Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Solavirum and Turkic nationalism, denial of Armenian genocide

• Solavirum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Solavirum recently claimed that the Armenian Genocide had "happened because of the Armenian revolts, which happened because of the rising Armenian nationalism". I had first encountered Solavirum when he voted to keep an an article I nominated to delete. The article was an obvious POVFORK that gave genocide denial undue weight, yet Solavirum voted to keep it without any explanation beyond a personal attack: "seems okay. This request is WP:JDLI."

Solavirum mostly edits articles related to conflicts involving Azerbaijan and Turkey, usually related to Armenia. He has frequently been POV pushing in favor of the Azeri/Turkish narrative and often engages in edit wars, for which he was recently temporarily blocked on two separate occasions for 3RR edit warring on July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes and later on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.[1][2]

Recently, User:Saotura was indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for pushing Turkish nationalism and Armenian Genocide denial in articles. Solavirum made a comment in support of the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE edits that Saotura made: "when did someone's personal views became a basis for block?"

Solavirum has also been previously warned about topic bans for Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts (AA2) on at least three separate occasions, first by @LouisAragon:, then by @Cabayi:, and finally by @Addictedtohistory:. --Steverci (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Update I understand most administrators will likely be unfamiliar with this historical topic, so here are some sources to provide some context on why this constitutes genocide denial:

“ One of the key arguments made by genocide deniers is that the deportations, and whatever “unfortunate excesses” occurred during them, were not part of a plan of extermination but rather a response to an Armenian rebellion in the eastern provinces in collaboration with Russia.

This officially distributed educational material reconstructs the history in line with the denial policies of the government portraying the Armenians as backstabbers and betrayers, who are portrayed as a threat to the sovereignty and identity of modern Turkey. The demonization of the Armenians in Turkish education is a prevailing occurrence that is underwritten by the government to reinforce the denial discourse.

The Turkish state and those few historians who reject the notion of genocide have argued that the tragedy was the result of a reasonable and understandable response of a government to a rebellious and seditious population in time of war and mortal danger to the state’s survival... There was no genocide, and the Armenians were to blame for it. They were rebellious, seditious subjects who presented a danger to the empire and got what they deserved... Still—the denialists claim—despite the existential threat posed by the Armenians and their Russian allies to the survival of the empire, there was no intention or effort by the Young Turk regime to eliminate the Armenians as a people.

In the past ten years a more sophisticated neo-denialism has emerged, which elaborates the argument that the Armenians were involved in insurrectionary activity that necessitated a counterinsurgency response from the Young Turk government. A number of authors have worked with Professor M. Hakan Yavuz and published works with the University of Utah Press. While there are differences in emphasis and interpretation among their works, these writers are to a large degree sympathetic to the defensive attitudes of Turkish government and military officials, favor evidence and accounts exculpatory of the Young Turk policies, and emphatically reject the notion of genocidal intention.

”

References

--Steverci (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, this is ridiculous. You're constantly pushing a wrong narrative here. The whole discussion (which Steverci opened in several different pages, and always getting rejected) was that you had no sources for your claims of any relation between Ganja missile strikes and bombardment of Stepanakert. And that's why I presented you the same rhetoric, where, without any sources, I could also present a false viewpoint, relating events with each other and showing a false narrative. Accusing others of pushing a nationalist agenda is a heavy claim, and you need legit grounds for that. Furthermore, I did not voted against it because I denied the genocide. Even if I did, without a doubt, would still have nothing to do with you, or the others. The thing is, the editors' personal opinions are, as given in the name, personal to them, and unless those opinions colides with the editors' published edits, and behavior, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Though, in Saotora's case, it seems that it did, which I realised later. Furthermore, I did not said that Saotora was right on his edits, but I was against his indefinite block, as the user, who had joined Wikipedia in a month or so, probably did not knew the existing guidelines that well. LouisAragon's warnings had came years ago, when I was not quite familiar with the project itself, and citing years old warnings is not relatable to present day and the present situation. For the past blocks in 2020, yet again, I was not familiar with the 3RR rules, and had since grasped them. That's why my last block was several months ago. In the meanwhile, Addictedtohistory's warnings were largely false, as he was constantly, and randomly accusing me of personal attacks. Let me remind you that giving warnings to other users just to make yourself look right, doesn't actually make you right. Unless you have legit grounds of me pushing an agenda, this application is a false flag. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to invite HistoryofIran, who we share topics of interests, to possibly opine here, if I'm pushing a Pan-Turkist agenda here, or not. LouisAragon's thoughts could be useful to, as we had discussed some issues regarding the given topic in the past. In 2018/19, as a young teenager, I had not grasped the WP:RS (as the Azerbaijani historiography provided a whole different narrative, completely stranded from the Western historiography), and had minor conflicts with the two users. But those were three years ago, for Steverci to cite them, it is misusing an editor's rough beginnings. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Finally, though, as you might have guessed, I don't like things personal to me, including my personal opinions, be exposed on Wikipedia, for the record, I do not deny the genocide. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I have interacted with Solavirum on azwiki where we briefly had a dispute. I don't see Solavirum as particularly that nationalist (and has protected the Armenian genocide article in Azeri from denialists).
  I'll further add to what he have responded with this is not a warning. It is explicitly not a warning. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. It's obvious by Solavirum's comments that he does not deny the genocide and what you quoted was him intentionally providing a false view point for comparison. And I'm not sure why so many of you make this mistake, but sanctions alert is not a warn. It's an alert to simply inform users. About that article deletion, it seems to me that he voted to keep it after a large chunk of genocide denial and irrelevant material was already removed from the article. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I can't speak of SolaVirum's actions in the past because I don't remember/don't know, but I currently don't think he is attempting to push a pan-Turkist agenda, and he has been relatively easy working with, at least with me. Sure, there are some things he hasn't completely learned (as he himself just admitted), but at least he is open to learn and is indeed learning. I'm gonna assume WP:GOOD FAITH and don't think he attempted to justify the Armenian genocide, but I can kinda see why Steverci would see it like that. At the end of the day we have to be very careful when speaking of emotional topics like these. This comment is not directed at anyone, just some food for thought; Even if the main reason (or one of the reasons) for the genocide was because of a revolt (I'm not well-versed in this topic, so I apologize in advance), that's still pretty messed up. Imagine if every power (Soviets, British come to mind) attempted to cull/destroy a civilization because some of them revolted, we wouldn't have anything left. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @HistoryofIran: Attributing the genocide to "revolts" is plain and simple genocide denial. --Steverci (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Justification of Genocide, to be precise, which shares common aspects with Denial of Genocide --Armatura (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • You both take that quote out of context when I've clarified why I've published such a comment. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This is WP:WITCHHUNT in my opinion. Solavirum's activity is not similar to Saotura's nationalistic quest. The provided diffs do not show strong, long-term, or undeniable similarity between the two users. Solavirum should be more cautious and neutral especially when dealing with some topics. We don't want wars/dramas between ethnic groups and nationalities on WP. There is zero point in indef-blocking normal users just because they may have done some mistakes or problematic edits. I supported indef-block for Saotura but I oppose this one. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Solavirum's profile on Azerbaijani language version of Wikipedia explicitly denies Armenian Genocide: (https://archive.is/wip/FmOmj page archived today] with İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı template that says "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim." I think a larger-than-a-specific-user outcome of this discussion would be establishing whether it is allowed to deny established genocides (like Armenian, Jewish, Rwandan, Cambodian, etc) on any Wikipedia / Wikimedia branch. As for the nationalism, there are signs of Turkish nationalism / Panturkism ("This user supports the independence of East Turkestan" "This user demands freedom for South Azerbaijan", "This user is in favor of recognizing the independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", and "This user wants Turkish to be the official language in Iran" although understandably "This user does not recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and considers it Azerbaijani territory". Again, if it is okay anywhere in Wikipedia to openly hold such views and take a reverting approach on the related topics, that is fine. If not, then something needs to be done to prevent this phenomenon Wikipedia-wide, rather than in a specific user. I am talking Wikipedia as a worldwide phenomenon, not just English Wikipedia. --Armatura (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Anyone with any view is allowed to edit Wikipedia, and the use of userboxes to express these views (provided they aren't beyond certain lines, and a genocide-denial userbox, if it existed, would be well over one of those lines) is generally allowed, and can even be seen as a declaration of interest/potential bias, which is actually productive (now if they start spreading political opinions outside of their own user page, then it can start to become a problem). The thing is users are required to edit neutrally regardless of their views (or the expression of same on their userpage). If they can, it doesn't matter what their own personal opinions are. If they can't, they're going to wind up getting sanctioned anyway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for elaborating, The Bushranger. By saying template I meant userbox (a small colored box designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user). This is that userbox: https://az.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Eablon:%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i_erm%C9%99ni_soyq%C4%B1r%C4%B1m%C4%B1, called "İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı", translated as "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim.", and it is placed on Solavirum's page in Azerbaijani Wikipedia: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i:Solavirum/Haqq%C4%B1mda#Siyasi (second from the left on top) . The other thing that causes a concern Solavirum rejects a denial of Armenian Genocide here by writing "for the record, I do not deny the genocide" 04:16, 19 January 2021 higher up in this discussion, whereas he demonstrates Armenian Genocide Denial userbox on his talkpage, the very userbox he apparently work on https://az.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/X%C3%BCsusi:Tarix%C3%A7%C9%99/%C5%9Eablon:%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i_erm%C9%99ni_soyq%C4%B1r%C4%B1m%C4%B1 How to understand this? --Armatura (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, az.wikipedia is its own project, we on en. can't control what goes on there. But, first check and make sure that wasn't placed on their page by some other user (that does happen). Beyond that... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to get too involved, but I just want to note that "İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı" translates to "User Armenian Genocide" and not "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim.". Also, the userbox was added to AzWiki 3 years ago, so the user could've well changed their mind about it in that time, so it's not correct to label what he's saying as a "reject a denial" without proof. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The Bushranger He added it himself. Moreover, he created that userbox. As for the remark of CuriousGolden (who was keen to interact with Solavirum off Wikipedia during 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War), the userbox "İstifadəçi erməni soyqırımı" says "Bu istifadəçi Erməni soyqırımı iddiasını yalanlayır" which Google page translations defines as "This user denies the Armenian genocide claim" and that userbox is currently featured on his page. There were further worrisome things on Solavirum's talk page in Azerbaijani Wikipedia: the userbox Capitalist was previously saying Nationalist, the userbox Classic Liberal was previously saying Gray Wolf - a banned Turkish neo-fascist organization diff, the user apparently "did not recognize recognise Armenia as a state" and viewed it as "territory of Azerbaijan". Moreover, the details of Solavirum's actions on English Wikipedia interestingly appaear with details in a media article named "Aykhan Zayidzadeh prevented Armenian provocation in Wikipedia" by Azerbaijani nationalist "Qarabağ Media" Facebook page. Citing the fragment from that propaganda piece:

