my doing an enormous review of the sourcing and starting an RfC to re-establish the consensus on the wording of the lead. If a reviewing admin wishes to discuss the incident more I'm happy to, otherwise I'll leave it at that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barkeep's tban of Netoholic is good but insufficient. Netoholic isn't here to write an encyclopaedia; his agenda is to make the fringe seem mainstream. Tolerance of his behaviour is disrespectful to the people who're here to inform and educate the public in a NPOV way. Permablock please.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution

    Can this be closed based on the above discussion, or do we need a formal proposal and poll at this point? SPECIFICO talk 00:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the above discussion contains the kind of consensus necessary according to policy to implement any formal sanction so if you want that I would suggest you formally propose something and see what uninvolved members of the community think. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Request lift of TBAN

    Community consensus is in favour of lifting this TBAN on Normal Op. Good luck and please take care with any future editing. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am requesting a lifting of my August 30, 2019 TBAN on dogs. In the decision was written "They may reapply here after a period of 3 months for the community to reconsider the same."

    After having taken a several months hiatus from Wikipedia, I came back tentatively in December 2019, then strongly this March, and have been editing heavily since then. I haven't been accused of PAs or tendentious editing or advocacy or any of the other things that I was accused of in the ANI last year. Though I was told I could reapply after 3 months, I have allowed myself 10 months to pass before deciding to request it, both to be confident in my ability to work well with other editors (or walk away from hot spots) and to show others through my edit history (now 2,000 edits later) that I am here to build an encyclopedia and do so collaboratively. I have done a lot of observation and learning during this time, and can recognize what is acceptable and unacceptable within Wikipedia.

    In the meantime, I have worked on cat articles, tiger articles, snake articles, state forests, parks, enhanced several articles on various topics that were PRODed or AfD'd, voted on AfDs, cleaned up articles after translations from French, joined some WikiProjects, worked on a bunch of list articles (I love lists), a bunch of history articles, articles on NRHP places, added my first images in Wikimedia, learned all about roses, historic African-Americans, and am currently working on a set of list articles related to the George Floyd protests and the taking down of Confederate monuments.

    Please consider lifting my TBAN on dog topics. I am not particularly interested in working on dog breed articles, but occasionally I'm working on something that I'm editing across all articles (like the day I was hotlinking to an author using the author-link parameter, went through all of the cat articles but had to stop short because I couldn't do likewise for the dog articles he was cited in). Dogs are ubiquitous and very much a part of human life. I would also like to be able to just edit without worrying about whether or not someone is going to call me out on it because dogs might be involved, like the day I was editing animal sanctuary articles (tigers). I would like the freedom to be a Wikipedia editor without restrictions. I feel like whatever behaviors were present or were manifesting last year are not currently present, and my edit history will prove that I have the ability to edit in Wikipedia without getting caught up in similar problems.

    — Normal Op (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Normal Op: You sound unsure of what behaviors needed to change/have changed. Can you be more specific about what you did before and what you will do different now? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deepfriedokra: For what happened, please see last year's ANI. It was messy and I couldn't even begin to summarize it except to say "butting heads". What I have learned since then is a lot of how to deal with people online that you don't know, cannot see, and cannot directly interact with. With regards to Wikipedia, that would include recognizing that few things need fixing right now, not directly engaging those who hold strongly opposing viewpoints as yours, that I can let things slide and don't have to fix everything, don't take it all too seriously, and that arguing against the viewpoints of others won't win support from other editors but more likely will alienate observers from yourself. I have even learned some de-escalation techniques, both for self and for online situations. If I sound unsure, it's because I don't like eating crow (who does) and wasn't even sure if this was the right venue to ask to lift a TBAN. My request above was framed more about my current contributions and less about my old dirty laundry. Normal Op (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm mostly OK with this as long as you steer clear of pitbulls. Guy (help!) 21:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ... and of course be very careful not to engage in any hounding or bitey behavior. EEng 23:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Note: Recycled joke, so no charge.[reply]
    • EEng, I am responding while sitting on my sofa fully dressed, so I am also a joke recycler. Joking aside, I support lifting this topic ban, because the editor seems to understand how they went astray, and how to avoid that behavior. However, I must caution Normal Op that any disruptive editing in the area of dog bites or pit bulls or dog breeds or breed variants sometimes accused of being prone to bite will be met with a re-imposition of sanctions against you. You also need to be careful to use only the highest quality reliable sources. You were putting forward some exceptionally poor sources a year ago. Do not propose any sources unless you believe those sources to be reliable. It is disruptive to expect other editors to waste their time evaluating unreliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Normal Op must realise that there will be increased scrutiny of their editing in that topic editor, at least to begin with. It needs to be understood that the TB can be reimposed if necessary, and if reimposed will be much harder to get lifted again. That said, the appeal shows that the editor has matured and learnt from past mistakes, so let's give them a chance. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Non-admin. Seems like they've figured out the issue. Note: on topics you are really passionate about, it is really easy to get drawn in again. Might be best to avoid your hot-topic issues. Hobit (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I very much appreciate the votes of confidence. Thank you. Normal Op (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Normal Op has come a long ways in ten months and has made a great deal of positive contributions to the project, and has clearly been learning the law of the land. I think the most important takeaway is that Wikipedia is a community-based consensus project, not a battleground of who is right and wrong, and their recent contributions have shown a great deal of evidence of this. PearlSt82 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Is there an admin or something that is supposed to make a decision and close this out? Normal Op (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just thought I'd file an observation. I just found this user's TBAN situation here because he posted an unsolicited negative opinion as idle chat, about the world's most explosively controversial subject of an article. He opined to nobody or everybody, how sad it is that people are bullying the Confederacy here. I reverted that nuclear beehive, citing WP:NOTFORUM. Ignoring WP:NOTFORUM, he reverted that, citing WP:TALKO (as if I had somehow edited his comment), which actually also admonishes him not to engage in chat and opinions. Then he abused the archival function to pretend to hide his chat in the archive—but only his one new comment, added to an existing archive, as if archival will bless it with immortality. Then he further hounded me on my Talk page, abusing a warning template to yet again presume to instruct me on WP:TALKNO while ..... welcoming me to Wikipedia after lo my eleven short years. Then he came here to tell you guys how he doesn't do anything like all that. So I guess he's not touching dogs anymore, in favor of progressing to opening up some real talk about some sadness regarding the post-Floydian Confederacy and cemeteries. Just FYI or whatever. — Smuckola(talk) 10:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Abuse by IPs

    A group of similar IPs has posted messages in talk-pages of articles in which I have contributed or discussed (possible WP:HOUNDING), which included derogatory content and private information about me. Part of the messages have therefore been oversighted.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop lying nothing is written derogatory and private information. Just read it. Why are you lying to the administrators? They should ban you for lying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.73.127 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @WEBDuB: There are oversighted revisions, though there's no way now to tell why they were oversighted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tezwoo (talk · contribs) has also made edits at Talk:Croatia that have been oversighted. Any chance he could be operating the IPs? User:GeneralNotability did the block of Tezwoo and they might have some advice on this situation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, I've actually unblocked Tezwoo per discussion with them - further investigation gave reasonable doubt about whether or not that IP was actually theirs. I can't see the oversighted material so no comment on what they may or may not have done. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The edits are oversighted due to some internal error because all those edits seem visible on the talk pages, on Talk:Croatia and Talk:Novak Djokovic [19], where I first noticed that. I would assume it's because the IP's did not sign their posts which created some strange bug after users tried to sign them. Tezwoo (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tezwoo has nothing to do with it, I'm sure that he is certainly not connected with the disturbing behavior of these IPs. I requested oversight because of derogatory content and private information about me. I have e-mails as proof of those requests and the oversight team's approval. This behavior continued after that, which can be seen in this section as well.--WEBDuB (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there were stranger accusations recently. Regarding the oversight, then there might have been an error during that action because all of the edits are still there on the talk page [20], even though the diffs can't be checked. Even a bot's edit was oversighted. Tezwoo (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tezwoo: Your edits are not oversighted, but it can't be checked because the oversighted text would also be visible.--WEBDuB (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying this. Tezwoo (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    White supremacist activism in edit history of Allama123

    Allama123 registered his username in 2012, performed a few chemistry topic edits, then disappeared for eight years. Returning in 2020, Allama123's flurry of activity has a very different flavor, with nearly every edit an attempt to skew Wikipedia into the direction of white supremacism:

    1. At the Tucker Carlson (Fox News, etc.) biography, he changed "white supremacist" to "white identitarian" and diminished the respect for Vox, GQ and Media Matters.
    2. Allama123 added a sympathetic interpretation to Ku Klux Klansmen fighting a Black man in a parking garage.[21]
    3. At the biography of alt-right conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, Allama123 sympathetically reworded things to remove the idea of conspiracy from white genocide, turning it from a conspiracy theory into an actual white genocide. This was done using primary source tweets, deleting secondary source analysis from mainstream papers.
    4. Allama123 removed conspiracy from the biography of hate speech fomenter Gemma O'Doherty.
    5. Allama123 added another reference to the article on lynching, to help support the idea that Black men are not the only ones lynched in the US. The cited source from 1910 was reporting satisfying peace in Tampa following a lynching of two Italians (thus normalizing lynching.)
    6. At the biography of Black activist and rapper Raz Simone, Allama123 added one nationalfile.com right-wing batshit crazy source calling Simone a warlord.
    7. At the biography of Black Lives Matter founder Patrice Cullors, Allama123 added the label "Marxist" without context, to be used as leverage for political attacks. Marxism has three meanings, making it a very loaded word in a biography. Note that the cited source is a Cullors quote taken out of context, and that no third party observers have analyzed Cullors' political stance to determine which of the three Marxism meanings is at play.

    Given this pattern showing the defense of white supremacist racists, and the attack on anti-racist Black activists, I propose that Allama123 be topic banned from American politics. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The marxist label is entirely appropriate. She self-described and it was published in a reputable source. But the rest is block worthy. I'll take care of it.--v/r - TP 04:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I gotta say this is not super compelling. The Gemma O'Doherty edit is probably correct actually, no idea why you reverted that one. The Raz Simone still has the warlord stuff, not a great source they added but seems like a content issue. Finally for the marxism stuff, they are self identified. If you feel more context is needed you are free to add it but it does not seem contriversial. A lot of this seems like a content dispute and you calling another editor racist. PackMecEng (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black Kite: They may well be a conspiracy theorist, that is not the problem. The problem is that a single opinion article was the source used to make that statement. I could not care less if they are one or not. I do care that we follow proper sourcing and BLP policy to do so. PackMecEng (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PackMecEng: Yes, but it wasn't making the statement in Wikipedia's voice. It was, quite correctly, framed as an opinion by that journalist - who is incidentally a high-profile author who has written about scandals in Irish life, not just some random staffer - see Michael Clifford (journalist). And there are many other reliable sources in the article for her conspiracy theorism. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then those can be used. A singular opinion article even from someone noted in the field is rarely good enough to apply a contentious label. You know that. Now if they reverted and added some of the sources you suggest that would be fine. As it sits, it is clearly not fine. PackMecEng (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree with the NAC here. The user is disputing the block, and an editor here (PackMecEng) has also questioned the block. I agree; this seems like WP:CRYRACIST more than anything. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 05:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The user was warned in Feb 2020 and again recently about the AP2 topic area and DS in that per the talk page. The edit warring behavior today, and only taking to the talk page for the first time in their editing history after doing 2 back-and-forths is a bit troubling in terms of having been warned about this. I do worry about the CRYRACIST aspect but the block is good without taking any other factors into account. --Masem (t) 05:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that I left the edit window open for a time period, and did not notice the subsequent edit by PackMecEng. Given it appears the issue / discussion may not be resolved, I have reversed the closure. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to me we can go with one of three approaches here: WP:ROPE, a topic ban, or a block because this looks like a sleeper. For me, the choice would be governed by whether there are overtly racist edits. Guy (help!) 09:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks to me that #4 was a good edit per WP:RSOPINION and #7 was a good edit per the self-identification (I forget what shortcut that is). The rest are not meeting sourcing policy (e.g. WP:BLPRS) and have POV issues. However, I'm not seeing where this was discussed with the user, or where the user was warned, prior to being blocked. Seems like those are two important steps that were skipped here. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to try to save every racist account with 38 edits. Registering accounts is cheap and easy to do and this project would spend all it's energy trying to rehabilitate racists and trolls if we did that. WP:DFTT.--v/r - TP 19:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody's asking you to save or rehabilitate. Maybe template, because WP:AGF. Let's say an admin faces this exact situation 10 times. Option A: admin blocks. Option B: admin templates first, then blocks on the next offending edit (if any). And let's say the admin's "gut" is right 90% of the time, and 9 out of 10 of those times, the editor is a troll, and 1 out of 10, it's a good faith editor who made a mistake. Under option A, we lose the good faith editor. Under option B, we gain a good faith editor at the cost of 9 bad edits. I'll take one editor for 9 bad edits any day of the week. Let's say this happens not 10 times but 100 times, and the admin is right not 90% but 99% of the time. I'll still take one good editor for 99 bad edits. It's very cheap to warn first, and it pays huge dividends if we gain a whole, entire new good-faith editor, at the cost of a few bad edits. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 22:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Bad edits do have a cost, of course—someone has to deal with them. And over time, we lose good editors because they get burnt out by large volumes of unchecked tendentious editing, POV-pushing, and nth chances provided because someone on AN/I wanted to look magnanimous at no cost to themselves. A high tolerance for trolling/bad editing is cheap only if you attach little or no value to the time and goodwill of our constructive contributor base. No comment on what should happen to this particular editor; I just dispute the framing that giving "rope" to trolls is "cheap". MastCell Talk 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't believe that any established editor has ever been driven off the project because of an edit made by an account with 38 edits in between being warned and being blocked. When established editors are driven off the project, it's because of the actions of other established editors. I think if this editor had been warned before being blocked, the risk that this editor would have driven off any other editor is 0%. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If you ever become an admin it will be a misfortune for the project, and if you get on Arbcom it will be a catastrophe. Insight and expressiveness like yours should roam free and unfettered. EEng 02:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      On that note, I'm driving off into the sunset and hopefully through the invisible fence that binds us. There may be a cacophony, some carnage, a coyote. EEng, this is not your fault. You hear me?!? Levi, don't you cry-ee-eye tonight! MastCell, you're alright. Alamma123, "white identitarian" is the worst phrase I've ever seen put to paper, even online. Just on a word level, nothing racist, but the worst I've seen regardless. Either you be sentenced to adminship, or I keep on driving! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed glad to hear that something's not my fault (for once) but I have no idea what you're talking about. EEng 09:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      As an established editor seeking freedom from unpaid writing work, I thought I'd see if the outrage provided by a single edit from a fresh account could power my crazy train on through to the other side. But Levi was right, there was nothing, 0%. So yeah, he's wise enough to rule us all, but undeserving of such a tedious responsibility. We could make Alamma123 an admin instead, and let someone else choose his fate. Admins get enough grief for deciding matters around here, not exactly cool, to the admins or the people who already vouched for their competency in RfAs. But enough of this sidetrack, I yield the floor back to the racial debate. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MastCell, agreed, but I am not sure this is a troll, necessarily. Most of the edits seem decent, if perhaps lacking robust sourcing. Guy (help!) 09:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The pattern is there to see plainly. Example number 1 is a terrible start to the mess. "White identitarian" indeed. And the writers at GQ are not collectively activists. Most of Alamma123's edits are attempts to soften the criticism of white supremacism, or to uphold its conspiracy beliefs, or to throw shade on those who oppose white supremacism. That's why I took the serious step of bringing my observations here. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Binksternet, yup, that's a shit edit alreight. Guy (help!) 14:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at all 38 edits and I disagree with "most". I think a few are bad, about 5-10, the worst listed above, but the rest are fine. Look, if an article says that the article subject "is a Fooian", and I think that violates NPOV based on the sources, and I change it to "is considered by some to be a Fooian", then I am, in fact, "attempting to soften" the statement, but that doesn't mean that I am "upholding Fooianism" or "throwing shade on those who oppose Fooianism". It just might mean I don't think the sources support "is a Fooian" in wikivoice. It doesn't mean I believe in Fooianism or that Fooianism is OK. So, same for white supremacy. an editor who "softens" an accusation of white supremacy in an article is not necessarily supporting white supremacism or minimizing it or anything like that. NPOV applies to white supremacists, too. I still think #1 was a bad edit, I just don't think the editor who made that edit is supporting white supremacy or anything like that. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a comparison case: Fielding L. Wright was a famous American racist. Our article on him went through GA and DYK before anybody noticed that it really didn't cover his racist views in accordance with WP:DUE. This was because the primary contributor to the article was working off a set of sources that, themselves, provided incomplete coverage. The issue was raised, discussed, more sources brought forward, edits made, and the problem fixed. Nobody at any point accused anyone of supporting racism or segregation or white supremacy; nobody was blocked or warned; nobody "cried racist"; we didn't lose any editors; it just didn't come up. It doesn't have to come up. It doesn't have to be the case that everyone who makes a "bad edit" is a bad editor. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have had to deal with racist trolls, or trolls of any flavor, you'd know that they often do just enough good to get some unsuspecting editor to insist that we offer them good faith. Just enough. All it is, is an effort to hide their racist (or sexist/transphobic/homophobic/etc) real interests.--v/r - TP 01:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: Aaaannnnddd, I just received a transphobic death threat from a brand new account that likely has a 95% chance of being Allama123. The account probably doesn't realize that I likely own far more guns and have more experienced gun owners in my house than they do.--v/r - TP 13:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you got a death threat. My arguments will not overcome confirmation bias. Next time, maybe as a lark, see if a different approach brings a different result. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 14:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A parable—Lester Maddox, before being chosen governor of Georgia in 1966, operated in Atlanta a segregated restaurant which sold axe handles for beating any Black who entered as a customer. As governor, Maddox acted to appoint Black in proportional numbers to draft boards and integrated the Georgia State Patrol. On balance, however, the axe handles characterized his ideology.