"Armenians defeated on the front are also defeated in the media fight. This time their ugly intentions didn't pay off. Aykhan Zayidzadeh, an active user of ′′ EnViki "- addressed to the managers of the English language section of Wikipedia. Aykhan Zayıdzadeh achieved a week of protection of the article."

The user made his details openly available and I can recognize SolaVirum's signature in those screenshots. Blessings addressed to Aykhan Zayıdzadeh follow. My concern is not Azerbaijani Wikipedia in isolation but the fact that the edits of Solavirum on English Wikipedia are far from being neutral. He is apparently a 16 year old teenager (as openly stated on his Azerbaijani Wikipedia user page and as he mentioned himself in discussions) and tolerance is a generally a good thing but I am afraid too much tolerance can be abused and result in paradox of tolerance --Armatura (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think I'm going to engage any further since you seem to be making off-topic remarks again (which you just got warned for). By the way, contacting people outside of Wikipedia by emails and by other means to exchange resources/material is common practice. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 23:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijani Wikipedia is a project of its own. I've previously stated that using years-old stuff as an argument/evidence of misbehaving is not okay to say the least. Two-to-three years have passed since then. My contributions on Wikipedia has proven to be neutral and productive, and my personal beliefs have not collided with my edits. Users are allowed to have political opinions. I shall reiterate that I don't deny the genocide, though, I had in the past. Past, is left in the past. I don't think I've actually made any additions or removed information regarding the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, Armatura, you should keep everything on-wiki, we don't need off-wiki stuff. Going deeper into my personal life wouldn't make your points legit, but actually, wrong. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see how Wikipedia can be improved in any way by having Solavirum skewing topics toward a genocide denial viewpoint, and toward a Turkish nationalist viewpoint. His colleague in such opinions was voted off the island one month ago at Archive1054: User:Saotura and Turkish nationalism, denial of Armenian genocide. Solavirum spoke in favor of Saotura who was nonetheless banned by the community. It must have felt very personal for Solavirum to see that Saotura was banned for essentially the same stuff Solavirum has been doing: adding Turkish nationalism and genocide denial, and posting a foul statement on a userpage. The difference between Saotura and Solavirum is that Solavirum lasted longer because of better English language skills which allowed writing with bias hidden more deeply. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"stuff Solavirum has been doing: adding Turkish nationalism and genocide denial, and posting a foul statement on a userpage", provide links where I've been fueling Turkish nationalism and denialism on Wikipedia articles. And your overall rhetoric is worrying at best. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's factually inaccurate to say that the Armenian Genocide was caused by revolts. The only Armenian revolt that existed when the genocide was ordered (most historians agree in February, March or early April 1915, i.e. before the defense of Van) was in the paranoid imagination of the Young Turk leaders (not unlike how Hitler was convinced that "the Jews" declared war on Germany). The revolts happened as a result of the genocide, rather than the cause of it. Reversing the cause and effect and painting Ottoman Armenians as treacherous or rebellious is a major theme of genocide denial. (I can provide references if necessary). That said, I am not familiar enough with Solavirum's editing to know whether in aggregate it is problematic. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please acknowledge the fact that i presented that as an example of an illogical statement that can given out without any sources. I have to reiterate that such thing does not represent my opinion. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• There is a clear interaction issue between Armatura and Solavirum (eg. this edit and the message it is replying to) and other issues regarding discussing contributors not content ([3]). This wp:battleground approach is likely not solely due to Solavirum (AA2 is a fraught area), but the diffs presented in the opening statement above are concerning, have not been explained, and it is difficult to take sincerely the deflective defence of "as you might have guessed, I don't like things personal to me, including my personal opinions, be exposed on Wikipedia" from an editor who has literally uploaded a photo of themselves to Wikipedia. CMD (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

AzWiki is a different project. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this statement? CMD (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight. I don't deny the genocide. Though I did several years ago, when I added that userbox. It is a simple example of me forgetting to remove it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
• My 2 cents worth I had many interactions with Solavirum in the past few months around the 2020 Artsakh-Azerbaijan war. They have been characterised by disrespect, ill humour and bullying. He is unquestionably a pan-Turk advocate. I have no evidence of him being an Armenian holocaust denier. I have plenty of evidence of him attempting to whitewash or erase any wiki detail that would suggest or support that large areas of Nagorno Karabakh, either in the the Republic of Artsakh or wider, are now, or ever were, Armenian. His entire agenda is to portray large swathes of territory as being happily under the benign sway of Azerbaijan since forever. Is history erasure the same as holocaust denial? Comes pretty close in my view. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposing a ban: topic or site?

This isn't going to happen. Solavirum is encouraged to email the Oversight team. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, a lot of folks here are concerned about Solavirum's non-neutral editing behavior. It's time to suggest a ban of some sort, for instance a topic ban from Turkey/Azerbaijan-related articles, or a site ban on English Wikipedia. If we go with a topic ban, it will affect about 99% of Solavirum's editing pattern. So the difference between a site ban and topic ban is small. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC) I've thoroughly explained my position above, though I will make an abstract version of it. I do not deny the genocide. That quote was taken out of context and a simple look at the issue on hand will give the colleague a view of the whole picture. In the meanwhile, yes, I did deny it in the past, about two-to-three years ago. Opinions and views change overtime. I've not even edited the Armenian Genocide article. The off-wiki links provided by the others users are worrying. I've been editing on Wikipedia for about half a decade now, and I've actively participated in attracting other users to the platform, thus, having an off-wiki activity about Wikimedia. I don't choose the headlines either, most of my off-wiki work is concentrated on notifying the public about how the encyclopedia works, such as explaining reliable sources and neutrality. The general "non-neutral behavior" must be proven with diffs. The topic is controversial, and editors with different backgrounds, especially ones from the conflicting parties have different positions. It is best for Rosguill, who was a meditator during most of the war's active phase, to comment on the issue, if my behavior is bannable, or not. Several other editors have opposed my ban above. It is basically a witchhunt to go over and ban an editor just because he/she has a different position than you over a particular issue, which is a daily part of building the encyclopedia, and is delt with achieving a consensus. I've done my part during the said time period, and have been collaborative. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 05:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Solavirum, I noticed that you have published articles in several Azerbaijani language journals. Please explain who submited the screenshots of diffs of your edits on English Wikipedia together with your photo and real name to Qarabagh Media - a known anti Armenian / Anti-Artsakh online resource with the hateful text describing "ugly intentions of Armenians" and then Solavirum's "achievement" - 1 week protection of a WP article by admin Woody Regards, --Armatura (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @Armatura: Could you please link to the "Qarabagh Media" post/article you have mentioned? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) CuriousGolden already provided above but providing again https://www.facebook.com/1645797089031224/posts/2825555651055356 --Armatura (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Evidently you're still a genocide denier as of three days ago. Also, I wanted to assume good faith, but if you're going to make baseless witch hunt accusations despite obvious evidence of misconduct, I will point out that at least 2/3 of the "several other editors [that] have opposed my ban" are users you're known to have contact with off-Wikipedia,[4][5] so it's more likely you're WP:Canvassing. --Steverci (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @Steverci: Let me get this right. You're saying both me and HistoryofIran have been canvassed into this discussion? And your reason for that is that we have contacted the user outside of Wikipedia 4 months and a month ago respectively? Want to make sure I understood this right, if I didn't, please feel free to elaborate. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 16:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) How else would you describe Solavirum openly pinging HistoryofIran above? In your case, given that you're both apparently Facebook friends and also frequently collaborate on talk page discussions,[6][7][8][9] it's certainly a strong possibility. --Steverci (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC) User:HistoryofIran is known to be a neutral voice on these topics, so it's not hard to figure out. And especially, it's not WP:CANVASSING. I'd suggest reading WP:ASPERSIONS as from what I can understand of your comments, you seem to be accusing me of coordinating with Solavirum outside of Wikipedia without any proper proof other than assumptions, which breaks the aforementioned policy. Your permanent topic ban has only recently been lifted, so I advise to be extra cautious with such accusations. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I doubt Solavirum would've pinged an unrelated user if he didn't think it would benefit him. The policy asks says unless there is evidence. I have not made any accusations, but I've provided proof that Solavirum is canvassing in this discussion, that you both have contact outside Wikipedia, and that you both frequently push for the same resolution on talk pages. All of this is important to be aware of. --Steverci (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I don't think we have same understanding of what "evidence" means. It would be evidence if you had clear proof (e.g. log of chats, going to talk page to request specific comment to be made and etc.) of a canvassing case. What you've said, unfortunately, is only a personal opinion. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Support site ban per WP:BMB: The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. As @Binksternet: pointed out, Solavirum's genocide denial, which he considers "personal views", prevents being able to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. --Steverci (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC) (Note: Voter is same person who opened the report) I said I don't deny it couple times by now. A: "You deny the genocide"; B: "No, I don't"; A: "You deny the genocide". Do you want me to deny it at this point? --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Oppose site ban: I have my own differences with Solavirum and despise most of his political opinions, but I still strongly believe that banning someone on account of their personal views is an extreme overstep. This is particularly true regarding political articles where it's near-impossible to find people without an opinion on said issue (and those that do are often those with limited knowledge/understanding of it). I believe any sort of long-term/permanent ban would set a very bad precedent for the Wikipedia community, as it will undoubtedly lead to future (subjective) bans of so-called "biased users". The fact that the user filing this report also seems to have his own personal biases on most Armenian-Azerbaijani articles as well leads me to believe such a ban is less about improving Wikipedia and more about removing the "competition". --Qahramani44 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I want to note that I didn't try to make any insults, and I don't support Armenian Genocide nor any independence claims while respecting to the countries' right of independence, neither any other wrong behavior. I just tried to make analyze and find a solution. I'm trying to be neutral as soon as possible as an uninvolved person on this event (maybe except the same interest on topics, or edited 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War). I tried to understand what is the exact problem. First of all, as far as I see, the first argument was the user voted as "Keep" on a discussion. However, at the same time; another user who is I know with their neutrality (Mccapra), said the same: "All seems fine to me." Again, another person (Peterkingiron), said "Keep": "Keep -- With the Turks denying that there was a genocide, it is probably better to have an article dealing with the controversy, providing a venue for the deniers to vent their theories, in the hope that the main article can be kept clear of such stuff. This is an article about POVs held about the issue. That is quite different from having an article pushing a controversial POV (which is not allowed)." And again, the user who opened deletion discussion, and the user who reported to ANI is same, as a point. A second argument was the user's genocide userbox (which is an understandable concern due to Saotura's userboxes, and these are insultive). As the users said, the user included such unacceptable userboxes (which also I don't accept personally), as "This user denies Armenian Genocide". But that event was months ago (nearly eight months ago), and the user changed his mind. Plus, I and everyone in here should accept that everyone did mistakes in the life and returned from their own mistakes as soon as possible. (like Steverci's sockpuppets, or my 72-hour block due to POV pushing and edit warring.) If someone says "No, the user did a lot disruptions for preventing edits from genocide articles"; then please show evidence with diffs. However, the other claims such as the user supported other areas' independence and therefore should be banned is absurd, that's a personal opinion like "This user supports Kurdistan independence" or "This user supports Catalonian independence"; or "this user supports Armenian nationalism". About wolves, I wish to say that it's generally seen a symbol for nationalism (see Banknotes of Turkey, Grey wolf (mythology) and Asena), and the organization that mentioned only adopted the name (which is Grey Wolves (organization), and has links to MHP, plus even banned in Azerbaijan after 1995, and defined as a terrorist organization). Not every Turkish nationalist (like the similar situations in other countries) does support MHP, or is far-right, or approve their actions; see CHP as an example. About the Facebook coverage, I wish to say that this is that Facebook page's opinion, and does not involve the user's acts. Also, the user never declared his support for that page. Please try to not make personal attacks. About Saotura event, which is I also watched closely due to an article discussion, I agree that the user refused Armenian Genocide and I also accept and support their ban per WP:NOTHERE after looked to their contribs while the discussion is ongoing. Especially after everyone saw the evidences, a lot of people supported this ban or didn't make discussion after evidences. Again, Solavirum claimed that the user is newbie (joined one month ago at that time according to Solavirum), and didn't get enough warnings; and therefore opposed. As my opinion, everyone knows that the people in Turkey and Azerbaijan looks frowned towards Armenians, and vice versa, the people in Armenia looks frowned towards to the people that identify themselves as Turks. (again, I'm against these opinions, - because everyone is human, and nobody deserves being killed (including Hrant Dink and Uğur Mumcu) -, and I thought that's related to mass media, teaching, and propaganda in the countries.) That's my opinions and analyses. I wish to remain as an oppose per WP:AGF, and I wish to say that I couldn't be able to find a strong evidence for banning among conversations. If I missed out something, I'm sorry; because I wrote this in one or two hours. Also sorry if I wasn't able to clarify correctly. Ahmetlii (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Support Site ban as per WP:NATIONALIST, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:BADIDEA The editor, a 16 year old teenager, is just damaged by ethnic hatred to the point of no return, saying this with regret. His social media pages, full of voluminous ultranationalist militarist hateful stuff, are really worrisome, enough for safeguarding team and social services to be involved, if they exist Azerbaijan. This is the user who claims "past is past" and whom his comrades justify saying "it was just a few months ago". Instead of introspection and using the chance for atonement, there is complete denial and attacking those who criticized him. This 'gem' was posted on Solavirum's Twitter page just 10 days ago: [REDACTED] Now, one thing that should not be tolerated on Wikipedia is nacizm, fascism and the likes of those anti-human views. Citing from Wikipedia:No Nazis mentioned above: It is a common perception – based on our claim of being the encyclopedia anyone can edit – that Wikipedia welcomes all editors. There is also a misconception that because maintaining a neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles, administrators would be acting contrary to this if they blocked a racist upon learning of their public self-identification. Because of this, many neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians, and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities[a] – hereafter referred to collectively as racists – believe they are welcome to edit Wikipedia, or that they can use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool, so long as they stick to the letter of our policies. This is not true. Racists are not only unwelcome here on Wikipedia, they are usually indefinitely blocked on sight if they express their racist ideas on-wiki. There is direct evidence that the editor publicly denied Armenian Genocide, supported banned Turkish group Grey Wolves, posted hateful speech against Armenians and so on, being careless on his social media and Azerbaijani Wikipedia and being slightly more careful on English Wikipedia, but remaining the same person. Saying "everything was in the past" is an excuse to stay here for longer, just sticking tighter to the letter of WP policies. The best proof of that is that no regret was seen and no apology was offered for that unacceptable behaviour. Unless he has a diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder, when one identity cannot control the other one, he should be banned. He may be given a chance for ban removal in the future, when