    When editing Wikipedia, we hardly know each other, and can only judge on the basis of edits to articles and talk pages. WP:AGF cuts both ways! The edits of allama123, taken at face value, lead me as a non-admin to agree with TP's block. — Neonorange (Phil) 02:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Concubinage in Islam/Slavery in Islam

    Concubinage in Islam Fully protected for a period of one week by El C (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 04:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I don't know anything about the subject and I'm not interested in it. The revision history was a shit show of reverts (edit warring) and moves until CambridgeBayWeather WP:MOVP'd the page. I hope that interested administrators and editors could take a look at the page and see if they can resolve the dispute. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 20:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP repeatedly leaving unwanted message on my talk page.

    (non-admin closure) IP blocked for harassment. Nanophosis (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I asked 90.226.9.16 to stop leaving messages on my talk page after it became clear that a discussion we were having was going in circles. I first asked the user to stop on June 16th. The user left me two more messages on the 17th. I asked again, and the user left another message on the 20th. I cleared out my user talk page the same day following the advice from help desk, but on July 1st the user left yet another message. Furthermore it seems like the user was trying to pit me against another user by vandalising chopsticks. I asked for my talk page to be semi-protected, but apparently that is not allowed for my case. I just want to stop receiving any further useless notification from the user. How hard does it have to be???? --Yel D'ohan (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That IP address used to belong to the blocked user, BjörnBergman. Frankly, it seems there's a good chance it's still that same person, evading their block. I base this on the continued focus on longevity articles, such as this (and other) edits to Jiroemon Kimura, made in June, and this edit to List of the oldest people by country made in March. The account is probably too old for an SPI, though, and I'll note that the IP isn't focusing exclusively on longevity articles. Nevertheless, I suggest a block for the behaviour raised above, and making it an extended block given the likelihood that this is a blocked user returning to cause trouble. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As the IP repeatedly posted after being asked not to, I've blocked them for a week for WP:Harassment. If the behaviour recurs after that, I'll make a longer block on notification. --RexxS (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor lies and removes my edit on talk-page

    I have indeffed for WP:DE. A convincing unblock appeal may be considered, of course. El_C 13:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I asked Kurdiyate352 to explain why they removed census information on Tuz Khormato and the explanation was that the info could not be found. That is a blatant lie and they also mischaracterize the content of the book which makes it clear that they have not read it. Moreover, when I asked for clarification on the talkpage, the editor removed my edit.[22]. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's certainly merit to this. The source is subtitled "Politics, Travel and Research in North-Eastern Iraq, 1919-1925" but it nevertheless does reference the 1947 census multiple times, which Kurdiyate352 keeps removing. I also noticed that Kurdiyate352 linked to offsite attacks of Semsûrî and immediately afterwards left a Kurdish tea WikiLove message at their Talk page which comes across as very passive aggressive. Woodroar (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kurdiyate352's linking to offsite twitter personal attacks is a disturbing practice.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As you have stated, the 1947 census is referenced in the book. Kurdiyate352 first claimed that there was no census done in 1947[23] and after proving them wrong, claimed that the census was not mentioned in the book. I frankly don't have time to argue with someone who blatantly lies to push for their POV and their removal of info on Tuz Khurmatu should be readded. --Semsûrî (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the sourced statement, but I added it to the History section where it seems more appropriate. Woodroar (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruption continues on both the main page and the talkpage[24][25]. Also, they seem to have breached the 3RR rule which should also be taken into consideration. --Semsûrî (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This seals the deal for me. Wikipedia:NOTHERE.[26] --Semsûrî (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor vandalises pages with ethnic propaganda

    Semsûrî has been vandalising pages about Assyrian history, removing thousands of characters and pages of history, replacing it with Kurdish propaganda. I have asked to stop and tried to revert the edits but they do not listen. Ahmedo Semsuri adds fake statistics and propaganda to claim Assyrian-majority areas and Turkmen-majority areas in Iraq as Kurdish (which they are not). --Kurdiyate352 (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A cursory look through Semsûrî's contributions don't show any of that. You should supply DIFFs of any wrongdoing, otherwise this is a groundless personal attack. Woodroar (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. El_C 13:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.51

    Blocked, but see below. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    103.60.175.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making hundreds of edits (semi-automated?) making color changes to tables in articles & templates, & leaving no edit summaries. This has made edits that appear to be identical to 103.60.175.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who recently has been blocked for two years. I am in the process of rolling back the disruptive edits. Peaceray (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 2 weeks. They made about 400 edits on July 2, and only a handful before that. I'll also make a report at WP:OP to see if this IP is an open proxy. WHOIS says that this IP is part of a /24 range hosted by Mazeda Networks in Bangladesh. mw:ORES is flagging some of these IP edits as well. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.41
     Please see the discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.41. Peaceray (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I suspect editor Androlucus of being paid to promote various Chinese film schools, as he/she consistently adds red link pages to the pages of schools like Beijing Film Academy and Central Academy of Drama. 24.232.123.199 (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There are also 38 (thirty-eight) non-notable people in the BFA's "notable" alumni list, any one of whom could've personally ponied up the promoter's fee, see? And 49 (!!!) for CAD. Why would a school want to water down its famous students with 87 relative nobodies? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be that the school considers them notable even if we don't. Or it could be that @Androlucus: considers them notable; at a glance, they haven't really added anything that I would consider promotional, either to those pages or regarding any of the people listed. Usually I'd expect a paid editor to do more than just list names. Also, OP, don't forget to inform people when you bring them up here. --Aquillion (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, there are probably millions of people with those names. Without something for context, hardly a worthy endorsement. Suppose the only mystery left is just plain "Why Androlucus, why?" InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Androlucus, you're continuing to clutter the BFA article with people like Ma He (actor), without apparent reason. Please explain here. Or just stop. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bahati

    Bahati registered in March 2006 and has accumulated 226 edits at time of writing. His history is one of inactivity punctuated by disputes. I encountered him at Stefan Molyneux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he is employing a variety of creative arguments for not following sources in stating, as fact, that Molyneux is a white supremacist. Going back to his previous actiove period, which involved Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I found edits like [27] and [28], which promote Islamophobic comments by Richard Dawkins but demand that criticism of those comments be excluded.

    On the one hand, past history indicates that he will probably go back into hibernation soon. On the other, it also suggests that he will be back again, probably at another racially charged article.

    Does this rise to the level of a possible editing restriction? Guy (help!) 09:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just about to post a warning about WP:TENDENTIOUS editing over at Stefan Molyneux for not dropping the stick as it is just the same arguments over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy, I support you using the DS to impose a topic ban from the topic area of race and ethnicity. El_C 10:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I can't, per WP:INVOLVED, but also it doesn't fall clearly into any specific sanction area. Guy (help!) 11:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I stand corrected. I guess the Committee's ruling on various race facets over the years have not resulted in a topic area under restriction. I mistakenly thought that this was the case, but upon closer examination, you're right, it doesn't. Has the user edited productively any other topic area, though? If so, a community topic ban might be due. If not, perhaps a normal WP:DE/WP:NOTHERE indef would be preferred, instead. El_C 11:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps an indefinite block till they address these problems? Whatever restrictions we impose, they could pop up afresh with the same problems somewhere else at a later time. Then we'd need to start all over.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless there are objections, I'm willing to go ahead. El_C 12:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The allegedly islamophobic comments by Richard Dawkins: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-dawkins-accuses-ahmed-mohamed-of-committing-fraud_n_55fed260e4b08820d918fe9b?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592&guccounter=1 (the source used in the article at the time). They don't mention or refer to Islam in any way. IIRC there was no criticism of his comments included in the WP article, but of him in general. I maintain neither would be appropriate for inclusion in the article. I have made no edits to the Stefan Molyneux article nor intend to. The prolonged discussion on the talk page of said article is, in my estimation, a product of apparent lack of consensus about important properties, facts and policy interpretations surrounding issues raised, not issues themselves, which keep prompting correction and some repetition to provide context to the correction. Guy is correct to refer to my hibernation, due to which I'm not familiar with this process. If I am supposed to defend myself against an accusation I must admit I'm not sure what the accusation is. If hibernation itself, my interest in racially charged articles or my arguments on the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident and Stefan Molyneux talk pages are actually the issue I am, in the absence of details as to what I did wrong, unrepentant. Bahati (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bahati, the "Richard Dawkins is not an Islamophobe" card has been played before, without success. Guy (help!) 12:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, I'm not playing that card. I'm playing the "Guy is incorrectly claiming that a particular set of Dawkins' comments are Islamophobic" card. Though I'm not really sure why. Would inclusion of islamophobic comments in WP articles be against policy? EDIT: to clarify, I didn't include comments in question, since removed, into the article. I'd still like to know if that would be against policy, but also if the same goes for arguing for their inclusion. Bahati (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On Stefan Molyneux there is consensus, one VS many.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I conceded that multiple times fairly early on. However, people are still talking and so am I where appropriate. If that's a bannable offence all I can do is apologize and ask to be pointed to the relevant policy article describing what I did wrong. Bahati (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So why then still argue if you accept you do not have consensus? JzG time to just let him have the last word.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To make sure that there is common understanding of the various aspects of the issue and that my points are understood in the way I want them to be. It would be silly to declare lack of consensus before that. BTW, barring more suitably annoying additions to the Molyneux discussion I'm done talking about it. A tip: if you don't want me to have the last word, for some reason I won't pretend to understand, definitely don't ask me a question. Bahati (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bahati, you are risking sanctions with these responses, also. Which may get imposed, regardless. El_C 14:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El_CThat's okay, if I'm doing something wrong I deserve sanctions. I can only hope someone in the present company, at least three of which seem to be administrators, will find it prudent to inform me what that is. Although one of them making blatantly false claims and misrepresenting my response to them doesn't warrant much hope. Bahati (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jmgwilson

    User:Jmgwilson is convinced that calling the black Marvel Comics character Brother Voodoo a "character" instead of a "superhero" is evidence of racism. Through edit summaries, an IP first let him know there's consensus preferring the neutral term [29], then later gave examples of white characters not described as "superhero" [30] to counter the OTHERSTUFF arguement.

    The IP alerted the Comics Project, which is how I got involved. I confirmed the IP was correct per WP:PROTAGONIST. Jmgwilson is aware of that discussion, and he reiterated that not using "superhero" is racist. I corrected the pages he pointed to as OTHERSTUFF here and here. I informed Jmgwilson of these changes and invited him to do the same.

    In response, Jmgwilson (editing as an IP and manually citing his user name) made it clear he planned to continue violating WP:PROTAGONIST until someone else removed "superhero" from all other articles. I advised against doing that, but I was ignored.

    While I typed this, User:Izno reverted and gave Jmgwilson a warning for edit warring. I'm not certain what level of restriction would be best here, but I'd like some admin action to stop the disruption while he realizes why his behavior is disruptive. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:FILM does not mandate how comic book articles are written. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But consensus does, and the Comic project has long relied on that bluelink without adding it to the Comics MOS. I tried to find some links in the archive, but "character", "neutral", and "superhero" aren't very effective search terms. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a content dispute. The only reason it is removed from Brother Voodoo is racists moderators is obviously not great for an edit summary, but that aspect of the dispute and the edit-warring seem too brief for WP:ANI. As far as the rest goes, even putting aside the fact that WP:PROTAGONIST is in MOS:FILM, the manual of style for film is a guideline and not a policy document. You could perhaps bring someone to ANI for egregiously disregarding longstanding MOS guidelines to the point where it's disruptive or raises WP:COMPETENCE issues, but I don't think you can do so just for going against a relatively obscure part of one guideline; in fact, plenty of MOS the more obscure or specific guidelines are treated as advisory rather than being rigorously followed. As it says in WP:ENFORCEMENT, enforcement normally relies on community norms and discussion first; admin intervention is for cases where it is clear a user is acting against policy (or against a guideline in a way that conflicts with policy) (emphasis mine.) In other words, if you want to bring someone to ANI for a MOS violation, you have to show that it's egregious enough that their action violates policy as well, or that the guideline serves to implement some policy (ie. WP:RS is technically a guideline, but serves to implement WP:V, so most violations of it are also policy violations; I'm not seeing how "don't call people superheroes" has the same force or importance to it, so disputes over it are still just content disputes.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern was this edit, where he said he planned to continue editing against consensus. The intent to edit war with a RGW mentality is why I brought it here. Everything else was background. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this ANI request is premature at this time. Let's see if he stops edit warring first. --Izno (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User Snowded

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

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

    Despite several attempts at resolution on the respective Talkpages this user has engaged in a series of personal attacks following an exchange about my editing of the Laugharne article. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you any evidence for this charge at all? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll leave his edit history on my and other people's user pages to speak for itself -----Snowded TALK 13:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Somehow I don't think Snowded is the problem --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have warned Sirjohnperrot, but sanctions are still possible. El_C 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see the discussion on my user talk page at User talk:Verbcatcher#Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe of Westmead. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's the linked evidence of said behaviour? GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page of Verbacher linked above pretty well says it all. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also been reported for vandalism :-) -----Snowded TALK 13:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we may need to get Australian, forum shopping to get a user banned is shabby at best.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Only warned. Limbering up my throwing arm. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support you doing whatever you see fit, Deepfriedokra. El_C 13:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having seen the vitriol and offended attitude over a simple discussion of sources, not seeing their own faults while blowing out of proportion any disagreement, accusing attempts at helping them of being personal attacks (and personal insults), I'm convinced OP is not suited for a collaborative environment. Reporting non vandalism at WP:AIV was certainly beyond my imagination. @Sirjohnperrot:, this is a limited time offer. Please either substantiate your accisations here or withdraw your complaint. The alternative is that you be blocked from editing. If anyone sees an alternative outcome, please speak up. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    TBAN siuts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to wait for the lad to respond. But, Snowded a vandal of articles? doubt it. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It gets better. Is this a legal threat? @Sirjohnperrot: Do please explain your accusations. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra, I sought clarification, which is to say, a categorical withdraw of any threat of legal action. El_C 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I need popcorn. This is better than Game of Thrones! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanctions are coming? El_C 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    on 18 June Sirjohnperrot requested protection of my user talk page.[31] This was interpreted as a request for protection of Laugharne.[32] Verbcatcher (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That seems like an honest mistake. I wouldn't hold it against them. El_C 14:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In no hurry. Awaiting response from OP. TBAN vs Indef. Given the torrent of words, I'd expected a response. The quasi legal threat just makes this so much better. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Not compatible with a collaborative project is the essay I had in mind. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I throw this hat into the ring? The phrase "family history burrowings" suggests that they may have a COI, and are attempting to write about one of their ancestors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. Good be. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64, I posed that question to them directly (uw-coi). El_C 15:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Sir John is done for today. May be back in the evening, GMT --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in no rush to act, myself. El_C 15:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A cliffhanger! Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Still going! El_C 17:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, Sirjohnperrot has responded to our concerns on his talk page HERE and again HERE. I leave it to you, gentle reader, to ponder how best to proceed. Suggestions welcome. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure dramamongering on his talk page is helping him. I'm still where I was, a Tban obviously makes sense in one way, but I think the problems run deeper than this one topic. It's already been stated but I will repeat that some people just aren't suited to working in a collaborative environment. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but obviously something strong is needed. There does seem to be a consensus for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say we give the lad another 24 hrs to provide his supposed evidence. If he doesn't? then this report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying give it a good day before saying good day? :-) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OP wants to complain about me. I again invited them to respond here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Signing off. Gotta claen up the yard. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings to my fellow user, Dennis. We've not been formally introduced but let me congratulate you on your vituperative talents, they are considerable and clearly well practised. If you and Deepfriedokra are indeed benchmarks of collaborative working our planet is really in trouble. I suppose if gratuitous and ignorant abuse counts for anything anywhere you've found a position as Wiki administrators where it might, do you also venerate dishonesty like your fellow team members? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall we assume, you're putting evidence together? I've known Snowded for many years & ain't seen him vandalising articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sirjohnperrot, unless you have evidence to add, please refrain from the passive-aggressive innuendo. El_C 02:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've stayed out of this one todate bar a minimal response but I think it is worth a quick summary of how we got here:

    1. An extended edit war by Sirjohnperrot (against all other editors involved) to insert the name of the Elizabethian Sir John Perrot as a notable person in the article on Laugharne. I, others and Airplaneman who protected the article explained that s/he had to provide evidence that the said Sir John was born in or lived in Laugharne and it wasn't enough to show he lived in another village within the wider area covered by Laughane Township (then a separate article).
    2. S/he did not listen to all the advise given, but we tried to be helpful. I suggested that given the Townshop article was a stub the two articles could be merged at which point there would be no issue. That happened, I closed the merge, added in the disputed name. I then had the status of "favourite Wikipedia editor of all time" :-)
    3. I stepped back then as editors with more knowledge and interest in local history got involved but it wasn't long before the tendatious behaviour started again and there were a series of attacks on Verbcatcher including a post where s/he said he had reported Verbcatcher to Oversight (I assume by email)
    4. I then gave a level 2 warning] and s/he then threw every warning in the book on my talk page and edit warred when I deleted them - despite a polite note explaining policy
    5. Then we get the report here, a few hours after reporting me for vandalism

    My view on this is that:

    1. S/he has the capability to be a good detailed editor on Wikipedia - lots of access to sources and interest in the material - little experience and what seems like an over obsession with one subject but that would not be the first time we have seen this and getting good editors is worth a little effort
    2. But the agressive response to any contradiction is an issue - the way s/he frames the problem here, suggesting that I am taking revenge for loosing a debate on the insertion of Sir John (I actually put the name in folling the merge which I suggested) illustrates the problem.
    3. Then we have the unwillingness to learn, despite constant references to policy there is zero evidence that s/he has read the material or attempted to understand it which raises the issue of competence; the assertion s/he had been singled out to be blocked when s/he only encountered edit conflicts being the latest example.

    I'd suggest that an absolute ban on ANY reference to the competence, attitudes or motivations of any other editor coupled with a 1RR restriction and the suggestion of a mentor might be a way forward if s/he is prepared to accept it. A topic ban on ANYTHING to do with Perrots broadly defined for a month to allow experience to be built elsewhere might be a useful addition to that. But if there is no willingness to change, and I can't see any in the reponses then I can't see any other option than a long block. The latest suggestion that s/he appeal to Jimmy against the evil machinations of two admins doesn't help the case. -----Snowded TALK 05:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming that he doesn't provide diffs for what he claims. A mentor would be acceptable & go from there. We must be careful not to appear to crush the lad. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good mentors are worth their weight in gold. If Sirjohnperrot is amenable, maybe start scouting for one? El_C 06:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically I did offer to help last month and the offer still stands (and to be clear I know I am not worth my weight in gold) but I think we need some evidence that s/he is willing to change and accept key policies before moving on here -----Snowded TALK 07:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. If they agree about and manage to find a mentor, that would be ideal — a fitting end to this saga. El_C 07:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GoodDay I've offered the evidence to support my report on several occasions already but the exchanges I've referenced seem to regarded as a confession that I made it all up. Not sure what 'diffs' have to do with it either - nothing has been deleted as far as I know - is it shorthand for a certain format? I'm always happy and grateful to be mentored btw - still got a couple of experienced editors giving me advice about this scrape - it can summed up as 'repent & survive' :( Pity they didn't tell me I hadn't already been banned after your admin pack tucked in yesterday - it would have spared me the embarrassment of making a premature scaffold farewell to my friends. I'm guessing the real event isn't far off though judging from today's deposits on my talkpage. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not been banned, but I suspect you are about to be. Diff means you find one edit they made and then link to it, you do not ask us to dig for your evidence.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm obliged, can't imagine why anyone would call you rude names though Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW-- Help:Diff#Linking to a diff --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks - don't suppose there is a template/model for an ANI report I can look at ? Not familiar territory as you know but I'm keen to assist Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, there's a parallel discussion at User talk:Sirjohnperrot. As user stated a wish to report me, I feel I have nothing further to contribute, and have withdrawn. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Remedies-- quo vadis?

    My impression from yesterday was that OP is not compatible with a collaborative project. With mentorship, user can probably be constructive, if they accept mentorship. I have not always found user to be receptive to reason/guidance/contradiction. I think they are overly tetchy. User has refused to provide dif's for the (to me baseless accusations) and has refused to withdraw them. Contrarily, user demands admins do something. Perhaps we should. UNless mentorship leaps forward as an option, I think a WP:TBAN (to be demarcated by the community) or an indefinite block, removable when user's intransigence has passed, are the options of choice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm leaning more towards a block as time goes on. This is becoming a giant time sink for someone that isn't likely to get the point, since they have't gotten a single point yet. We've tried patience and that hasn't gotten us very far, except for a few "highbrow" insults. Simply put, I have better things to do than mentor someone who already assumes they are right on every point, thus, beyond criticism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to say, at this point I think if they are mentored it will not work, and the mentor will give up in frustration. But if someone wants to volunteer to waste their time why not.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary from OP

    OK - Here' s my summary This incident began with Verbcatcher accusing me of dishonestly by altering a source. He refused to apologise and I raised te matter with the oversight team because of his disruptive editing . In the event he didn’t revert my revision based on the source so their role proved unnecessary and I let the matter go until Snowded announced he was going to use the event as evidence in his campaign to get me blocked. That prompted my ANI report and now the quite disgraceful handling of it by the admin team.

    Extended content brought over by OP from their talk page
    This is the record of events beginning with informing Verbcatcher of my Oversight treport.
    In the absence of any apology for your traduction I have raised the matter in Oversight as below
    • "I am an inexperienced user but believe my contributions do benefit Wikipedia and welcome the advice and guidance given to ensure they are properly presented. My issue is with unfounded accusations of dishonesty made yesterday by Verbcatcher on the Laugharne Talk Page/Perrot section for which there has been no apology. His conduct is unacceptable and is now accompanied by disruptive editing which continues unchecked. My own shortcomings are numerous in terms of protocol and courtesy but my input is made in good faith and with serious intent. Verbcatcher has crossed a line and I draw your attention to the matter in the hope the situation can be remedied."

    Sirjohnperrot (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sirjohnperrot: I am sorry that you have felt it necessary to escalate this. I have tried to be helpful and supportive of you efforts, including spending considerable time analysing the notability of W. T. David (Talk:Laugharne#Professor W.T.David), and tracing your lost relatives (c:User talk:Verbcatcher#Portreeve of Laugharne Image Deletion Request), both of which were in response to your requests.
    My comments about your citation of a web page that you appeared to have created were made in the light of your other unsatisfactory citations that I had recently worked on. These include:
    • Laugharne Corporation Perrot Society Journal Dec 1991 by A.Rees
      • 'Perrot Society Journal" appears to be a grandiose name for what appears to be a self-published family newsletter that was posted to an archive.org account that you have acknowledged that you control. The source does not include the word 'Journal'.
    • Burnham, Andy. "St Martin's Church (Laugharne)". Retrieved 27 December 2018.
      • This was a user contribution to a website. It was not made by Andy Burnham.
    I had asked you give more complete citations; while I am not alleging that these citations were not intended to deceive, it was reasonable to draw your attention to another citation that appeared to be misleading.
    You might care to consider The Mote and the Beam. Among your comments in Talk:Laugharne are:
    • shortening the quote in a vain attempt to support your case is disappointing and disingenuous.
    • you clearly manipulated the quotation in order to support an inaccurate contention.
    Also in Talk:Laugharne, Snowded referred to "Your constant accusations of vandalism" and later wrote "You are again resorting to personal attacks rather than engaging in the discussion".
    On your user talk page your remarks to Snowded included:
    • "mendacious absurdities"
    • "More graceless and dishonest nonsense"
    • "your transparently irrational grounds for preventing legitimate editing"
    • "if you had a shred of integrity you would report yourself and undertake to desist from future puerile behaviour"
    Also consider your edit summaries:
    • 00:43, 1 July 2020 diff hist -15‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 965322876 by Verbcatcher (talk) As per talk page - inconsistent with other entries + unjustified departure from previous consensus with no justification - clear disruptive edit Tag: Undo
    • 00:32, 1 July 2020 diff hist +7,161‎ Talk:Laugharne ‎ →‎Perrot: Disruptive edit reversion + reply from HoP to earlier query as reported
    • 18:51, 30 June 2020 diff hist -3,743‎ User talk:Verbcatcher ‎ →‎Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe of Westmead: Deleted after breach of confidence
    • 11:29, 25 June 2020 diff hist +1‎ m Laugharne ‎ Restoring section alignment for the third time after reversions by this user - who is either unaware of the consequence of his edits in this respeect or thinks they don't *12:46, 1 June 2020 diff hist +118‎ Thomas Perrot ‎ Undid revision 959942299 by Snowded (talk)persistent vandalism by this user Tag: Undo
    • 12:43, 1 June 2020 diff hist +21‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 960138848 by Snowded (talk)Vandalism there is no good reason for these repeated deletions by this users Tag: Undo
    • 12:41, 1 June 2020 diff hist 0‎ Laugharne ‎ Undid revision 960138883 by Snowded (talk This edit is undone because of vandaism, there is no good reason for it. Tag: Undo
    Verbcatcher (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you are not content with your previous offensive remarks but now wish to add further insults.
    • The P*rr*tt Society Quarterly Journal "Family Notes", which you seek to demean with your sneering description as 'grandiose' has been published continuously since 1984. Throughout that 36 year period it has been registered with the Guild of One-Name Genealogical Societies and includes among its worldwide membership many distinguished academics who contribute regularly in its pages. You would do well to remember Wikipedia is also user-generated (without a printed version.)
    • your attribution to me of this citation *Burnham, Andy. "St Martin's Church (Laugharne)". Retrieved 27 December 2018. is entirely mistaken.
    • your description of the insinuations I took action about is patently untrue as anyone can read on the Talkpage
    • my comments about you chopping up quotations in order to mislead were accurate and restrained.
    • my remarks to Snowded are taken out of context and were from the final stages of testing and unproductive exchanges which reciprocated his tone.
    • your other examples of the other iniquities mostly relate to my first faltering steps on the platform when I simply didn't understand the reasons given for repeated deletions and warnings.
    These further attempts to justify your inexcusable conduct through smears and self-serving evasion are revealing but not surprising

    Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I was mistaken in attributing the Andy Burnham citation to you, sorry. My other comments stand. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sirjohnperrot you are heading for a block if you carry on like this -----Snowded TALK 17:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Snowded: Think I've heard something similar from you before - no doubt a willing volunteer to swing the axe eh? I wondered when you'd show up again on here. Another one happy to resort to baseless personal accusations when losing an argument, it's pretty sad to be honest. I hope Oversight have a look at your track record over the past couple of weeks too. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are no longer a newbe editor and you have been warned about constant failure to comply with policy on personal attacks. After the last batch of this I (and others) went to some lengths to achieve a compromise but your response has been to fall back to your old ways. If you can't abide by community rules then your behaviour will be raised and I suspect a topic ban is the least you can expect if that happens -----Snowded TALK 03:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Verbcatcher: So your malicious imputations of dishonesty about my Francis Jones reference [1] were based solely on your view of a citation to this respected and reliable published source which I was unaware did not meet Wikipedia verifiability criteria when it was made. Nothing at all to do with it replacing your own flawed citations [2][3] and removing the contentious quotes within them which spuriously supported your disruptive edit of the NR entry description? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Jones, Francis (1997). "Westmead, Laugharne". Historic Carmarthenshire Homes & Their Families. Brawdy Books. p. 196. ISBN 0952834413. "In the latter part of the sixteenth century, the property was owned by Sir John Perrot, who by a deed dated 29 May 1584 settled certain properties on his 'reputed son' James Perrot 'late of Westmede in the County of Carmarthen'
    2. ^ Thrush, Andrew (2010). "PERROT, Sir James (c.1572-1637), of Haroldston, Pemb.". In Thrush, Andrew; Ferris, John P. (eds.). The House of Commons, 1604-1629. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107002258. Probably born in Munster, James may have spent much of his boyhood at Westmead, near Pendine in Carmarthenshire
      Accessed via "PERROT, Sir James (c.1572-1637), of Haroldston, Pemb". The History of Parliament. Retrieved 30 June 2020.
    3. ^ "Pendine and Llanmiloe". Dyfed Archaeological Trust. Retrieved 30 June 2020. At Llanmiloe to the east stood Westmead Mansion in its grounds, and Llanmiloe House (Laugharne Parish tithe map).
    @Sirjohnperrot:You should assume that in each talk page posting and edit summary I mean what I say, and that I do not have a hidden agenda. I am unclear why you consider my citations to be flawed or contentious. The quotes are directly from the sources and do not misrepresent what they say.
    I did not intend to disparage The P*rr*tt Society, of which I was unaware. Its journal appears to be called 'Family Notes'; citing it as the 'Perrot Society Journal' and not mentioning its publisher was unhelpful and made it very difficult for others to follow it up. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Verbcatcher:Let me remind you of what you wrote:
    "@Sirjohnperrot: there are several issues with the citation you added today.
    The archive.org page that you link to was created today by the archive.org member "Perrott Family of Wales". Are you responsible for this upload? If so it would raise the suspicion that you might have created the page for the purpose of citing it here, and to make the source appear more authoritative. I am not questioning the accuracy of the quote.
    [...]
    It is unclear whether the title of the archive.org page 'WESTMEAD, Laugharne' is from Jones' book or if this was added by the uploader."
    In short what you say is that you suspect I have fabricated a reference - which is a disgraceful allegation for which you have not yet apologised. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirjohnperrot: I said "it would raise the suspicion that". This is not an accusation. You may think this is sophistry, but words are important and you should consider what I said, not what you think I meant. I said that I was not questioning the accuracy of the quote. It was not clear whether the mention of Laugharne on the archive.org was from Jones' book because it was not within the attributed quote. On reflection, the phrase to make the source appear more authoritative might be seen as provocative, but at that point you had not acknowledged that you had created the page. Creating a page on another site for the purpose of citing it in Wikipedia is not appropriate and gave rise to reasonable suspicions, particularly as you had not declared that this is what you had done. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Verbcatcher: You are right, it is sophistry to suggest your remarks were not a clear accusation of wrongdoing. Actually even Protagoras would struggle to conceal that connotation. As it happens I created the page for use in my correspondence educating Dr Thrush but there are several other citations in Wikipedia from the 'Perrot Family of Wales.org' pages which have existed for many years. I'm sure you'll now have great fun tracking them down and gleefully describing their contents as self-published - which of course they are, but only in replica form. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2001/07/2020 09:39


    - Wikipedia wrote:

    > I am an inexperienced user but believe my contributions do benefit Wikipedia and > welcome the advice and guidance given to ensure they are properly presented. My > issue is with unfounded accusations of dishonesty made yesterday by Verbcatcher > on the Laugharne Talk Page/Perrot section for which there has been no apology. His > conduct is unacceptable and is now accompanied by disruptive editing which > continues unchecked. My own shortcomings are numerous in terms of protocol and > courtesy but my input is made in good faith and with serious intent. Verbcatcher > has crossed a line and I draw your attention to the matter in the hope the > situation can be remedied. > > -- > This email was sent by user "Sirjohnperrot" on the English Wikipedia to user > "Oversight". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation > cannot be held responsible for its contents. > > The sender has not been given the recipient's email address, nor any information > about his/her email account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this > email or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you > respond, the sender will know your email address. For further information on > privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. > To manage email preferences for user ‪Sirjohnperrot please visit > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mute/Sirjohnperrot>. >

    From: XXXXX Sent: 01 July 2020 23:40 To: English Wikipedia Oversight Subject: RE: [Ticket#2020070110003506] Wikipedia email from user "Sirjohnperrot"

    I have reverted the edit in question in two stages and that version remains current as I write. The disruptive edit was by Verbcatcher and is identified with a red arrow on this screenshot of the edit history of the Laugharne article

    Verbcatcger edit history

    The context is in current discussion on the Laugharne Talk Page#Perrot and Verbcatcher’s Talk Page#Sir James Perrot & Sir Sackville Crowe.