he becomes an adult, but editing Wikipedia with this much racial hatred in mind is just unacceptable. WP guidelines for junior editors (1, 2) have been grossly ignored. Tolerance should not result in Paradox of tolerance. --Armatura (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC) I have removed the link you posted to external social media. That is completely inappropriate. Nor is it appropriate to wield age like a cudgel, please refrain from doing this. CMD (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Some editors here were worried that the presented evidence so far was mainly about off-EnWiki activities. Here goes the proof that Solavirum is part of a larger nationalist organization that targets English Wikipedia to skew Nagorno Karabakh Related articles. He even received an award from Azerbaijani government for fighting Armenians on English Wikipedia. Open your eyes, my friends, this is a larger issue that you and I thought. --Armatura (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Diaspor Komitəsi və "Karabakh is Azerbaijan" “Vikipediya”da ermənilərə qarşı mübarizə aparan 16 yaşlı Ayxan Zayıdzadəni təltif etdi. Azərbaycan Respublikası Diasporla İş üzrə Dövlət Komitəsi Tovuz hadisələrində və Vətən müharibəsində “Vikipediya”nın ingilis dil bölməsində ermənilərə qarşı mübarizə aparan “Qorqud” Vikipediya Metodik Klubunun eksperti Ayxan Zayıdzadəni "Karabakh iz Azerbaijan” Milli Platforması çərçivəsində informasiya mübarizəsinə verdiyi töhfəyə görə Azərbaycan Respublikası Diasporla İş üzrə Dövlət Komitəsi və “Karabakh iz Azerbaijan” Milli Platformasının rəhbərliyi tərəfindən "Təşəkkürnamə" ilə təltif edilib. Təbrik edirik. The Diaspora Committee and Karabakh is Azerbaijan have awarded 16-year-old Aykhan Zayidzade, who is fighting against Armenians on Wikipedia. The State Committee for Work with the Diaspora of the Republic of Azerbaijan awarded Aykhan Zayidzadeh, an expert of the Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club, who fought against Armenians in the English section of Wikipedia during the Tovuz events and the Patriotic War, for his contribution to the information struggle within the Karabakh iz Azerbaijan National Platform. He was awarded a letter of appreciation by the State Committee and the leadership of the Karabakh iz Azerbaijan National Platform. Congratulations. This is that group https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/ that coordinates the actions of Azerbaijani editors on Wikipedia Elnur Eltürk is Elnut Elturk, head of the Free Encyclopedic Resources department at the Central Scientific Library of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences and the mentor of Aykhan Zayedzade aka Solavirum, the author of Qarabagh media article about heroical action of Solavirum against "ugly intentions of Armenians" in English Wikipedia, posting "Wikipedia is on agenda" TV show featuring Aykhan Zayedzade aka Solavirum https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1830678457099406/ and wishing good luck to Aykhan Zayedzade aka Solavirum, ′′ Qorqud ′′ Wikipedia Methodical Club expert, in an interview about that Anti-Armenian history-skewing club (Great successes, thanks to children, the selection raised by precious mothers) https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1829163770584208/ . Elnur is an known Azerbaijani lobyyst and denier of Armenian Genocide, published books such as "my heart stayed in Yerevan" https://salamnews.org/az/news/read/171373 where "the tragedies caused by the Armenians to the Turks and their policy of genocide are conveyed to the reader in an artistic form" and contributed to the book "Armenian Psychology" https://musavat.com/news/son-xeber/ermeni-psixologiyasi-kitabi-ishiq-uzu-gordu_230791.html that aimed to "introduce the true identity of Armenians to the world before the 100th anniversary of the so-called "Armenian genocide", to learn the true identity of the Armenians who hated the Turkish community " Solavirums FaceBook page has off-wiki coordination calls. For example, https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1742957742538145/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/vikipediya/permalink/1652395918260995/ Hello young people. I have created an article about the bombing of Ganja in English Wikipedia. However, vandalism cases are expected to be many already. That's why it would be nice if others besides me could control this. Only I control the article of Tovuz fights in English Wikipedia as an Azerbaijani. I know it's a volunteer thing, but why not support it? I've been tearing myself up since the 12th, I can say I'm not sleeping. Believe me how many disinformation attempts are. I don't write this for you to thank, it really needs to focus on such things. So far, about 10 thousand readers of the article in Enviki. --Armatura (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Armatura, your tone, rhetoric, and everything else is wrong and gruesome. Everyone here had explained you several times that off-wiki stays off-wiki. Your involvement in my life is worrying, we are here for Wikipedia, not my Facebook, my Twitter, my age, or anything else. a 16 year old teenager, is just damaged by ethnic hatred to the point of no return, saying this with regret, you might as well look at my passport to devalue my contributions on Wikipedia. Your personal level attacks on me shall not go unnoticed. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 04:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Oppose bans per Qahramani44, a site ban is a gross overreaction. So would be a ban from all Turkic-related articles. The problematic diffs above relate only to the Armenian genocide (there has been some mentioned problems with the wider topic of Armenians, but not that many diffs). Per my statement above on wp:battleground issues, my preferred remedy would be a commitment to tone down personal insults and battleground mentality. Other potential paths might be interaction bans (which would go both ways) or much smaller topic restrictions (as opposed to full bans). CMD (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC) CMD Solavirum aka Aykhan Zayidzadeh is apparently an expert of the Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club fighting Armenians in the English section of Wikipedia during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and receiving an award for the State for that. It is against the very definition of battleground principle. See my expalnded vote comment. Regards --Armatura (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Oppose bans per Qahramani44 and CMD. This report has taken a dangerous turn and has turned into a competition to find things User:Solavirum has done in their private life or social media to use them against the user in this report. This is unacceptable and breaks WP:HARASSMENT, specifically WP:OUTING. None of the people who support a ban has provided any real reason for this other than the claim that the user denies the genocide, which Solavirum has denied at least 3 times in this report by now. None of the aforementioned users who added that he "promoted Turkish nationalism" have also been able to provide sources for this, amounting to baseless accusations. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Strong Oppose site-ban, weak support IBAN I've been watching this trainwreck for a bit and am surprised at how bad it has got. CMD rightfully notes this is steering into (if not already) becoming a battleground. The almost detective like investigations into an editor in their off-wiki, personal life, is really unacceptable, and disgusts me. I cannot believe anyone would even step as far as to do that. This whole topic area is extremely sensitive and full of conflict; that will never change. However, when looking over these diffs, I, similar to CMD, can only find information relating mainly to the Armenian Genocide. Even suggesting a siteban is stupid, at most this would warrant an IBAN. I weakly support a temporary IBAN (perhaps 3 months or more), but would prefer to find a solution to the broader problem of Armenian-Azerbajani conflicts, to prevent this sort of situation occuring in the future. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Berrely Are you not disgusted by Solavirum aka Aykhan Zayidzadeh being an expert of the Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club fighting against Armenians in the English section of Wikipedia during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and receiving an award for the State for that? That a child is used for state propaganda? It is against the very definition of battleground principle, and many other principles that you would know better than me. See my expanded comment in my vote. --Armatura (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Armatura, apologies if I missed that in the clusterfuck of other clutter that seemed irrelevant. My point stands, however, after looking through a few more of the posts you have linked, and mostly relying on Google Translate, I may be convinced to support a temporary IBAN, however, I need to look over this a bit more. I will also note that you really are bringing irrelevancy into this. Age does not matter, there are 13 year old editors who have brought articles to GA status. Please stop repeatedly using it as an argument. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Berrely you did not miss it, I just expanded my vote comment, to keep my findings in one place. The age, which you think I am using against the editor, is actually a softening factor for the editor in question and can be used in his defence if anything, as in real-life law. But I am really worried about any editor, especially juveniles, being involved in organized racial propaganda to the extent of becoming experts in that fields and being awarded by the State for that, about Wikipedia being skewed and abused for propaganda purposes in a coordinated manner. There is an established "club" for that, publicised and encouraged on Azeri TV and media and even by State, apparently... --Armatura (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC) @Armatura: I recommend giving links whenever you're starting a new thing as it's hard for others to do their own research without it. Could you please give the link to the "Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club" you've mentioned above, I wasn't able to find it on Google. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 15:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC) CuriousGolden It is provided already in my vote comment, and as you read Azerbaijani it must be comprehensible to you better then to others here: Gorgud Wikipedia Methodological Club and Solavirum's award as its expert fighting against Armenians in English Wikipedia https://www.facebook.com/azxeber1/photos/a.639575122745531/3684374598265553/ --Armatura (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Has Solavirum declared onsite their age? If no, that should be redacted as well. And in any case, I don't see what age has to do with anything here. Multiple times above a real name for this editor has been mentioned, has the editor declared their name onwiki, as well as alleged pictures of them and Facebook/Twitter? I'm very suspicious that they have, given some comments have already had to be revdelled here. If no, that should all be removed and private evidence sent to ArbCom directly, not discussed here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader his age, photo, name, life story, all details clearly publicised by the editor in question himself, as you can see im my initial comment and ban vote comment. I dont know what ArbCom is and how to send things to it, can you help with that please? Many thanks. --Armatura (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC) @Armatura: has the editor provided all of these things onwiki themselves, or did you find them by Googling the name that they provided? If the former, please provide diffs of the editor releasing this info themselves. Otherwise this is considered WP:OUTING. Offwiki evidence should be sent to WP:ArbCom by emailing arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Contacting_the_Committee. I can't say whether they will consider any of this actionable, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the email address, ProcrastinatingReader. How do I formulate the email itself though, is there a proforma for emails to ArmCom or something? (what the email is about, what the provided personal details for, what is the suggested outcome, ect). Aykhan Zayedzadeh aka Oyuncu Aykha aka Solavirum did not deny adding those details himself. See the details provided on his Wikimedia commons page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Aykhan_Zayedzadeh and please see the diff of providing these personal details himself on Az Wikipedia: https://az.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i:Solavirum/Haqq%C4%B1mda&diff=5735949&oldid=3973689 and on En Wikipedia too https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Solavirum&oldid=771847647 Regards, --Armatura (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks. At that diff, on the revision prior from 2017, I do see a link to a Facebook but not the Facebooks linked above. Were those linked onwiki, also, as well as their membership in this group? Though note 2017 diff was when the editor was 12/13 years old so I'd say treat that as "not disclosed onwiki" for all practical purposes. My understanding is private info can be sent to ArbCom or any functionary, but whether they deal with this kind of stuff or only in relation to COI I'm not sure. Someone more knowledgeable than I, perhaps an oversighter, could come along and clarify what to do with this info if it's deemed too inappropriate for a public venue (which, imho, technically disclosed or not it is, or at least tows the line quite closely). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion

Placing this here in case people have comments related to Solavirum's onwiki conduct at the English Wikipedia. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting that I’ve placed Armatura under a one-way IBAN from Solavirum as a DS. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• The rationale for doing nothing was what? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • My suggestion was for an iban, and this has been partially enacted. Still, it may reduce tensions. Regarding your comment above, it would be useful to have diffs showing these edits to see if they require action. CMD (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with the one-way IBAN. As soon as an editor starts investigating another editor off-wiki it just becomes harassment. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Noting my response to this editor on my talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I want to remind to all participants that Arbitration Committee's discretionary santions have been authorized for the Armenia-Azerbaijan topics inder the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case. In general the kind of disputes discussed in this thread are ill-suited for WP:ANI and are much better suited for WP:AE where appropriate requests (including for topic bans, interaction band, page blocks, etc) can be filed. However, prior to filing any AE report regarding a particular user you do need to make sure that the requirements of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts have been satisfied. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The user in question has been given an alert of the topic ban as recently as one month ago. --Steverci (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site ban as per WP:NATIONALIST, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:BADIDEA as per the ample online evidence provided above. Furthermore, even after his partial IBAN, Solavirum has been blind reverting perfectly valid and well cited/sourced additions on the Kalbajar District page. For an example, see [this blind revert]. This clearly shows he has not adjusted his behaviour one bit. He's actually tag-teaming with CuriousGolden to blindly remove any added Armenian information from any Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. He hasn't been respecting the WP:1RR and his responses (if he bothers) on the Talk pages make no sense and he seems to be responding just as a matter of record without even trying to adequately explain or justify his reverts (he often just says "we've reached consensus, so reverting your edit" which makes no sense since Wikipedia encourages improving every article). His behavior effectively censures any Armenian information on Wikipedia, and he's just a bully that has no place on here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HyeProfile (talk • contribs) (Note: the proposal of ban closed.Ahmetlii (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC))
  • @HyeProfile: About the diff you cited; as the revert per Solavirum, you need to not POV pushing and solve the disputes via different ways as mentioned on the policy, and achieve a consensus (for some parts of the edit) (see a similar page as an example, which uses "occupied terrorities" for the terrorities surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh Autonoumus Oblast borders)(also this, which seems like the common usage is "returned to Azerbaijan"). Also, as far as I see, the "census-only" edits which only mentions "exactly" that area didn't revert by someone, because they don't consist a POV pushing, dispute, or a consensus-needed process. I don't think these consist a nationalist editing by Solavirum. And also, the ban proposal was closed by -MJL-.Ahmetlii (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User is leaving hostile and uncivil edit summaries and comments. Diffs: [10], edit summaries at [11], [12], [13], [14], and generally at [15] See recent edit summaries re:John Park Lambert