    To: XXXXX Subject: Re: [Ticket#2020070110003506] Wikipedia email from user "Sirjohnperrot"

    Dear XXXXX,

    Please note, this is not the place to report disruptive users. We act under a strict policy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight ) of what we can and can not remove. To report someone's behavior, please try ANI instead ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents ). If you still feel things need oversight after reading our policy, please email us back and be very specific about what needs to be removed.

    Sincerely, AmandaNP English Wikipedia Oversighter

    the Snowded decides to have another pop and use this situation to get me blocked

    User warnings

    Thank you for your support on my user talk page. For the future, I think it is preferable to put warnings to other users their user talk page (with an edit summary in case the the warning is deleted), so that if an administrator later reviews the editor's actions the warning is explicit. When appropriate, it also helps to use one of the user talk namespace templates (see WikiProject User warnings). We should assume that an admin will not simply count the warnings, but will use them to help review a the issues. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been trying to avoid making it formal. but the time may now be there -----Snowded TALK 14:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Verbcatcher: I think it is becoming a clear case of multiple levels of disruption and an unwillingess to reform or listen so the next stage is probably a case to ANI for a topic pan on anything to do with Perrots, or an 'only proposals on the tale page'. It would be best if s/he learnt how to edit on articles around which there is less personal commiuttment. One of the behaviours is altering source material. #I saw you spotted one example of that. If you would let me have the link I can add it into the draft ANI case. I hope that won't be necessary however.-----Snowded TALK 06:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1. At this point I made the ANI Report given the history of this user given his continuing personal attacks which began with this outright lie about my registration of my username and has continued with multiple interventions claiming he is acting on behalf of a group of editors when it was always just him until he found an ally in Verbcatcher couple of days ago

    here's where it all kicks off with Snowded in my first ever talkpage exchange


    • Yes 2 years ago - that's what my Talk page says at the top. None of my handful of contributions up to this encounter with you have been about Perrots and your reply yet again fails to address the obvious question asked. Instead it is used as a vehicle for more mendacious absurdities.

    My mobile phone doesn't seem to recognise the indentation code btw Sirjohnperrot (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You have made 50 edits, the first two in July 2019 (less than a year ago) were to Gruffydd ap Rhys which were reverted for failing Wikipedia's criteria for verifiabilty. 80% of those 50 edits related to articles where you are promoting the name Perrot which you have assumed as your nom de plume. There is nothing at the top of your talk or user page which says differently. It is hardly a mendacious absurdity to assume you are on a mission here. I've answered your two questions and tried to help out by suggesting something less ambitious that you could put forward on the Laugharne talk page. -----Snowded TALK 15:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sirjohnperrot Username registration 2 years go
    The screenshot of the notification panel on my Talk page above, which you claim does not exist, shows my username registration two years ago. It incontrovertibly demonstrates the absurdity of your accusations that I am on here only to promote Perrots. Your characterisation of my post history is equally ridiculous, this current exchange contains the only references to that name. You have repeatedly failed to justify deleting my additions to the notable residents list for Laugharne and are apparently unable to grasp the wikipedia policies on relevance and notability.

    I am now transferring this discussion back to the article's Talk page in the hope that an editorial consensus will enable my edit adding Sir James Perrot and Sir Thomas Perrot to be restored, as was the case with Sir John Perrot whose entry you also deleted and failed to restore for no good reason.
    Sirjohnperrot (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal for sanction

    At this point, it seems clear that Sirjohnperrot lacks the ability to work in a collaborative system, and no amount of mentoring will help. I can't see anything gained from a topic ban or a short term block, so it is best if we just cut to the chase. I'm proposing a COMMUNITY block for an indefinite period of time (via WP:DE), meaning unblocking will require community consent as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢

    Polling

    OK lets give mentoring a chance. Who is going to step up?Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I still believe this fellow can be saved, with a mentor. My goodness, we should give it a chance. If after one month with a mentor, nothing has improved? then we can apply appropriate sanctions. If not a mentor? then a topic ban. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mentor, if possible. If a mentor can be found, that would be my preferred course of action. Some users have more growing pains with Wikipedia's learning curve than others. There is still a chance that Sirjohnperrot could become a productive editor. They just need to commit to significant correction. That, alongside the oversight of a mentor, can bring the chances of success here well within the realm of possibility. I choose to be optimistic. El_C 17:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, looks like this is the first noticeboard discussion in which they have been involved, their account has been autoconfirmed for less than six weeks, and evidence is not much stronger than the evidence they provided here of personal attacks by other editors. Peter James (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with seven day appeal User appears intransigent, unwilling to learn, quick to blame others, quarrelsome (albeit politely), obsessive on minor points, not self-reflective, resentful, etc - qualities we frequently see in problematic users who drain our collective volunteer energy. I have mentored several times, and mentoring can work with users who have made mistakes but are willing to learn, but doesn't work with those who don't see that they are the problem. This user, albeit they have offered to withdraw the complaint which prompted this poll, still thinks that others are to blame rather than themselves. I'm also not comfortable voting for mentorship when nobody has volunteered to mentor. Because this is a new user and we like to give everyone a chance, we should, however, allow an appeal after seven days. If Sirjohnperrot is able to reflect on what people are saying, and demonstrate they understand what they have done wrong, and why we are voting to ban them from contributing to the project, then there is hope there will not be a repeat of this incident. If Sirjohnperrot is unable to reflect on this and come back after seven days with an acceptable appeal, then mentorship is highly unlikely to have worked anyway. SilkTork (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent points, as usual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (sanctions concerning Sirjohnperrot)

    • Great Ghu! I have not read any of user's more recent stuff. Carried over from his talk? I also see a response from AmandaNP (DeltaQuad) carried over. FWIW, there is more related content here. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
    • Disclaimer please be aware that a large extract from section from User talk:Sirjohnperrot has been pasted into this discussion. This may lead to confusion as pasted content includes signatures from Sirjohnperrot, Snowded and myself for content that we had not posted to this Administrators' noticeboard discussion. This extract also makes this discussion difficult to follow – would it be appropriate to clarify what was been posted from elsewhere, perhaps by placing it in a grey box? Verbcatcher (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm of riper years and with that goes some opinions which seem to be unfashionable on here, such as truth is important. The belief that if you do something crooked, say something untrue - just to gain an advantage - then that gain is not worth having. Ban me if you like but I agree with Mr Kipling - "...on being lied about - don't deal in lies" I don't and if a pack of lies prevails in the community empowered to protect Wikipedia'ss main purpose l it'll be a sad day indeed. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you know, I hadn't read that comment when I posted my comment above, but it is a perfect confirmation of something I said there; you seem to be unable to conceive of anyone sincerely, in good faith, disagreeing with you. Anyone who says or does anything you think is wrong must by lying. Well, in a collaborative project there are always going to be disagreements among participants, and anyone who cannot or will not accept such disagreements as good faith differences of opinion to be worked with, but always sees them as lies and attacks to be uncompromisingly opposed, is, obviously, never going to be able to work collaboratively. JBW (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose if you disregard everybody other than the two involved in my report (+ a few admins) who I've disagreed with amicably and constructively on here then your description of my delinquent state would be correct. There are quite a few of those I like to think but not on this list clearly. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. He's thrown his toys out of his perambulater, now ban him? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 21:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is precisely why you can't adapt to editing here within the policies set forth. It requires you adopt a basic set of rules, some you will find common sense, some, less so, but we all agree with function within the bounds of these "rules". The rules (policies and guidelines) are decided by the community and we agree to comply with them. Or we don't, and we leave. Compliance is not optional. Sadly, I would imagine you are nice enough in person, perhaps a little curmudgeonly, but we all can be as we age. But good intentions aren't good enough. Either you can work collaboratively, or you can't. So it isn't personal (it can't be, I don't know you, nor does anyone else here). It is simply that we have better things to do than debate endlessly over what is already accepted by the community, particularly when you are unwilling to bend in the wind the least amount. Your reaction to my comment just above demonstrates this. This just isn't the right platform for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dennis Brown Why does my last reply show I'm unable to comply with the rules? Your ban proposal and this poll is very unfair. Seeking to write me off as some sort of 'curmudgeonly' lost cause on the basis of this single issue is also both offensive and inaccurate. My relationship with the majority of users I have engaged with on Wikipedia is perfectly good and maybe it's you who need to review your own earlier conduct in this matter and your current prejudicial mode of expression to comply with WP:NPA. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Polls are inherently fair in that they allow the community as a whole to opine and decide an issue, instead of a single admin taking unilateral action. Considering I could have simply blocked you without any input from anyone (that is what admins like myself are granted the tools for), I would consider polling the community to be the ultimate act of fairness, as you aren't subject to the whims or misinterpretations of a single person. The fact that you can't see this is part of the problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've watched many of these (ANI threads) play out over more than a decade here. It may take a day or so before an uninvolved admin decides the conversation here has run it's course and looks over the evidence to make a decision, but unless you make a some serious course changes fast, you're inability to play and work well with others has pretty much sealed your fate. Which will be exile, not poison. Instead of making statements like the one above, you should probably put on a contrite face, apologize to a few people, and endeavor to work within policies and collaboratively, like everyone else here. If literally everyone you encounter here tells you you are doing it wrong, you may want to take the advice on board and consider there may be something wrong with how you do things. Heiro 23:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have acknowleged my shortcomings in this from the start and collaborate happily most of the time. It's an education to read the comments about me on here - as though trying to confront what I regard as an important problem with two users somehow cancels out all the good relationships with the others and brands me as a hopeless case. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a neutral observer, I damn sure don't expect Elizabeth to swoop in and save your bacon, it's going to take a modern equivalent of Dee or higher this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When I got the email note that the Incredible Hulk was on the case there was a brief moment of hope - alas it seems you won't be turning green on my account  :( Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubly doubtful, little dude, this account falsely represents the orange Hulkster. Best I can do is advise you train, eat your vitamins, say your prayers and believe in yourself. Then jump out of that tower and flap your pythons as fast as you can, I hear footsteps! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite seriously, this is all rather upsetting really. Laugharne is our favourite place and while idly browsing its Wikipedia’s article a couple of weeks ago I noticed that Sir John Perrot, it's most famous resident for 300 years until Dylan Thomas turned up, didn't feature on the town’s Notable People list. I ventured to add him - my last attempted edit was two years ago and like that one it was immediately deleted - which got me here. My faculties must be in steep decline because I did actually manage a successful contribution in 2006 - maybe it was easier then.
    My recent Wiki experience was really very positive until now, lots of quality chat with knowledgeable people who are also interested in Welsh medieval history and then onto discussions about poetry, wiki policies on sourcing, copyrights, image formatting and many other topics. It really is puzzling that my attempt to prevent a dishonest claim being repeated through a request to Oversight - and on their recommendation transferred to ANI for action - should result in this profoundly demeaning and unjustified proposal and process. The disconnected bits of various unedifying exchanges I was obliged to cobble together as 'diffs' are now being used to determine "what sanctions I deserve" when only relevant to my report. They are completely unrepresentative of my conduct as an editor when taken out of their wider context but are being used illegitimately as a basis for most the comments made here. Sirjohnperrot (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No further stages. The result here, will be implemented. GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the can appeal after the block is in place, but they will need a much (much!) better case about their actions then they have made here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the last step. Either a consensus opposes and you walk away, or you are blocked indefinitely and may appeal only to the community at large, or the Arbitration Committee, typically after at least a 6 month break. No single admin can overturn a community block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    They have agreed to a mentor [[33]], any volunteers?Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    They also have asked to change their user name to Horatius_At_The Bridge... No I do not think they get it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    9sigh) As a global renamer, I must sadly inform you that renaming is not open to those "under a cloud". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering about that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope he's not gotten the idea that changing his name, will somehow avoid his getting banned. It's the individual behind the username that being considered for a ban, not just the username itself. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have informed them already that is the case.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My request for a Username change has nothing to do with this at all. To make progress I will withdraw my report about Snowded. Please advise any action I should take to confirm this and then you can proceed with your deliberations secure in the knowledge that I'm going nowhere. If you wish it I've said before and I repeat that I'm very happy to have a mentor to help steer me through the Wiki shoals and if someone is prepared to take me on I'll be most grateful. I think we would all welcome a speedy resolution of this sorry saga so please press on and do your duty asap Sirjohnperrot (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirjohnperrot: Withdrawal, at this point, will not close this thread, per WP: BOOMERANG. You cannot simply withdraw to avoid sanctions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't for a moment think or suggest it would, it was simply a gesture of goodwill to help simplify the issues here, clarify that I have never been resistant to mentoring if you think that should be offered and to expedite this process if that is possible.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't taken part in the above poll for obvious reasons but I'd support the idea of a one week ban with the right to appeal. I think there has to be some evidence of understanding of why it has got to this stage and a willingness to read, work on understanding and then apply policy. Throught this saga links have been given but apparently ignored. If no one else is willing and/or Sirjohnperrot can't find someone then I'd be willing to take on the mentor role - although I understand that might not be welcome. That would including helping them on or off line understand what will be important in the appeal. The reason I placed the two warnings (3rr and then NPA) was I could see a block coming if a monitoring admin saw the behaviour and hoped some reflection would be triggered. As a community I think mentoring "difficult" editors is something we need to think about and develop an appraoch for. I've had mixed success in a few attempts but we need editors like this who are prepared to do the detailed work. -----Snowded TALK 05:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirjohnperrot: The issue for many is not do we think it would help, do you?Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would, as my old mentor Sir Karl Popper used to say "experience is what we call our mistakes" and I'm clearly very experienced on here ;) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have only had an account for a year, with less than 200 edits (90% in the last month). No I do not think you are very experienced.11:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Irony doesn't appear to be your strong suit friend. There are clearly some on here who think Wikipedia would be improved if I was just escorted off the premises. To them I say that I believe this platform is a powerful force for good and its aims are irreproachable. I would do nothing to undermine those values and my contributions are intended solely to further them.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was me, I left out a tiled by mistake. And no irony is not often to pick up, in certain circumstances.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You just reminded me of the time Obi wan asks Yoda : "are we going the right way?" and he answers: "off course, we are" Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I liked it, Sirjohnperrot. Thanks for that. El_C 11:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A question, what other platforms would be affected by a Wikipedia block?Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Note this is a more specific technical question, if a block can remove a users ability to use their user name elsewhere that is rather significant, and should affect our willingness to stop people being able to access functionality that is nothing to do with us. I raised it here as until raised by Sirjohnperrot I was not aware it might even be an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The block is isolated to the English Wikipedia, we don't have the authority to block on any other Wiki. That means unless someone is globally blocked (something we can't do here), they can edit at Commons, Simple, German or any other language Wiki under Wikimedia. That is how community blocks have always worked; limited to the Wiki in which it was enforced. Technically, they can go the German Wikipedia and ask for the name change there, and be granted the change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by User:Chaipau at Bhawaiya