This type of conduct is one reason good and experienced editors leave Wikipedia.

Second issue is with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz signature. It violates WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and is cumbersome for editors using screen readers and magnification software, so there is an accessibility issue.

 // Timothy :: talk  13:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• I will be the first to admit that in a few of these cases I was too hasty in moving people from Category:Living people to Category:Possibly living people. On of the incidents may come from my strong aversion to using the unreliable IMBd at all. I have resolved to try and show more restraint in this matter. For example in the case of Bernard Cecil Cohen I am not sure I found any clear indication of his still being alive. However I figure someone in his position would have their death reported, and my initial search did not show up anything along those lines, so I left him in Category:Living people. The approach used by the editor in question here to this matter has been singularly unhelpful. The edit summary langauge clearly constitutes attacks on me. The fact that he then doubled-down and claimed "You've already been responsible for one of Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments". The tenor and tone of these comments is just not called for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait a moment, I had not even realized the edit summary that is #78 above existed. So I moved someone into the possibly living person category, and it turns out they actually are dead. And for doing this I get insulted for it. That does not seem right at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: An admin also needs look at the userbox at the top of their userpage.  // Timothy :: talk  15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  My goodness, you don't say. Their talk page is also ten times the recommended length and is in serious need of archival. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  There is no policy requiring archiving of user talk pages due to length. Beyond My Ken (talk)

  For God's sake no one click here. 71.184.139.127 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• To note: HW is under a community-imposed sanction "...Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block." See here. It dates from 2016, but has never been revoked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that the sanction is still relevant, see these. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Also in addition to its overlength it appears HW still has that WP:POLEMIC-violating signature line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Let me make a few points clear at the outset:
  • I believe John Pack Lambert lacks the competence to edit Wikipedia.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert's editing practices are unacceptably lazy.
  • I believe John Pack Lambert does not behave honestly in disputes

• And there is strong evidence supporting my beliefs. There is no point in euphemizing. Civility policy does not prohibit making statements like these unless they cannot be supported by evidence. And the evidence here is clear and substantial.

About eight years ago, John Pack Lambert was responsible for what is probably Wikipedia's worst public embarrassments, covered in The New York Times and The New York Review of Books, resulting in criticism from prominent American writers like Joyce Carol Oates and Amy Tan, ending up with sustained public criticism of Wikipedia sexism. James Gleick, "an American author and historian of science whose work has chronicled the cultural impact of modern technology . . . [and] has been called 'one of the great science writers of all time'", wrote a piece entitled "Wikipedia’s Women Problem", where he concluded that "[A] single editor brought on the crisis: a thirty-two-year-old named John Pack Lambert living in the Detroit suburbs. He’s a seven-year veteran of Wikipedia and something of an obsessive when it comes to categories".

When I referred to these events yesterday, Lambert accused me of telling "outright lies" and "attacking lies", claiming or insinuating I'd made statements which I plainly hadn't. He also falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. It's rather petty, but Lambert has a pattern of using spelling errors to indicate. He waged a lengthy vendetta against novelist Amanda Filipacchi (who had criticized sexism on Wikipedia in a New York Times op ed), incorrectly spelling her name over and over. See, for example, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#John Pack Lambert should probably resist talking about Amanda Filipacchi if he can't do it civilly. Lambert refuses to discuss any of the substantive issues related to the deficiencies of his editing [16]. That's a greater breach of civility than I'm accused of, as well as a substantive violation of editing policy. It's far more destructive than occasional sharp language, at least to people who care about the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, as opposed to those who see themselves as hall monitors in a gigantic RPG.

Let's talk about the substantive issues. This dispute centers on BLP editing and categorization. BLP policy states that "Editors must take particular care" while editing BLPs. Lambert doesn't take "particular" care. He barely takes any care at all. He's on a jihad to reduce the number of BLPS on Wikipedia [17]. There's no policy reason for doing this, and Lambert's pattern, once again, is rapid fait accompli editing, behavior that Arbcom has recognized as disruptive. See also the last paragraph here [18].

Rather than taking particular care, Lambert was blazing through BLPs (selected by birth year), spending only seconds on each. He wanted to find excuses to remove the "Living people" category, without regard to whether there was any real reason to alter the tag. The standard is that the tag should not be changed unless there is some "documentation" that the person was alive in the last decade. Lambert, however, has invented his own, narrower standard, that the article itself include a sourced statement that the subject had done something notable in the past decade. This is utterly groundless, and functions to make Wikipedia less accurate. As I responded to Lambert yesterday, "Any documentation that indicates the subject has been alive within the last decade prevents application. It doesn't have to be in the article, or even be related to something notable enough to be in the article. A photo of them at their 75th high school reunion in their local paper would be good enough. It would be time- and effort-wasting to require that editors prove that elderly article subjects have done something noteworthy at an advanced age to prevent them from being classified as only possibly alive". Lambert has refused to discuss the issue.

Let's take a look at just some of the articles involved:

• Ann Turner Cook - Evidence that Lambert is taking no care at all. The first page of a simple Google search turns up five press reports of the subject's birthday celebration in November 2020. Another editor beat me to reverting this.
• Christian Azzi - Google search turns up an obituary on page 1.
• Gene Barge - IMDB listing, already in article, shows multiple credits in recent years. Google search shows 2018 newspaper interview as well as several recent video interviews.
• Robert Basmann - Simple Google search turns up active university faculty listing as well as a 2017 birthday festschrift.
• Giotto Bizzarrini - Qualifying source already in article.
• Albert Brenner - Simple Google search turns up 2018 Variety profile on page 1.
• Peter Whittle - Source in article includes a 2017 video interview.

Looking at articles with primarily English-language sources, my sampling indicates that John Pack Lambert has an error rate of about 50% in reviewing these articles. That's unacceptable in any context, but especially in editing BLPs. It's obvious from the minuscule time he spends on each BLP and the ease with which the appropriate documentation can be found that he's making no effort whatever to reach an accurate result. That's disruptive behavior and should be sanctioned.

So that's my position. Lambert is deliberately trying to reduce the accuracy of biographical articles because of his peculiar belief that most biographies don't belong in an encyclopedia. And the diabolical Mr Wolfowitz says that this is evidence that he really isn't competent to edit here. But, you know, WOLFOWITZ BAD is one of the Secret Pillars of Wikipedia.

I'd also note that this dispute was escalated immediately to ANI without ant attempt to discuss with me, after Johnpacklambert had expressly refused to participate in my attempts to discuss the substantive issues. Under standing principles, that would bring him under direct scrutiny. But, hey, we're going to bring up the same complaints about The Big Bad Wolfowitz that have been rejected over and over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal (re:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz)

Based on:

• The diffs in the original post
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's respose above which doubles down on insulting/uncivil attacks against another editor while attempting to justify their behavior and showing no understanding of the problem.
• Additional reports of problematic behavior since community imposed sanctions were applied (examples provided above by BMK).

Comment: This is an outright falsehood. BMK identified no such "examples". BMK simply posted a search for my username over the drama boards, regardless of date, regardless of substance, regardless of outcome. It literally picks up every comment I have ever made to these boards, every 3RR report I filed, every time I was pinged to add a comment. A similar search for BMK's username produces more than twice as many results. Now tell me why I should afford good faith to this falsehood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose that the indefinitely imposed community sanctions warning (recorded here) be applied, "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also warned that further uncivil comments towards any editor will result in a block."