    User:Chaipau keeps on edit-warring ([34], [35], [36]) at Bhawaiya without adhering to the sources and policies. In this edit, he changed the lead sentence against what the sources state, bordering on source falsification. Here, he removed the Bengali-language equivalent name which was added per MOS:LEADLANG. He keeps on referring WP:MOSIS to impose on this trans-boundary topic but MOSIS states, "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, Pakistan or any of India's neighbouring countries". All these issues were already explained at the talkpage two days before, but the user seems to have no intention of fruitfully engaging to reach a consensus. --Zayeem (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Kmzayeem is displaying WP:OWN issues in that article. In this revert [37] they claim that the article is not "predominantly" Indian and that the primary language is Bengali, and therefore WP:MOSIS does not apply. The form of music is associated with the erstwhile Koch kingdom which is in India and the historical/cultural footprint of which spans India, Bangladesh and two Indian states-West Bengal and Assam. Chaipau (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bhawaiya spans multiple countries and linguistic regions, and WP:MOSIS applies. Nothing is lost by not having Bhawaiya not listed in the Indic script. Chaipau (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaipau: 'Predominantly' in this context means articles that are solely related to India while Bhawaia is a music which relates to both Bangladesh and India which you have accepted yourself, how does WP:MOSIS apply here? --Zayeem (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kmzayeem: that predominantly means solely is new to me. Chaipau (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaipau: What is 'predominantly' in this context then? And why do you think this article is 'predominantly Indian' when you said it yourself that it "spans multiple countries"? I think you are just gaming the system here. The stable version of the article had always carried the name in local script per MOS:LEADLANG before you started edit-warring. --Zayeem (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kmzayeem: Why are you hung up on predominantly? WP:MOSIS was instated to handle precisely this type of conflicts that touch on "multi-cultural" issues. In the discussion Talk:Bhawaiya#Bhawaiya also belongs to India and even Nepal. your position has been that this is about Bangladesh alone. You have even taken the position that Bhawaiya is not an indigenous form in Undivided Goalpara district in Assam and when you were given references with quotes, you have pushed it down claiming Bhawaiya originated in North Bengal alone [38]. Here is yet another reference, this time from Bangladesh itself, which states unambiguously that Bhawaiya is native to Goalpara too [39]. Clearly you are displaying WP:OWN. Chaipau (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is clearly an issue with your conduct as you are patently lying and giving false accusations. I have clearly stated this topic is a trans-boundary one and relates to both Bangladesh and India multiple times, both at ANI and at the talk page. Earlier I assumed you might be having problems with comprehension but now it appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead. As for my edit, it was also explained here at the talkpage, the quotation you added didn't say it anywhere that Bhawaiya originated in Goalpara. And the emphasize on the word "predominantly" is because it defines the scope of WP:MOSIS, why should we follow WP:MOSIS over MOS:LEADLANG which is the general guideline for all articles in Wikipedia? --Zayeem (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kmzayeem: The accusation of lying is a WP:PA, and you have to give a example where this happened. You have resisted the inclusion of Goalpara as region where Bhawaiya is native and your edit I have reported above is evidence of it. The reference I gave you earlier specifically says that Bhawaiya is from Cooch Behar and that it is also found in Rangpur and Goalpara. I have given additional reference here (above) that Bhawaiya is native to all these regions, including Goalpara.
    WP:MOSIS overrides MOS:LEADLANG because WP:MOSIS is a special case made specifically for Indic scripts over the general MOS:LEADLANG. Moreover, Bhawaiya is also related to the Assamese language not just Bengali language. Since Bhawaiya is associated with multiple languages and regions, WP:MOSIS is applicable and not MOS:LEADLANG. The applicable part of the WP:MOSIS is: One reason why Indian scripts are avoided is because often there are too many different languages with their own native script, which can be original names for a topic. Additionally, there are too often problems with verifiability of the accuracy of the non-English spelling. A third reason is frequent disagreements over which native scripts to include; this led to a resolution to avoid all of them. Chaipau (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment. The MOS stuff is guidance rather than policy. However, the rationale for excluding Indic scripts in the lead has a lot of sense attached to it that applies equally to articles relating to Pakistani and Bangladeshi subjects. In particular, we get a lot of back-and-forth going on with slight adjustments to the characters in those scripts or even wholesale replacement. This being the English-language Wikipedia, such changes are mystifying to most readers and occasionally even result in disparaging terms/pejoratives/insults etc being added by vandals and left lying there for weeks, months or even years. The ongoing nationalist issues affecting those articles (not to mention caste/tribe and religious disputes) make this a minefield. So, unless there is a compelling reason to include a native script, there really isn't much point and there is the potential for unwanted and hard-to-discern vandalism. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sitush: Yes, precisely. In many cases readers of English Wikipedia might not have the correct fonts in their systems and it makes no sense to have these scripts in the body either. In these cases, all the reader will see are empty boxes (e.g. Bhawaiya#Example). It makes no sense to have this only in an Indic script without romanization, and even then this has no meaning without a translation. So if these lyrics are associated with many scripts, should we give them in all of them? We may not need these scripts because we have the links to the different language articles on the left panel under "Languages". Chaipau (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chaipau: you have multiple times ([40], [41]) stated I'm suggesting this article is solely related to Bangladesh (which is an indirect accusation of nationalist edits) and after being shown instances where I have already explained I'm not, now you are asking for evidence of your lying. That's another form of harassment to be honest. @Sitush: thanks for your input, if it does apply to articles beyond the borders of India, shouldn't it reflect on the page? As currently WP:MOSIS suggests it only applies to "articles that are predominantly India-related" and not to articles about any of India's neighbouring countries. --Zayeem (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just telling you (a) it is guidance, not policy; and (b) how things actually play out with these scripts. The row going on between the pair of you is perhaps in part a manifestation of that because it sure looks a bit like a nationality-based bust-up to me. But it is a content dispute and we have WP:DR for that, so I suggest maybe you both stop reverting each other and use the process. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Benti

    RevDel performed by MelanieN (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 04:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    There are recent BLP violations in the histories at this article, its talk page and my talk page. I wrote most of the article. I am now late for work. Can another administrator please revdel as needed? Thanks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, MelanieN. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Lilipo25 repeated and sustained conduct issue

    Both users are warned to better condense, and to always backup claims about one another with evidence. Newimpartial is also warned not to personalize content disputes. El_C 23:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am opening this ANI subsequent to a previous one about this user here. Unfortunately, their conduct has not improved since then, and has recently been especially bad. The main complaint from myself around conduct is repeated false accusations and needless antagonism, which can be seen for example here, here and here. Many other editors have also experienced this behaviour, but my personal experience has been one of repeated, sustained abuse while I have tried as best I can to respond with infinite civility and patience, as I think is demonstrated in the examples given above. The previous ANI was generally viewed as being a content dispute, though I maintained it was not - I think it is now clear that this is very much not an issue of content but of conduct, as it spans articles and editors. As before, I do not want Lilipo to be banned or similar, but I absolutely want this behaviour to stop, as I think we all should. It is unacceptable that anyone should be free to abuse others in this manner. I welcome any way we can maintain Lilipo's contributions to wikipedia while losing the immense and needless distress caused by their conduct.Wikiditm (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Two positive points which I think are worth mentioning. Firstly, following the last ANI, there was an initial period of calm in which no abusive behaviour was directed at me. Secondly, on one occasion of a false accusation being made, this was retracted after I said it was untrue. These two examples I think give us something to work with, and sufficiently prove that the user is a good faith editor.Wikiditm (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiditm threatened me with another ANI (after the one they opened on me in May failed and they were told that there would be no sanctions against me) and I told them to go ahead because I refuse to be bullied into submission by threats of ANIs every time Wikiditm and another editor tag-team me or hound me and I object. The same three editors (Newimpartial, Bastun and Wikiditm) continued tag-teaming me on the Graham Linehan page, so I left and two of them - Wikiditm and Newimpartial - followed me to yet another page, Fred Sargeant, where I was editing (and where neither had ever edited before) and continued the edit warring. I left a message on the talk page of Girth Summit about the WP:HOUNDING and it got worse. Girth Summit has been trying to mediate the dispute on the Sargeant page, and told us to concentrate on that, but Wikiditm threatened to open an ANI on me if I don't toe the line, so I said to go ahead. I'm tired of being bullied and threatened.
    I am sure this will go as swimmingly as the last one, which literally ended in the other tag-teamer, Newimpartial, suggesting that I (a Jew) am just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis murder Jews and that I want transgender people to be murdered (the evidence for this was that I had said nothing about crimes against transgender people in a discussion that had nothing to do with that). Apparently, Wikiditm is just going to keep opening these ANIs until some admin gives them a result they like better. So here we go again. Lilipo25 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lilipo, literally not everything is about you. I gave you plenty of opportunities in that last ANI to recognize that violence and abuse against Trans people - especially sexual violence - is real, and you stubbornly refused to take any of those opportunities, which is where I pointed to how you were, in fact, just standing by while violence is perpetrated on others. What this has to do with your Jewish identity is not clear to me. Anyway, I am just placing this here for those who don't want to go back to the last ANI to reconstruct the context. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, you were warned very clearly by Girth Summit in the last ANI not to state again that because I had not mentioned violence against trans people - which we were NOT discussing at all - that meant I wanted trans people to be "raped and murdered", as you stated then. And you also made an ugly remark in that ANI in which you suggested that because I had not talked about trans ppl being raped and murdered: (Quote: "Lilipo25, I am reminded of those who have historically not "made any statement at all" about the violence directed at people from groups with which they disidentify. You make my point for me.") Lilipo25 (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm disappointed that this has ended up here. We were, I think, making progress at the Fred Sargeant talk page, and had just about managed to thrash out a version of the disputed content through discussion, with all parties accepting some compromise and focussing on content. I'd hoped that by encouraging the parties to engage there, rather than commenting on each other on the gargantuan thread on my talk page, I might be able to help them edit together productively. I'm sorry to see a thread raised here when it seemed we were making progress; if it has been in any way prompted by a typo I made in this post, explained in this one, then I apologise again for that. GirthSummit (blether) 18:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also thought we had made good progress on the Sargeant page and appreciate your efforts there, but here we are. Lilipo25 (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statement by Newimpartial - Lilipo stated above that I "followed them" to the page Fred Sargeant "and began edit warring". This is not a balanced summary of events. While I had been watching this page for some time, I did not become involved until Lilipo reverted the addition of sourced content on the subject's anti-transgender activism; when challenged, Lilipo removed the content again and again, without participating in the Talk page. When Wikiditm added another source to replace one of Lilipo's, the latter reverted twice, again without meaningful participation on Talk as this new material was added. (Lilipo did participate in meaningful discussion between the first and second cluster of reverts, and after the second cluster). It is typical of Lilipo's approach to dialogue that they describe this sequence of events as "following them to yet another page" and "continuing edit warring", seemingly without seeing the role of their conduct (POV edits and reverting) in creating the situation on multiple pages. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be curious to know how long you had been following that Sargeant page without editing it, Newimpartial? You appeared there right after our disagreement on the Linehan RFC, when I gave up and left because I couldn't take being tag-teamed by you and Wikiditm any more. And you appeared on the Linehan article, where I was editing and you had never edited before, right after we disagreed on another article on the Vancouver Rape Crisis Center. Each time, you claim it's merely coincidence that you have taken an interest in whatever page I am editing after I disagreed with you on another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilipo25 (talk • contribs)
    Newimpartial, indeed. Lilipo25 does make some compelling arguments. El_C 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As previously stated, anti-trans activists are one of the areas where I follow a large number of pages. Yes, Lilipo has created or alerted me to some of these, but my editing interest in this area is longstanding. I have never interacted with Lilipo outside of edits related to these anti-trans activists and organizations, their talk pages, editors' talk pages, and ANI. I have never shown any interest in Lilipo's edits outside of this area where their POV is problematic (as I have demonstrated elsewhere in this discussion, with diffs). Therefore I have done no HOUNDING (or "bullying" or "gaslighting" or "DARVO", among the many accusations Lilupo has thrown at me during the last year). Newimpartial (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can partially accept that explanation. But both of you should remain matter-of-fact and professional by focusing on content. That is absolutely key. El_C 23:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As you well know, the material was removed because it was taken from a blog on Medium, which is listed as an unreliable source on Wikipedia. In addition, the blog made no attempt at NPOV. You reverted my edit repeatedly without improving the source, and when I gave in to most of your changes and got you to use better sources, the section was left up. You agreed to that. Then Wikiditm, who had also never edited the Sargeant page, immediately swooped in and deleted the small amount of my editing that was still left in the section and inserted biased language again that set off another editing war there. Even after Girth Summit became involved and told us to stop reverting and discuss, you continued changing the section without discussing first. Now I have compromised again and we have agreed on edits for that section.
    I want to be clear that I will not be insulted and bullied with suggestions from you like you made in the last ANI, about me being like the people who let the Nazis murder the Jews (some of whom were my family members), or with grotesque descriptions of "bathroom pogroms" comparing the 150-year-long genocide of Jews to women wanting single-sex bathrooms, or with false claims that I want trans people killed because I said nothing about crime against trans people. You went far beyond anything resembling civility last time, and it should absolutely never have been allowed. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lilipo, you have repeatedly engaged in POV edits to whitewash the BLPs of anti-trans activists and articles on related groups, such as Fred Sargeant, Graham Linehan and the Vancouver Rape Relief & Women's Shelter. In this context, I think it is reasonable to ask whether you condone violence against trans people, since those whose pages you edit with such POV have been accused in reliable sources of contributing to violence against trans people. If you say you don't condone it, then I will accept that and that particular issue will be put to rest. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet again, you make the same outrageous accusation that you made in the last ANI, that Girth Summit specifically told you in that ANI was "unsavory" and not to do again. To accuse me of wanting violence against trans people is vile and libelous. This is the exact bullying that you subject me to nonstop while following me from page to page on Wikipedia. I cannot understand how you continue to get away with it with no repercussions. Lilipo25 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, people who find a potential characterization "vile" condemn the course of action that characterization involves. Lilipo, do you condemn violence against trans people? Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, I have been trying quite hard to avoid taking sides on this, to mediate and to encourage positive contributions. I still want to do that, but I have to say that this is unreasonable of you. Lilipo25 has done nothing to suggest that she would in any way support violence against trans people. Your repeatedly asking her to make a statement to that effect is very hard to understand. You have never made a statement to the effect that you condemn violence and death threats against people who are labelled as TERFs - I think that it would be completely unnecessary - and downright rude - of me to demand that you do so. I don't understand why you are going down this line. GirthSummit (blether) 20:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I categorically condemn violence against TERFs. That isn't hard for me to do in good conscience. And what is more, I have not and will not edit articles in such a way as to condone or whitewash violence against TERFs. This seems to be to be straightforward.
    On the other hand - and I am happy to supply with diffs upon request - Lilipo has repeatedly whitewashed articles about individuals and organizations with an anti-trans agenda, including promotion of violence against trans people or "standing idly by" while their allies promote violence against trans people. Lilipo's edits have removed reliable sources, made accusations of bias where none exists, and written language into articles that defers unduly to the views of the article's subject in violation of NPOV and BLP policies. So in this context, and given the degree of outrage Lilipo displays when violence against trans people is implicitly compared to violence against other groups with which they have more sympathy, I don't think it is "hard to understand" why I find Lilipo's position on anti-trans violence relevant to this (and the previous) ANI discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not ever edited any Wikipedia article to promote violence against trans people or to 'whitewash' anyone promoting violence against trans people, nor have I in any way ever advocated that anyone should "stand idly by" by while violence against trans people is promoted. None of that is true. Newimpartial is making a disgusting claim to distract from the fact that they have made comments suggesting that I am just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis kill my family, and that they have followed me from article to article on Wikipedia where they have never edited before just to continue the harassment. I cannot believe they continue to get away with this, month after month, with no consequence. Lilipo25 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lilipo, you have certainly whitewashed articles about people described in reliable sources as "anti-transgender activists": notably here, here, here, here, here, and

    here, as well as here. You have also insisted on the insertion of the non-neutral POV term "womanfemale-born" (corrected by Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)), which has been used historically to exclude and promote violence against trans women, here, here, and here. On the other hand, I have never said that you have promoted violence against trans people or even that you are "just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis kill your family" -which is an absurd statement. I have, however, invited you to condemn violence against trans people, or at least state that you do not condone such violence, but you have declined to clarify the matter (as I have for example by condemning Anti-Semitic violence and violence against TERFs). Newimpartial (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You have literally JUST been told by TWO admins, Girth Summit and El_C to stop demanding that I "condemn violence against trans people" because I have never suggested that I in any way support it, ,and of course you go and do it again. Unbelievable.You just won't stop bullying, as usual.
    Nowhere in any of those diffs does it show me "whitewash[ing] articles about individuals and organizations with an anti-trans agenda, including promotion of violence against trans people or "standing idly by" while their allies promote violence against trans people" as you stated above. Nowhere. The use of "anti-transgender" to describe those people and organizations has been in great dispute by many editors, resulting in an RFC just in the past few weeks on the Linehan Talk page that ended with no consensus. But none of them have advocated violence against trans people at any time and that claim is simply false.
    I have never insisted on or even suggested the use of the term "woman-born", which just sounds ridiculous outside of Shakespeare's Macbeth, in any article. In the Vancouver Rape Crisis Centre article, the quoted source referred to "female-born women" and so I argued that we should use their terminology. I also asked you and another editor repeatedly to stop calling ME 'cis' as you knew nothing about me or how I identified. My request was refused.
    And finally, the suggestion you made about me being like the people who stood by while Nazis killed Jews is in the previous ANI. I don't know how to do a diff for it, but it's near the bottom of ANI Archive 1036 and I have already quoted your exact words in this thread. Lilipo25 (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To start at the end, Lilipo, what I actually said, Lilipo25, I am reminded of those who have historically not "made any statement at all" about the violence directed at people from groups with which they disidentify. You make my point for me." cannot reasonably be translated as suggesting that [you are] just like the people who stood by and let the Nazis kill [your] family. Anyone who cannot operate with sympathy for others at the level of abstraction required to read my statement as it is intended should not, in my view, be editing sensitive topics on Wikipedia.
    And once again you make a bald misstatement when you say I also asked you and another editor repeatedly to stop calling ME 'cis' as you knew nothing about me or how I identified. My request was refused. I never once, in that entire discussion, referred to you as "cis", and I can't imagine why you are repeating this demonstrably false accusation.
    I am sorry for my mistake, and have corrected "woman-born" to "female-born" above, but this is still a non-neutral term used to promote violence against trans people, and the source you were taking it from was not using it in its own editorial voice but as part of the terminology used by the subject of the article, which you have been warned against relying on unduly.
    As far as violence against Trans people is concerned, the first of your two BLP subjects "has been permanently suspended after repeated violations of our rules against hateful conduct and platform manipulation" according to Twitter spokespeople. Your second subject publically applauded the police shooting of a black trans man. Your claim that neither of these activists has condoned or encouraged violence against trans people is, ahem, unproven, and contradicts the available sources. Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you both need to step off the ledge. These implications about violence toward trans by attributing that sentiment to Lilipo25, is a bit much, though, Newimpartial. I am starting to lean on closing this report without action, but with some warnings attached. This is not a productive discourse at this time. El_C 23:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you kidding me here? First, Linehan was suspended by Twitter for saying "men can't be women", which is NOT "advocating violence against trans people". I can cite a bunch of sources that have called Twitter's decision wrong, including an Op-Ed by trans woman Dr. Debbie Hayton in the Spectator, if you'd like. And you are actually going to make us try the case of Tony McDade here, on an ANI page, by posting that kind of slander about Sargeant? FINE. This is a ridiculous attempt at further distraction, but you leave me no choice but to present facts.
    McDade stabbed to death a 21-year-old young black man, Malik Jackson, minutes after filming an hour-long video and posting it on his Facebook page, in which he declared his intention to commit the murder and then commit suicide by cop by pulling a gun on police officers because, in his words: ""Just know before I kill myself through a shootout because that's what's going to happen. Cause I'm [going to] pull it out and you know these officers nowadays they see a gun they just [going to] shoot...I will not be going back to prison. Me and the law will have a standoff after I end you bitches' lives...I am killing and going to be killed, because I will not go back into federal prison". Sargeant has worked with the family of the victim, Malik Jackson, and stated that he had no sympathy for Jackson's murderer. Pink News, angry with Sargeant for calling out their incorrect reporting on the Stonewall riots (which Sargeant was at) then ran a hit piece on him claiming he was celebrating the murder of a black trans man by police. They never mentioned that McDade had just committed the murder of Malik Jackson, or that he had posted a video stating that he was about to commit suicide by cop.
    NONE of that is even relevant to this discussion. You are, as usual, throwing everything and the kitchen sink at me in the hope that something will stick. It's just more bullying and I am beyond weary of it. Lilipo25 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Will no admin do anything about this, again? No one? Newimpartial can just keep taunting me and bullying me with disgusting accusations like this about things that I have never implied or suggested, much less said, and do it again and again even after an admin tells them to stop, and there are never any consequences for them for it so it just keeps getting worse? The most they get is a mild rebuke about it being wrong that they just shrug off and ignore in order to continue the harassment. They follow me from article to article around Wikipedia to continue this bullying. How is this okay? Lilipo25 (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't harassment, Lilipo. It was a fairly simple, yes or no question, which you have chosen not to answer. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And lest any Admin wonder where this interaction started, I would point to the discussion recorded here. I will not pretend that I was infinitely patient or perfectly well-mannered in that discussion, but the series of personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations which Lilipo laid on me on that Talk page are beyond anything I have encountered on Wikipedia, and I have been editing "Culture wars" topics here for quite some time. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newimpartial, I have to agree with Girth Summit. You are skirting toward the realm of provocations. El_C 20:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there something "provocative" about my posting the link to that Talk page discussion? I'm not sure what you're reacting to, here. Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm making a general point about you seeking disclosure of allegiances from other contributors. That can come across as a bit much. El_C 20:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, fair. But as far as "allegiances" go, Lilipo believes it is fine to ask interlocutors about COI so long as the question is are "logical". Do you agree? Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First, El_C, let me point out that my asking Wikiditm if they had a COI in an article was the subject of the LAST ANI Wikiditm took out against me (where Newimpartial engaged in these same bullying tactics toward me, and where it was decided that no sanctions against me were warranted). So Newimpartial is now shopping that decision to a new admin in hopes of a different decision. Secondly, I believe Wikipedia policy states that asking if another editor has a COI is permissible. Thirdly, Newimpartial themself just asked me today in the Fred Sargeant article if I have a COI, and I was happy to answer. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking a user to disclose whether they have a conflict of interests (I recommend uw-coi on the respective user talk page), is a totally legitimate query to make when one is in doubt. El_C 21:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Back to User:NVTHello

    User was previously reported for unsourced genre changes here and here. User has once again continued their unsourced changes and refuses to use a Talk page, this time including articles related to Cascada and the latest such changes being at Helicopter (Martin Garrix and Firebeatz song). In my second report to this noticeboard, a suggestion was made by the last blocking admin GeneralNotability to indef the user. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.41

    Probable block evasion: 103.60.175.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making hundreds of edits (semi-automated) making color changes to tables in articles & templates, & leaving no edit summaries. This has made edits that appear to be identical to 103.60.175.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has been blocked for two years. Yesterday, another attempt at block evasion, 103.60.175.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked. Peaceray (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Disruptive edits past 4th & then two final warnings. Peaceray (talk)
    Discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.51
     Please see the discussion at #Probable block evasion by 103.60.175.51. Peaceray (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Malcolmxl5: Thanks! EdJohnston & I have brought this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests#103.60.175.51. Mdaniels5757 has declined this request with this reasoning: "The range seems to belong to a normal ISP, so I wouldn't block for being a colo/webhost or similar. If there was no collateral, I'd recommend blocking the /24 anyways, but it looks like there would be some collateral (see Special:Contributions/103.60.175.51/24 pre-July), so playing whack-a-mole is probably the best option." Peaceray (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peaceray: Nah, per my update there (which I think I pinged you on) "Yeah, notwithstanding the collateral (see the edits from May), a block of the /24 may still be warranted (just not a proxy block)." --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdaniels5757: Thank you for the clarification. I think that I must have misunderstood. I think that if this editor resurfaces on another IP in the same range, we should proceed. Peaceray (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This behaviour has been ongoing for, I think, nearly two years and has been voluminous. Yes, if it happens once more, a rangeblock would be warranted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dyll222

    BLOCKED
    Dyll222 blocked for 36 hours by El C (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 04:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Requesting administrator assistance regarding edits on articles such as Ovation Brands. The editor in question persistently adds unsourced information and is not engaging in talk page discussion, and refuses to reach a consensus, instead adding comments through edit summaries such as the ones here and here that lean towards WP:PA.

    Edits involving the unsourced additions include the following: (1 2 3 4)

    I've tried to follow guidelines per WP:DDE so I'd appreciate admin assistance to resolve this as best as possible. Rosalina2427 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. El_C 23:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Steve Dabliz spam

    BLACKLISTED
    at Special:Diff/962664912/965888943. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Starting in June, various users have created or significantly contributed to spam articles about Steve Dabliz, a non-notable Australian actor. These editors are:

    As you can see, most of these editors have already been blocked, but that's not stopping more from coming in and recreating the article (under different names, such as Steve Dabilz, Steve ‘Stuzz’ Dabliz, and Steve dabliz stuzz). There appears to be some sort of elaborate meatpuppetry going on here. Almost all of the accounts have disclosed that they are being paid to create the article and are contesting its deletion with "This person is famous and notable enough." or something very similar ([42], [2], [43]). I think the only was to deter the creation of this spam article is to block all users that are not already blocked and WP:SALT all article and draft titles that were created about Dabliz. - ZLEA T\C 23:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have salted those pages. El_C 23:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A job for the title blacklist, I think - we have no other articles on people with that surname and it appears very rare. I will sort it. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Is plagiarizing another editor wrong?

    OP is satisfied with the outcome. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to ask whether editors should be allowed to plagiarize another editors work almost verbatim without giving credit?

    For example I have have recently in my user space at User:Mabuska/Normans being doing a rewrite of the Norman invasion of Ireland article. I notified that articles talk page I was doing a rewrite in my user space.

    As of today I have just realised that one editor @Asarlaí: has been copying bits and pieces from my user space and claiming as his own work by not attributing it in his edit summaries.

    The prime example is this edit [44] on the 30th June. Not only does he add the exact same sub-section header as in my user space "Role of the church" subsection , he even copies an entire block of text minus the year that I have written in my user space on the 28th June. Other additions in that edit of his are also direct lifts from my work such as Bernard of Clairveux and his Life of Malachy etc.

    Surely this is wrong and bad faith behaviour? Mabuska (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This would seem to fall under WP:CWW: Wikipedia's page history functionality lists all edits made to a page and all users who made these changes, but it cannot, however, in itself determine where text originally came from. Because of this, copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. Such attribution should be in the edit summary. Schazjmd (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to me like you should have waited more than 20 minutes for them to respond to you before coming here. --JBL (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mabuska, I added more detail after doing my own research and looking back at my notes from 2015, when I tripled the article's size. Most of what I added isn't covered in your draft, and that sentence is only a small part of my new additions. The sentence is similar to yours because we both took it from the same source, pages 56-57 of A New History of Ireland, Volume II, and because there are only a few ways to re-word that. I went with what I felt was the best way of wording that phrase. If it helps, I can remove that line so you can re-add it yourself?
    The heading is "Role of the church" because what else would I name a section about the role of the church in those events?
    Your tone on the article talkpage has been rude and aggressive from the outset. After downgrading the article, you said I am "to blame" for making it "an absolute mess", accused me of "promoting a highly biased narrative" and suggested my references don't support what's written – without evidence. I asked for specific examples, suggested we work together, and welcomed any well-sourced additions. Instead, you became unusually defensive and said "I have not forgotten your issues with sourcing when you went by a different name", which is presumably raking up some incident when I was a new editor. This behaviour is surely incivil and needs to stop. ~Asarlaí 04:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ecclesiastical role is one way. Influence of the church is another. It is simpler for me to spend my time doing a rewrite, which I was going to put up for scrutiny before any of it is put in the article, than to go through all of the specific issues. The reason why I'm sandboxing a rewrite is to prevent article disruption from constant changes to style and format. The fact you have now felt the need to go and make so many new edits to the article shows it had deficiencies.
    Could I have handled it better? Yes. My initial response was spur of the moment and I decided to be WP:Bold in doing a rewrite in my user space. Did I blame you for the state of the article? Yes, but not solely you, though I only named you as you were the main contributor. Other editors have a lesser role to play in it. But I apologise for that and my tone.
    Regardless of how many ways can you word something and copying stuff directly from another editor, you could of asked. Mabuska (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no comment on how this was handled, or anything except the copying stuff. Regardless of whether other editor's contributors are "small", if they are subject to copyright you still need to comply with their licence terms, or you are responsible for WP:Copyright violations. If it continues you should be blocked. Editors should not expect their copyrights will be less respected than anyone posting content outside wikipedia. So unless you are sufficiently an expert on copyright law to be certain nothing you have copied is subject to copyright, what you should do is comply with the advice at WP:Copying within wikipedia. There is no need to let an editor remake any edits. Instead you should ensure that sufficient attribution is provided when you copy content from elsewhere, as that page suggests. Expanding the text even significantly is no excuse for failing to provide the necessary attribution for any copyrighted content. Nil Einne (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Reading more carefully, I may have misunderstood. It sounds like you are not saying that you only copied a small amount of content from the OP but instead that only a small portion of the content is similar and it's not because you copied from the OP but because you use the same source and even with attempts to avoid WP:Close paraphrasing you both came up with similar wording. If my new interpretation is correct, I apologise for my initial comment. If you didn't copy any content from any other Wikipedia page, then there's of course no need to provide any attribution to that Wikipedia page. However I'd urge strong caution if you read that draft even if you don't think you copied from it. Just like there's a risk of close paraphrasing an external source you read even if you are not directly reading it when writing, there's a risk of inevitably copy another page even if you don't think you are. Given the complexities, it may be better to attribute the draft, even if you don't think you copied anything from it if you read it before or while making your changes. That would reduce the risk of an unintentional copyvio. Of course if you never read or didn't read it until after your changes, then it's obviously not possible you were influenced by it so there's no need to attribute but it's unclear to me from your response if you are claiming this is what happened. Nil Einne (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry I don't have time to confirm that the edits are copying (it looks likely). If they are, it is very bad behavior and admin action should occur. Appropriating text from a user's sandbox is extremely discouraging and irritating and this noticeboard should stamp it out. If it's not too messy, it might be best to warn the user adding the text that they must stop, and then delete recent revisions of the article to remove the copyvios from history. After that, Mabuska should add the text ASAP. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Stamp nothing out, when we publish changes to our sandboxes, we agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. It is discouraging and irritating, though. Those who do it here will naturally be despised somewhat by those it irks, that's punishment enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeking sanctions against Asarlai, just whether this is plagiarism. I think they probably will gather from the response that they should attribute such contributions in future. Having said that their reasoning of only so many ways to word something is not exactly true when one looks at the source which has far more information than I used for that specific example, some of which could have been added. I also feel there was more than enough scope for something original even if similar to mine to be written. Mabuska (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's crazy tricky, and copyright infringement cases often last years or more, using trained professionals. Even reading up on how copyright judgements tend to lean is hard intellectual work. I recuse myself, good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The simple answer to the question posed in the title of this section is "yes". Plagiarism is by definition wrong. The real question is whether this was plagiarism. And plagiarism is not the same thing as copyright violation. This discussion really needs better focus, starting with a better title, before anyone can comment productively. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to say this could well be a case of two people saying the same thing in a very similar way. wp:agf.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Slatersteven: If one looks at my text on the 28th and Asarlai's on the 30th as linked too at the start of this discussion and compare the source which Asarlai provided above with page numbers, you will see it is not a case of two editors simply coming up with the exact same phrasing considering what I left out. It is a case of copying. Mabuska (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to request this discussion be closed. The question was answered and a relevant policy noted: WP:CWW. No further action is sought or needed. Mabuska (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Vikasb2003 & Disruptive editing on BLP article

    The user has been trying to edit the page of Ramanan Laxminarayan which is a biography of a living person. The section they intend to insert includes original research cited to a tweet (note, even the tweet does not support their addition in full). On being provided warning templates and links to the relevant policies, their response has been to indulge in personal attacks and revert back their edits.

    Tayi Arajakate Talk 05:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for WP:NPA, WP:DE. El_C 06:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    An uninvolved admin's eyes, please

    On User talk:Pasword wiki there is a Discretionary sanctions alert notice, placed at 19:23, 28 June 2020‎ by NitinMlk. Since that date and time my perception is that Pasword wiki has made edits in potential contravention of that notice. I would appreciate the eyes of an admin to be run over the contributions history and individual edits made with a view to deciding if my perception is correct.