I also propose that their signature be changed per WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and WP:POLEMIC and that an admin remove the threatening userbox at the top of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's userpage.

 // Timothy :: talk  07:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. HW may be right about JPL (I've had my own concerns in the past), but that doesn't excuse his behavior here, or his steadily increasingly Not compatible with a collaborative project behavior overall, laced with assumptions of bad faith and casting of aspersions. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we need our editors to act like it is one. And the below...thank you for neatly proving my point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You have a very strange idea of what collaboration involves. Johnpacklambert refused to discuss the substantive issues after I set my position out. Johnpacklambert has explicitly called me a liar multiple times, on multiple pages, over the last few days, without providing one shred of legitimate evidence -- and that is far more uncivil than anything I've said. And I haven't assumed bad faith in this dispute. I've inferred it from patterns of behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. You don't deny, and you can't deny, that Johnpacklambert's BLP editing is so far below policy standards as to be incompetent. However, you insist that it is uncivil to call an incompetent editor incompetent. It is, however, acceptable for Johnpacklambert to falsely accuse me of lying, because false accusations of dishonesty are civil. You disgrace yourself. You disgrace this project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support warning — I'm tired of mean editors, and our community's long-term tolerance for them. A formal warning is better than nothing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Update: Sorry, reading this again, I see I may have misread the proposal. I thought "that the ... warning ... be applied" meant that we log such a warning, not that the editor be blocked. I don't support a block. Given that this logged warning was years ago, I support another logged warning. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Per proposal, without reservation. The restriction previously imposed was unambiguous. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC) edited 00:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - HW has been a disruptive influence for quite a while. Personally I would classify him as a net negative to the project. My support for this proposal has nothing to do with his userbox (per El_C), and my !vote does not include approval of the suggestion to remove it. His response to my providing raw data for other editors to consider, and his lashing out at me, are, I'm afraid, entirely typical of this uncivil, non-collaborative person, who (as far as I can tell), never admits to being wrong. I have not looked into HW's wall-of-text complaint about JPL, but even if it's entirely true, it doesn't in any way justify HW's behavior. His sig is a violation of the spirit of WP:POLEMIC and is -- I believe deliberately -- disruptive.
  I suggest that these cumulative factors justify a block of a significant duration, i.e. days, and not hours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "He may be right". No he is right as a cursory look at JPL's editing over even a small period shows. If you look at it over a longer period it just gets worse. JPL is either incompetent and/or lazy in an area where we are required to take extra care. There is plenty of evidence for that. The alternative is that they are not incompetent or lazy and are deliberately flouting various policies and guidelines despite knowing full well what they are. Feel free to pick, because the AGF option here is that they lack the required competence or effort. Levivich it is not mean to tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess. After repeated messes, you waste less time mouthing pointless niceties. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know what you're reading but tell someone who you have to clear up after, that they are making a mess is not what happened here. There is much more up above. For example, in this thread, HW wrote that JPL falsified quotations from me, misspelling key words apparently to suggest incompetence or subliteracy on my part. Accusing someone of intentionally inserting misspellings into quotations in order to make you look bad, is seriously paranoid. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  JPL routinely deliberately mis-spells for their own purposes. The alternative is that they are writing out a quotation by hand rather than using copy-paste as normal people do, and inserting their own mis-spellings that they seemingly have no problem spelling at other times. I think the more common explanation is that when people take these petty actions they do it because they are a common troll who likes to be a dick to people. But unlike HW, I am not the target of said petty niggling, so I have a less personal opinion on it. The idea that JPL is accidentally mispelling is laughable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  Gotta agree with Levivich -- people do all sorts of weird things (personal favorite example), and retyping quotations by hand seems totally plausible. Like, does JPL not make typos in their own writing, only when quoting other people? I think it would be better to stick to criticisms grounded in actual evidence. --JBL (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Generally Oppose - Frustration over sloppy editing and calling this out does not justify a block. Not a fan of an indefinite sanction warning over civility from ~5 years ago given the amount of tolerance for other users on this noticeboard. Support shortening link to user page given accessibility concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: This does not appear to be a situation where one of them is in the right, and the other is in the wrong. We are faced here with two editors, each problematic in their own way, being problematic against each other. BD2412 T 02:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and if JBL JPL is problematic, someone should open a report on them and make a proposal, but their disruptiveness doesn't make HW any less uncivil or disruptive in his own right, and is not -- in fact -- a legitimate justification for an "Oppose" !vote. The closing admin should ignore any !vote that does not carry with it proper justification. Nor is this a one-time situation regarding HW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It is not my intention to suggest in the least that HW's conduct is pardonable. BD2412 T 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You cant even be bothered by your own admission to take the time to do any investigating into HW's complant, so your !vote is meaningless. I look forward to when someone raises a complaint about you and people take the same approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Beyond My Ken: Leave me out of this, please ;). --JBL (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC) (not JPL)
      • Ooops! Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

A fate worse than death...

• Oppose The problem here is that the category:Living people is fundamentally unverifiable because people may die at any moment and sources about their living status will always be dated. It is logically equivalent to the category:Possibly living people whose name better reflects the inevitable uncertainty about this. Either the two categories should be merged or both deleted. The bickering and busywork will then be reduced and we can focus better on definite facts instead. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support- Even if HW is right about JPL's editing (and I think he's exaggerating for dramatic effect) that doesn't excuse the name-calling. But since it's an inclusionist doing the name calling it is impossible that anything will be done about it. Reyk _YO! 10:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. Leaving an uncivil edit summary when another editor decides that a living person is only "possibly living" with no evidence is, if not justifiable, at least understandable. If calling someone's life into question isn't likely offensive to that person, what is? --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the opposition here is basically trying to give HW a pass on [19] because they do not like JPL's edits. It is possible to disagree strongly with someone's edits without being uncivil; its normal to be civil with people you agree with, civility becomes an issue when you disagree and the stronger the disagreement the more need to pay attention to civility. Hopefully this [20] is not ignored.  // Timothy :: talk  08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The sanction that is indefinite should only be the interaction ban. The warning is a warning and should not mean that HW has been indefinite probation for nearly 5 years. I understand there should be a shorter leash. However, if I gave a final warning template to someone ~5 years ago, I do not expect an admin to block afterwards after I report them for a similar incident today. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If HW has been behaving below CIVIL towards multiple editors recently, that would be justification and those still needs diffs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That, and he didn't just make a random personal attack. He made the uncivil comment while undoing JPLs edit, which makes for mitigating circumstances. I personally see there is some difference between someone saying bad words in general, and Joe Bloggs, firefighter, saying bad things about the person who set the fire that they are currently putting out at this very moment. --GRuban (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The fireman's job is to put out the fire. If there are things to be said about the supposed perpetrator of the fire, they should be said in a different context, and in the proper manner. Someone just called me a "bozo" in an edit summary. The fact is that I made a minor error, and I has happy to see the error fixed, but not very happy to be called a "bozo" while it was being fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• JPL's edits are problematic and may warrant all kinds of sanctions or whatever, but it doesn't mean they get to be a target for incivility. Wolfowitz is problematic in their own ways; they modified their signature a little bit, but I've always thought that claim incredibly whiny and just totally off-putting. I cannot judge if their incivility was bad enough to be blocked, but I do believe that their signature is disruptive and they should change it. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think a renewed warning or short incivility block is all that is called for here. An indefinite block on the basis of a five year old warning seems too harsh. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Except that HW has been up on this board for incivility a number of times since that sanction was imposed, but no one seems to have been aware of the sanction. He slipped by on those occasions, which is something he should not be rewarded for. It's not like his sanction is slowly disintegrating over time, it should be as usable now as when it was imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed with BMK. The fact of the matter is that the editing restriction imposed was indefinite and has not been revoked. Just because it's a few years old does not mean it should not be enforced. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Insurrectionists' gallows