    I am about to notify both the editors of this discussion on their talk pages Fiddle Faddle 09:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Timtrent: Dif's please. Too old, too tired, and too dyslexic for WordSearch. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra, I guess I can supply a load of diffs. But it is genuinely simplest to look at their contributions record, and to note that they are editing in highly contentious BLP areas and effectively adding caste (a truly contentious issue) to the names of living people. Perhaps we might just look at this one? Fiddle Faddle 09:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't need a lot of diffs, just a few of the most egregious ones or ones which are otherwise noteworthy. El_C 09:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, * try this one with no refs or faux refs Fiddle Faddle 09:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a low quality edit, but I'm not sure that that, in itself, is actionable. El_C 09:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, I see Sitush has been pinged. His opinion carries far more weight than mine in matters of caste. I will defer to him Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Timtrent, always happy to defer to Sitush. El_C 09:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Timtrent, yeah, please cite the relevant diffs directly to this report. El_C 09:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Caste issues? @Sitush:, can you sift this? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking now. I think I have had some dealings with them. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See below. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, a bitter description of how the DS conditions are not being met. Or how they are offending? Gah. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, educating the user as to how they are editing incivily or disruptively before filing here is best. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Deepfriedokra, apologies. I've been on an extended wiki-break for several years. I forgot more than I ever knew Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Been there. Done that. Welcome back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    LOoks like more unsourced editing. Which can be blockable w/o going through the DS stuff'09:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, if there is a pattern of unsourced edits, then the user may be sanctioned on that ground. El_C 09:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only looked at stuff since they got the DS alert on 28 June but note that there are plenty of templated warnings on their talk page prior to that date, including ones relating to sourcing.
    • This is no worse than what was there (the sources mention both a Gujarati use and that they were herdsmen, so both should be mentioned - I'll assume using "farmer" is just a language issue)
    • This has a decent source and one that is a mirror - they may not be aware of mirroring
    • There are a lot of sourcing issues at this caste list. Have they been made aware of the info at User:Sitush/Common#Castelists?
    • No idea where they got the info for this edit - unsourced and not mentioned in the article body as far as I can see. May be right, may not be.
    • Similarly, not sure where they got the Hinduism from for this edit, although it is likely that historically they were Hindus simply because Sikhism is a much later development. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've issued an escalated warning to the user: further unsourced edits are likely to be met by sanctions. El_C 10:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Sitush. I gave them the link. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you one and all for picking this up. Fiddle Faddle 10:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2603:6000:8D40:77F:BD12:50AD:7448:D01

    Anonymous user repeatedly making unexplained and unconstructive edits to Vehicle registration plates of Wisconsin:

    And also posting unconstructive gibberish in the talk pages for Roman numerals and 20th Century Studios:

    Three warnings from three different users (myself included) have clearly had no effect.

    It's not for me to comment on this individual's state of mind. I will say, however, that I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is not supposed to be treated as if it's a toy. Klondike53226 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Klondike53226, likely a WP:CIR issue here, although the disruptive editing seems to have stopped for now. Maybe something to keep an eye on. Ed6767 talk! 00:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they haven't edited in over 24 hours, either at the stated address or at another address in the range. I will keep an eye out, however, since Vehicle registration plates of Wisconsin is on my watchlist. Thanks, Ed6767. Klondike53226 (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP User Evading Block Thru Sock Puppet

    84.203.69.48 has been blocked for a month due to disruptive edits. However, it seems the user is evading the block with a sock puppet as 84.203.70.13. 84.203.70.13's disruptive edit edits, shown here, here, and here are exactly the same as 84.203.69.48's edits, shown here, here, and here. I tried taking the issue to SPI but there has been no attention given to it so far. While I've been waiting, 84.203.70.13 continues to make disruptive edits, I reverted this one today. Armegon (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for a month again. I'm not really familiar with this ISP, so I'm reluctant to do a range block. Anyway, these IP addresses seem to stick for a long time before changing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Insistence against declared RM consensus and other tendentious editing

    User:Velayinosu has been active on Wikipedia for less than three months, but has already collected about 10 comments on their User talk page regarding unhelpful and obnoxiously non-collaborative behaviour (together with some accolades). After an RM was closed in which the user had participated and was not fond of the outcome, they have moved the article back to its previous name twice, including after a User talk page comment about that not being appropriate, and without opening a WP:Move review as was suggested to them. The article in question is now again at their preferred title, Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, despite an RM consensus declaration two weeks ago that came out differently. The user has also exhibited a remarkably sophisticated level of knowledge of how to edit Wikipedia for someone who has been around only briefly. Although this person also seems to have done a lot of helpful editing and has been extremely active, I suggest a brief block to get their attention and let them know that they need to learn to play nice with others. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    BarrelProof's complaint to Velayinosu about their unorthodox move was posted at User talk:Velayinosu#Your article title move contrary to a declared consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that anything that I have done warrants being blocked from editing. Organisms that have hyphens and dashes in their name is not addressed by WP:MOS and it has become standard on virus articles to use the hyphen for scientific names of viruses since that is what the ICTV does. My proposal is to keep the article in line with the hyphen standard until the MOS is edited to clarify how this situation should be addressed since the move to the dash is itself disruptive at this point in time. (If that is wrong, then fine, but the MOS issue remains.) I've started a section on the MOS talk page for this and it would be beneficial if others could participate in it (a related discussion is also being held at Talk:Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus). Velayinosu (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The RM was open for two weeks, and Velayinosu's was the sole expression of opposition (on an article that was getting about a thousand views per day). Based on that, it seems hard to say the RM discussion "was closed improperly/prematurely/etc.", as they alleged on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Opening a discussion at WT:MOS is fine, of course, but they should not insist that their preferred outcome must prevail while others consider their proposal to change the MoS to support their point of view. And this is not the only action by this editor that has generated complaint. As I said, their User talk page shows about 10 complaints in a 3-month period of activity in this account which shows a very high amount of expertise and activity for a new user. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited the MOS comment to address your concerns. And those warnings on my talk page were for minor things that were all resolved without further issue which I hope is the ultimate result of this discussion. If the problem is the overturning of the move discussion result, then I won't do that from now on, but the MOS issue should be addressed and it would be beneficial if uninvolved people participate in the discussion as well. Velayinosu (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not change what your comments say after someone else has already responded to them, especially if it is to remove statements that have been quoted or commented on specifically in someone else's remarks. That confuses the historical record and makes it impossible to understand the comments that others have made in response. I have reverted your change to what you said at WT:MOS. It is better to add further clarifying remarks as separate new comments, or to apply strikethrough formatting to the original comments and add a note to explain why some remarks have been struck. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed the 9 other complaints on the User talk page, and none of them seem to have turned into protracted disputes. However, a common theme was not providing sufficient WP:edit summary information to explain what the editor is doing. As Velayinosu has already said they will respect RM results, I think this matter can be closed if they will also pledge to try harder to provide adequate edit summaries in the future. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    BRM Aero Bristell Malicious Deletion

    Hoping for the best; thank you Ahunt. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    BRM Aero Bristell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Users are maliciously deleting information from the BRM Aero Bristell wiki page. Information had previously been omitted and was then added. Information was sourced and then users deleted the information I added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shandak2020 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Shandak2020: Actually, your canard is unfounded in that reasons have been explained in the edit summaries. This is a WP:content dispute and you have been wp:edit warring. Please discuss on the article talk page why your preferred version is better. Please discuss content without insulting those with whom you disagree. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Shandak2020, you're headed straight for an indefinite block if you keep this up. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shandak2020: The content you added violates the manual of style and is promotional in nature. The sourcing has been called into question. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly we have a WP:COI issue here. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We have engagement now at Talk:BRM Aero Bristell, so this thread can probably be closed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruption from Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is a Bulgarian user who is constantly editing articles concerning Macedonia, Macedonian people and the Macedonian language with blatant chauvinistic Bulgarian propaganda and pseudo historic "artificially created nation" myths, and is glorifying Axis occupation as "liberation" by citing dubious and biasedly one sided Bulgarian sources. Examples:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavel_Shatev&diff=prev&oldid=963892765

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Macedonian_Uprising_in_1941

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonians_in_Serbia&diff=prev&oldid=957238827

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonian_language&diff=954199612&oldid=954196050

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonian_language&diff=954200901&oldid=954199612 Dedokire (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably the case is related to this issue. Wikipedia warriors: The new frontline of the battle for Macedonia organised by the United Macedonian Diaspora. Jingiby (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothere boomerang? Or just close? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What's really great is when outsiders go to the trouble of campaigning against you off Wiki. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked per NOTHERE. The fact that this came out of nowhere from an inactive account smells of sock or meatpuppetry. If I had a dollar for every nationalist/ethnic edit warrior on Wikipedia...Sro23 (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    right-e-o. 9 edits in 10 years and then stuff I ain't sayin' --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you User:Sro23. It is unfair that User:Jingiby's nationality was targeted now just for doing his job. There is a worrisome trend of meatpuppetry on Macedonia-topic articles as of late. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 07:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Beese84

    Beese84 made this edit, listing "the administration of President Donald Trump" as neo-fascist. I reverted this as non-neutral. Beese84 then made the following posts: [45][46], stating: "I would like this matter escalated. I am logging every part of this conversation and will be releasing it on major media outlets unless...". This media release is way out of my pay grade, and I request that someone else take this up.--Mvqr (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've replied on his talk page trying to explain why his post was WP:OR and asked him not to make threats of that manner. Hopefully he'll take it on board. — Czello 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.--Mvqr (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What to do about talk page stalkers

    OP blocked for 48 hours by Bishonen for personal attacks. Johnsmith2116 is reminded not to make personal attacks in edit summaries (or anywhere else for that matter) when their block expires; I'd also request that they use edit summaries more frequently to describe changes they are making in articles - a single full stop/period is not very helpful for other contributors. GirthSummit (blether) 15:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    When someone is going about things and minding their own business cleaning up their own talk page which they have the right to do, and another editor, unprovoked, feels the need to come and chime in with their two cents for no reason, what can one do about that? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Notify the other user of this thread and invite them to discuss. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like the logical thing to do, but supposing that they are not the rational type and don't care? Especially when their offenses include a false allegation, and a threat? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And learn what wp:stalker means.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you mean Wjemather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), , they messaged you about WP:CRYSTAL. You then reverted that message with the edit summary (false accusations, no apology either, too many *ssholes in wikipedia). They re messaged you with a further explanation. You are certainly OK to revert messages, but the edit summary "(These pieces of sh!t don't listen, continue to falsely accuse, Scumbags are everywhere)" is incivil. They asked you to discuss content, politely. (That's all back in April. There followed some mediawiki messages.) They then asked you to provide citations on 2 July. You removed that message with the edit summary "(Too many **sholes in this life) ". They responded with a NPA warning. You removed that warning with the same edit summary, more or less, as before. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never mentioned anyone's name in that. If someone wanted to interpret it a certain way, I have no control over that. And we're getting away from the point here. I have the right to edit my talk page as I see fit. I'm not the one harassing anyone. I have five figures' worth of edits in Wikipedia and have had little trouble over time. But recently one editor came out of the blue and started giving people a hard time and making false accusations, and watched people's talk pages for whatever reason. A number of editors are complaining about that person privately because that is the only way they feel safe to do so. I don't need the aggravation, I have too many responsibilities and others I have to look after without having to deal with all this. This should be a place people can come to and relax. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to mention names, we can all read your talk page history and edit summaries. You have provided evidence that you have been rude, uncivil, and unhelpful. The other editor, the one you revert and blank, has been helpful and constructive towards your editing. You are very close to breaking many of the rules of conduct here and should maintain civility. If you don't want to be sanctioned, take a deep breath and move on. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why I said the filer needs to read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between harassment and talk page watchers. Sometimes if you have the answer to a question, it's harmless to answer that question. It sounds as though you have a problem which is not directly related to talk page stalkers, though.doktorb wordsdeeds 14:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also sounds as if Johnsmith2116 might not, actually, want to draw further attention to their talk page and how they respond to (relatively) reasonable messages... ——Serial # 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    e/c Hey User:Johnsmith2116 you need to learn the difference between being abusive to an areshole on your talk page, and somebody trying to help you. At the moment, you are the one being the arsehole. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just noticed the thinly veiled threat Johnsmith2116 has left on a user's talkpage ("you should hear what people are saying behind your back...This is the only warning.") I think we may need to look into making this a formal investigation into John's conduct, language and behaviour, re WP:CIVIL. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is taken the wrong way. I was trying to get across to them that other editors are fed up with him and have been discussing their frustration behind the scenes. There is no threat there. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This [[47]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Special:Log/block&page=User:Johnsmith2116 FWIW, OP has been blocked in the distant past for NPA, so maybe reread WP:NPA  ;) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (multiple EC) It's generally accepted that if you specifically ask someone to stay away from your talk page they should do so. So if someone keeps messaging you on your talk page there is an obvious solution. However you should be aware that if you cause problems and an editor cannot speak to you about it because you banned them, people at ANI may understand them bringing you to ANI even though the normal suggestion would be to speak to you first. And regardless, if you continue to violate our policies or guidelines when lots of people have tried to speak to you about it, you're likely to be blocked. You removing messages means you are supposed to have read them and taken on board any key advice, for example as self people have said, cutting out personal attacks. Continuing to call your fellow editors "assholes" or saying they are "not rational" suggests you failed to do so. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out it's fairly unlikely there were 265k of "false accusations" Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered messaging them, but their email option has not been enabled. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not email people over conflict on Wikipedia. Except in exceptional circumstances where privacy is involved, all communication surrounding what's going on on Wikipedia should occur in public on Wikipedia. You are obviously aware of user talk pages, so I have no idea why email even came in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) If I may add 2 additional points. One we are not idiots, crouching things in hypotheticals doesn't mean we are going to ignore you clearly referring to another editor as "not rational". Two, in case it's unclear, the way to ask someone to stay off your talk page is to use something simple and polite but direct like "Hey, can you please not post on my talk page anymore (excepting compulsory notifications)?" It's not to go around calling editors assholes and expecting them to understand this means you want them to stay off your talk page. P.S. In case it's unclear, such a request should be posted either to your talk page, or to the other editor's talk page. While edit summaries have their uses, they shouldn't be used for things like this. And as I said email is a definite no-no. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks User:Deepfriedokra for the notification. Yes, the biggest problem here (for me) is abusive edit summaries in response to being advised that certain contributions are problematic (violations of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NPA, WP:ES, missing references, etc.). For what it's worth, I thought the messages I left were fair and appropriate but always happy to be corrected. Not sure what else I can add here, but in future I'll certainly consider seeking an admin rather than responding myself in such situations. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk Page of DreddHK is Pure Hit Piece

    The article Peter Romary has been deleted. The user Dreddhk last edited 5 years three months ago, and the offending content on their talkpage has been revdel'd. No need for this to remain open any longer. Bishonen | tålk 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

    I was involved in discussion of an article for deletion. This person authored the article, I went to Talk Page and saw this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreddhk

    Where do I begin on how many rules this breaks. Page he authored is deleted, looks like s/he has not been on Wikipedia for years, looks like someone wrote a note, deleted it and User put it back up and then we go into the Twilight Zone. I noted others have complained too but this seems to be nothing but unfounded, unsourced and potentially defamatory material that has just been left. Spelling is bad, also rambles on about seemingly being fired by subject of article s/he wrote. S/he also acted as if did not know subject and subject's brother (also left up attack on him).

    Seems this person either has no knowledge that talk page guidelines apply to personal pages or just doesn't care. Been almost 7 years since they have been on so if they come here now then we know they have watched things!

    I'm not going to blank the page as last person who blanked what they wrote got barked at and user then posted what was blanked back up (as if s/he wanted to keep up the note). I'm not trying to be lawyer here, but I understand defamation is crime in many nations and also each day something is up is another republication. 6 years, s/he may have made their point? ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC) ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the potentially offending content from the user talk page pending the outcome of this discussion. It can still be seen in the history. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks to you Phil Bridger. The article nominated for deletion has been deleted, I wonder if the whole page should be blanked? I leave that with those of you who have more knowledge than me. ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits have been revdel'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Four rangeblocks for Austin music vandal

    Four rangeblocks placed by El C. Bishonen | tålk 18:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

    I would like to request four rangeblocks for someone who is actively putting wrong facts into music articles. The IPs are all from Austin, Texas.

    The location and area of focus, especially the interest in music by the Wombles (band), remind me of Verone66 who was indeffed in September 2018, but who continued to use Texas IPs such as Special:Contributions/99.23.39.93. This guy is a persistent pain. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 3 months (all). El_C 17:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Awesome. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Whistleblogger editing Jesselyn Radack in apparent violation of WP:BLPCOI; also EDITWARRING

    (non-admin closure) Blocked indef on Jesselyn Radack. {{3125A|talk}} 13:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The WP:SPA Whistleblogger is editing Jesselyn Radack, in apparent violation of WP:BLPCOI.

    Editor previously identified herself as the subject of Jesselyn Radack, on June 9. This was done in these notes, to these edits, both from 9 June 2020:

    The editor has added material to Jesselyn Radack which, if this is actually Jesselyn Radack, is a violation of WP:BLPCOI, in the above edits, also in edits:

    The edits make criminal claims against a person who is suing the real Jesselyn Radack in court for malicious prosecution and defamation. Whether or not it's her, these edits are WP:BLP violations.

    The editor Whistleblogger is also editwarring, having been reverted several times. Editwarring happens here:

    The situation needs attention.

    NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See contributions list. Normal Op (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW, which editor is she accusing? Normal Op (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CORRECTION Looking at the edits, it appears that Whistleblogger is accusing "the person who wrote this section", which, based on the article edit history for that section is mostly NedFausa. Implication is she may be accusing NedFausa of being a person that is suing the real Jesselyn Radack for malicious prosecution and defamation. Which is pretty far-fetched. NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whistleblogger may have been referring to now-blocked user KalHolmann (talk · contribs), who started the whole Fitzgibbon discussion in 2018. There was also an article for Trevor Scott FitzGibbon which was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Scott FitzGibbon). I think this accused edit warring situation is a little more complicated than the OP makes out. Maybe a CheckUser is in order? Normal Op (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW is right in inferring that Whistleblogger alludes to me in her two edit summaries that accuse the author of "this section". The section in question is FitzGibbon criminal and civil cases. MediaWiki's analytical tool Who Wrote That? does not provide a precise metric, but does indicate that I contributed most of that section as it then stood: 100 of 134 total words (≈ 75%). Accordingly, please let me state for the record that I am not Trevor FitzGibbon, and have never interacted online or offline with Jesselyn Radack, Trevor FitzGibbon, or any of their known associates. And since I am neither a serial predator nor have I ever been reported to the police for sexual assault, I request that an administrator promptly exercise WP:REVDEL to expunge those scurrilous accusations from the edit history of Jesselyn Radack. NedFausa (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully a REVDEL person can redact just the edit summary text, but leave the edit there. Otherwise, future evaluations of behavior won't be possible. Unfortunately, REVDELing the edit summary would also remove Whistleblogger's own OUTing. I think Whistleblogger should be COI'd/blocked before a REVDEL takes place (else the evidence goes poof). Normal Op (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RevisionDelete allows redaction of edit summaries only, leaving the edit itself visible on the public wiki. Administrators can still review the unredacted summaries. Nothing on the Internet ever truly disappears. But at least Whistleblogger's allegations against me of criminality can be removed from public view. NedFausa (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Man, what a mess. I just read another ANI for another editor of that page. If what he has said about the Fitzg case and Radack is even half true, she doesn't need to be editing her own article. But the other concern I have is that OP of this ANI seems pretty experienced for a new user (one day old). He seems to know about edit warring, User Talk pages, ANI, posting diffs, COI, BLP. He has no edits except related to the Jesselyn Radack article. SPA? Sock (resurrection of one of the older blocked/banned accounts)? Normal Op (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Normal Op: Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 22:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Psiĥedelisto: There's a world of difference between an advanced content edit with citations properly formatted... to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (using the non-pejorative sense). And since this editor jumped right into the deep end of something controversial, with at least two prior editors being blocked, it's worth looking into. Normal Op (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have revdeleted the edit summaries under RD2 and have partially blocked Whistleblogger from the page in question due to unanswered autobio concerns and the BLP issues. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This could be a WP:DOLT case. While I'm not sure about the COI's editor's edits, the section of concern seems to have major problems since it seems to rely heavily on court documents in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Regarding Normal Op's WP:BOOMERANG indef block against NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW

    No admin action is needed; above discussion that this stems has already closed. No need to hash out a debate about whether users who are sockpuppeting should or should not be blocked. only (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    @Normal Op and NedFausa: I feel compelled for some reason to link this rant for posterity: Special:PermaLink/966366704 § User talk:NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW § Sockblock so it lands in the archive of this thread at least, and to ping Ponyo the WP:CheckUser while I do it. I know no good will come of this; I know that it can be seen as needlessly "making enemies" and "picking fights", but it's not my intention, I just feel that this CU request was unnecessary, and I want my voice in the archive if nowhere else. I don't want to be seen as a coward either, writing only on Ned's talk page and not here. I don't know that anything Rechtsstreitigkeiten did warranted this, and I feel like Ponyo could have chosen to simply not run the CU and wait and see if NEWFineyoungcannibalsNOW further disrupted the project, given the amazing service they did for the project by uncovering this serious WP:BLPCOI violation. We're penalizing the wrong things, I'm afraid. That's all I have to say, and will now WP:Leave it to the experienced to work it out, but I can't sleep without voicing my dissent, which is not disloyalty. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 18:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Another rangeblock against Ottawa music vandal

    Latest IPV6/64 range blocked for 3 months by NinjaRobotPirate. (non-admin closure). --Jack Frost (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Someone using IPs in the area in and around Ottawa has been vandalizing music articles, adding hoax material and wrong dates. Materialscientist blocked the previous range twice, the second time for a month. The top range on the list below is active now. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    These IP ranges seem to stay allocated for a few months. I blocked the latest for three months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Superb! Many thanks. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Megacheez

    Reported editor indeffed by Black Kite. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    Kind of new to Wikipedia, so not entirely sure whether discussion here is need or not, but aforementioned user Megacheez has been making numerous edits in various baseball-related articles to change single/double-word spelled-out numbers to numerals, in possible violation of manual of style. Megacheez has been warned about this in the past, and because the edits are so numerous (they number in the hundreds per week,) I can only add a few examples:

    [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

    Megacheez has also been adding many length unit converts to baseball-related pages but these probably aren't violations.

    If this isn't a violation I'm sorry to have wasted your time. Klohinxtalk 06:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been going on for several months now. Looking at the user's talk page they have been given specific warnings about this[53][54] and the user has even acknowledge the warnings,[55] yet they persist. I think it it is time for a block to get this editor's attention that this is not acceptable behaviour (when the correct course of action has been pointed out including reference to the MOS) and also to prevent further such disruptive editing. - Nick Thorne talk 07:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Several months? Several years, by the looks of it. Looking at the talkpage, they've been warned about the MOSNUM issues at least eight times (not to mention a number of other MOS and similar issues), and they're just carrying on doing it. I think there's possibly a CIR issue here when they reply to a warning with "You're welcome" and then carry on doing exactly what the warning was telling them not to. As a result, I have blocked them indefinitely until they discuss the issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism by Kami2018

    The User Kami2018 [[56]] is back at removing or adding information to Pashtun and Afghan pages without inserting credible and verifiable source/reference for his edits. For example he removed information from Kharoti without any reason or adding any reference for the changes: [[57]]. Similarly, he made this edit [[58]] to the article Bala Hissar. He removed the word 'Afghan', please be mindful of the fact that same editor was reported twice before, in late 2018 and then early 2020, for removing "afghan' word from articles or changing content of the articles relating to Afghanistan or Afghans in away to leave out the word 'Afghan' and this user repeatedly gets reverted. In yet another an example of his Pakistani-Punjabi nationalist driven agenda here [[59]], he omitted information and the attached sources/references so that he could remove the word 'Pashtunized' from the article. This edit was reverted [[60]] by another user who has been editing the page Delhi Sultanate for a longtime. However, Kami2018 again inserted the same information by removing the references/sources attached. Please view the history of the page for further clarification. He has done the same to other articles, and he has been repeatedly warned for his edits to Pashtun pages. I would expect that the action to be taken against this specific individual. Here are examples of this user removing the word 'Pashtunized' which had been inserted after the agreement came from other users, from the articles

    I strongly recommend a ban on this user for a certain period from editing articles related to Pashtuns and Afghans.101.50.92.206 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    6 July 2020

    Dealt with. Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User talk:Muboshgu was attacked by User:2600:1012:B160:FD21:0:4A:97A:8C01. CupcakePerson13 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Racism (at Idris Elba)

    Racism at Wikipedia -- just below the surface -- rooted in the notion that black people cannot be English (at best, they can only be British). This idea is apparent here. We also have a talk-page section [64] -- a bit dated, except that there are some recent contributions going along with the first post in the section. It is also apparent in the way Idris Elba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited to favour British over English -- despite clear self-identification ("Listen guys: I'm English".) This is all quite shocking. We simply would not be having the same sort of discussion (and editing) in connection with a white person... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. Strange then, that nobody has noticed that six of the seven forwards listed at England national football team#Current squad are not "really" English. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The fuller discussion is on the BLP noticeboard, along with my comments on the matter as it should relate to ANI. Their most recent (5th) change to reintroduce their edit has been reverted, and an admin has warned them not to reinstate it. Let's just see how that goes. Assuming they drop the stick now, I'm not sure (further) admin action is needed. Also, you should've left ANI notices on both Chris Tomic and Ryan Soul's talk pages, as I believe you're referring to them in this matter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have applied a 72 hour block for the edit warring (I note that it was not a 3RR violation, but it was edit warring nonetheless). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    182.186.108.113

    182.186.108.113 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) WP:NOTTHEM behavior on usertalk ([65] including accusing others belonging to the Mafia. Please revoke TPA. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Victor Schmidt: Maybe you inadvertently posted the wrong diffs, but the diffs posted do not support your complaint as they are diffs from an entirely unrelated user. However, having said that, the block hammer seems to have fallen anyway. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know about. I saw the metaphoric comparison of Wikipedia to the Mafia on user talk page. Dismissed it as post-block grousing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgent block needed

    I don't see a need for a block, and this appears to have been discussed in the appropriate place. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    It seems that Kwamikagami is replacing straight apostrophes with curled ones and moving a lot of pages. I think a block is urgently needed. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's an ʻOkina. © Tbhotch™ (en-3). 17:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact, the admin has left an explanation of that in regard to Hawaiian articles at WT:HAWAII. — Maile (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They are no longer an admin, but otherwise, yes. El_C 20:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironically, a few days ago I requested a list of all WP articles with curly apostrophes in the title, and have been moving them to straight apostrophes. There were over a thousand, which suggests no-one has cleaned this up in a while. — kwami (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The beginnings or harassing/stalking behavior

    No stalking or harassment has occurred. No administrative action is necessary. Closing this thread because no good will come of it staying open. only (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    It looks like user Alexbrn is in the early stages of harassment/stalking behavior. He/she seems to be following me on wikipedia and indiscriminately reverting edits. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apitherapy&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_access&action=history.

    It is a creepy feeling when a user is tracking your movements around a site.

    Please do something about this editor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Noloader: please provide diffs for the reverts that bother you. All I can see is that Alexbrn is one of the editors who has reverted your edits at Apitherapy, and that they reverted one of your edits at Open access, only to make a self-revert back to your version a couple of minutes later with an edit summary indicating that the first revert was a mistake. --bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    bonadea - The Apitherapy was definitely a disagreement. I thought that was the end of things.
    I don't believe Alexbrn's arrival at the Open Access article is random. I seem to be an object of user Alexbrn desire, and he/she is now following me around the site. This is very creepy behavior from Alexbrn.
    It should lead immediately to the question... Why is Alexbrn now following me around the site and reverting valid edits? Here is the edit (there's only been one edit since the Apitherapy article): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_access&type=revision&diff=966291239&oldid=966255601. (The citation I removed was a duplicate and malformed, like a copy/paste gone bad).
    Also take note of Alexbrn's response below. Rather then take responsibility for his/her actions, he seems to want to blame the person he/she is harassing/stalking. As if I am somehow responsible for him/her visiting my profile, clicking on my latest edits, and clicking revert.
    Like I said, this is very creepy behavior from Alexbrn.
    Jeffrey Walton (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noloader, maybe that just clicked on the wrong button to end up at the wrong page. Assume good faith. El_C 20:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C - Sorry, I don't believe it was a mistake. They were intentional actions by user Alexbrn. To be a mistake, user Alexbrn would have had to "accidentally" clicked at least three different times - once into my profile, once into my history, and once to revert the edit. Randomly landing on the Open Access page alone would be a 1 in 6 million event given there are 6,114,482 English pages.
    Jeffrey Walton (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? They are allowed to review your contributions, if they so wish. You should not take offense if they make a mistake in the course of that. El_C 20:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C - I completely agree anyone is allowed to make an edit. Subsequent edits happen all the time on this site. The oddity about this is, it was not a random edit by the next editor nor was it an improvement. User Alexbrn seems to be harassing/stalking me and reverting valid edits and turning them back to the former brokenness. That should at least concern you. If user Alexbrn is willing to harass/stalk me, then he/she will do it to others; and his/her edits are not improving the site - they are diminishing the site.
    20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    One error in one article does not a pattern make. El_C 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C - an article error is usually not a problem. The harassing/stalking behavior is a problem. And the willingness to revert edits out of spite is a problem. If you are not seeing the big picture, then maybe you should escalate the issue to Wikipeida administrators or employees. I'm guessing folks with professional training will have a better understanding of the issues at hand.
    Jeffrey Walton (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, your evidence of "harassing/stalking" and "spite" consists of two (2) edits, one of which was almost instantly self-reverted? Dumuzid (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noloader: I can't really have been "following" you to Apitherapy when I've been editing that article on and off for years before your arrival there. As to the edit yesterday at Open Access, it was a mistake (I misread a diff) and I reverted a few minutes later. I should note this is your second recent report of me to an admin board after your malformed report at AN3[66], and you have said on my talk page that my behaviour is "stalking" and "very creepy".[67] So, I'm beginning to think that yes there might be a problem here, and that it's not me. You've been here long enough that you shouldn't be this WP:clueless. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noloader, your evidence is insufficient, and at the moment, serves as an aspersion. Your must show a pattern and show that it makes sense. You report does neither right now. El_C 20:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C - As I posted, we are in the early stages of the harassment/stalking. It is best to stop this sort of thing quickly.
    Jeffrey Walton (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra - If all you see is an edit and revert, then I believe you are missing the bi picture. If you are not seeing the big picture, then maybe you should escalate the issue to Wikipeida administrators or employees. I'm guessing folks with professional training will have a better understanding of the issues at hand.
    Jeffrey Walton (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are more eyes on you now than if you hadn't made this report. I am not seeing anything actionable here - if this is stalking/harassment, then I should hand back the keys to my account because I routinely click through to Users' contributions if one of their edits seem a bit suspect. I would withdraw this and carry on as if nothing happened. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 21:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Alfie. I think I'll let the request stand because the behavior was obvious and egregious. It is not appropriate behavior to stalk another editor, revert edits out of spite, and put an article into a [formerly] broken state. If you are engaging in the behavior then I think you should rethink your position.
    Jeffrey Walton (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Please forgive my ignorance. This discussion is now closed. What action has been taken?

    Kremlin IP editing American political articles

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

    I first noticed this IP promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory as if they were an American who believed in it (I am one of them since 2 weeks ago, we have official site and etc. We will have one of us in congress soon.). They have also argued that Trump can do whatever he wants with regard to copyright. Now, when a user with an account makes statements that they believe QAnon is real or true, other admins and I have given them maybe one warning before indefinitely blocking them as lacking distinction between reality from fantasy necessary to edit.

    There are other edits to non-political articles that don't appear to be problematic but elsewhere the IP sings Putin's praises (for putting in a loophole that will allow him to stay in office indefinitely) and even mocks those who don't join their chorus. They have also asserted that Crimea was not part of the Ukraine (as if Russia's invasion was totally legitimate).

    The IP geolocates to the Kremlin. Given that Russia has a history of interfering in various website to skew public opinion, should this IP really be welcome to edit articles relating to international politics? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible to partial-block IPs? If so, we should partial-block them if this is what we should expect. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 22:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nuke it from orbit. Heiro 22:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarification: does the IP geolocate to "the Kremlin" (your words), or to the whole city of Moscow? Otherwise, if an IP is disruptive it can be blocked whether it's coming from Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Washington DC, or the North Pole. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not if it's not a Kremlin employee, the IP pretending to be an US citizen fits one of the tricks used by the Russian web brigades. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "The IP geolocates to the Kremlin.". Your topic heading is "Kremlin IP editing American political articles". But on the page that you linked to, all I see is Moscow. Am I missing something, or are you assuming that's the same thing? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=966408174"