Let me preface this by saying that, at the time of writing this, I have only glanced at this complaint. That I am not familiar with the main participants or their respective histories (I mean: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and John Pack Lambert — I, of course, know and am fond of TimothyBlue). I have less than a passing familiarity with this dispute (seemingly over categories, one of the things I know least about on the project), and I am not committing to reviewing it further by virtue of this comment. So, with that out of the way, here we go. Above, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was criticized that the top of their user page features Image:Tombstone courthouse gallows.jpg, with the caption: This user believes that Donald Trump gives aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. I'd like to strongly disagree with anyone (TimothyBlue?) who wishes to censor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz from displaying this custom userbox, for whatever reason. Don't want to be associated with a gallows? Don't have your most ardent supporters build an actual gallows in the midst of an insurrection which you are accused of inciting (Mr. Trump). I don't feel that this is an unreasonable position to adopt. It is not incitement, on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz part, nor is it a BLP violation against Trump himself — who, btw, I'd love to see sue Wikipedia over something like this, even though the likelihood of that happening pretty much approaches zero. Anyway, the point is that I believe this is still within the bounds of acceptable userpage political expression (for the times). I realize the very notion of userpage political expression itself is something many find distasteful, even anathema —my own userpage (last meaningful change circa 2008) included— but I would ventrue to remind participants that it is still very much an allowed practice. Jeez, sorry for the length of this. I imagined this much shorter in my head. El_C 15:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa, on closer look, it looks like AHullaballoo Wolfowitz actually added that userbox in 2018 (diff)! Which makes them some sort of a prophet...? El_C 15:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh maybe Wolfo only has 25 Minutes to Go...! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I wondered why that was being brought up myself; concur with El_C on this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I confess to being quite perturbed by that argument. It is one thing to put "this user supports the Democratic/Republican Party" or "this user believes that Reagan/FDR was our lord and saviour" etc, but it is another thing entirely to have a set of gallows next to an accusation of treachery directed to a politician. It seems very much to be a veiled death threat and perhaps analogous to a userbox calling Bush Jr. or Obama a war criminal with a noose next to their photo. Carte blanche should not be given for such inflammatory content on userpages. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to include material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, well, I, for one, argue that it is more likely to bring the project into disrepute if we were to censor it. At this moment in time, I find it an arguably relevant political statement rather than a veiled death threat — though, oddly, I would not have thought this to be so in 2018. Talk about unintended consequences! Anyway, the reason for that, again, is because of the actual Capitol gallows, whose significance should not be understated. It makes the usage of a gallows fair game when it comes to Trump "giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States." Because that could be understood in the sense of him having incited insurrectionists to overthrow a branch of the US government. Insurrectionists who also built a gallows on-site. Hope that makes sense. El_C 22:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I am aware of the new context behind the photo. But given that (as you pointed out) the userbox was added some years ago, that doesn't make it retroactively okay. As far as I'm aware (of course feel free to correct me) there is no grandfather clause for such material on userpages. The soapbox requirement applies to user pages too. Political statements, however relevant, should be confined to Twitter and Facebook than here on Wikipedia. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, I think you got it backward. Unless I fix my broken time machine, we can't go back to the past to remove it then. But it's fine now. As for political statements, in general, that is a wider policy matter. It may be frowned upon by many, but it is still generally allowed. Where the line is drawn there is, of course, subject to debate, as it always has been. El_C 22:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Our interpretations of the guidelines and that userbox obviously differ. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, it's all good. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170

• Not yet blocked ip. e.g. (there are more ip meat but these two are most fitted to the disruption category)

220.246.55.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

14.0.236.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

• Already blocked range/ip. e.g.

124.217.188.0/23 (talk · contribs · 124.217.188.0/23 WHOIS)

219.76.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · 219.76.16.0/20 WHOIS)

218.102.122.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

218.255.11.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Set one: country related

• Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of countries without armed forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (vote stacking and revive decade old thread)
• List of lighthouses in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (vote stacking)
• Military of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (vote stacking)

Set two: cat spamming

• Category:Ma Tau Chung
• Ma Tau Chung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sung Wong Toi Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Family Planning Association of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Admin already blocked 3 ip ranges but it seems it is not enough / not effective, as new ip POV edit from new ip range emerged yet again . Some admin suggests a soft block to HK ISPs (including mobile network ) would be a solution, some suggests protect articles one by one. But really how to deal with these POV pushing edit: revive 100 years old obsolete place name Ma Tau Chung. Or piece by piece try to change Hong Kong or Country definition to slip pieces belong to dependent territory to Country-related article one by one? Or just vote stacking in talk page? Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Forget to mention, some of the meat not really willing to provide any reliable source and some involved in personal attack. Matthew hk (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The issues are simple. First, Matthew hk does not appear to be a speaker of the English language and is struggling on one hand to express his thoughts and ideas in a clear and organised manner, and on the other to comprehend what others put forward to him in their edits and especially in the talk pages (the meaning of "produce" in "produce the evidence", e.g.), when people give in to his insistence of his own points of view over the entries he has tried hard to own (such as, most notably, that Ma Tau Chung has died as a topographic name to refer to the neighbourhood). Second, he relies on Cantonese-language sources to argue his cases and defend his positions, and provides no or little translations and even he does so translations that are hardly comprehensible, while at the same time disregards English-language sources presented to him. Third, he fails to understand that according to its conventional meaning the English word "country" is used to refer to both sovereign states and dependent territories (of course, the inhabited ones with organised governments). This conventional meaning has been supported by an Australian federal court in September 1997 in Tjhe Kwet Koe and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (FCA 912), which is cited by Country and in some of the talk page discussions which he took part in. This meaning is the norm in many reputable publications such as the Economist, TIME, and is also the mainstream usage on Wikipedia. Even among those who adopt a "narrower" meaning these countries are often listed with the other countries side by side rather than presented as and alongside ordinary first-tier subdivisions. Fourth, he asserts again and again that a, the Country article has been targeted (quite the contrary, if anyone bothers to check its page history), and b, there are sock- or meatpuppets and off-site canvassing around a handful of pages - but he has never been able to present any concrete evidence. The relevant investigations had been inconclusive (at one point he even argued that there are open proxies and requested for investigations, but he had presumably backed down for the time being). Hong Kong editors got genuine concern that their edit histories may easily be tracked down by the authorities, with the recent legislations and raids a grave matter of concern, to the extent that multinationals are relocating[21] or censured/inquisited,[22] and have refrained to edit from permanent accounts until there are good solutions agreed upon by the community. He has come across about this in the talk pages but has appeared to be indifferent or to have failed to comprehend what's actually happening. Fifth, he got a strong tendency to label any IP addresses he comes across as sock- or meatpuppets and refuses to accepts his view is indeed marginal or peripheral among Hongkongers and indeed Wikipedians in general whose main medium of discussions and contributions is the English language.   As for this section, it has actually been his general pattern of going to different pages in search of echo chambers. This might not be an abuse but certainly isn't something meaningful for admins to spend their time and effort on. And afterall there are better, more helpful things for him to spend his effort on. Professional support is usually necessary for people who tend to make things up, for example, somebody who asserted that, for instance, Talk:List of countries without armed forces got "vote stacking", when there's apparently none - There's never been any vote lately to talk with, or that Hong Kong's population is 99% Chinese. 223.197.192.15 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys have issue that admin bad faith with your edits so that Talk:List of countries without armed forces is protected and don't bother to wrote a summary before re-closing the threads and archive it . (End sarcasm) Or please refrained to cause problem in wikipedia and accept the fact that wikipedia need WP:Verify and not POV battleground without provide a RS citation. If you use your own emotional enemy / friend mindset in wikipedia you don't went any further but block. Matthew hk (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

And offtopic on 99% Chinese. The context was regarding Chinese-language publication such as map / atlas of Hong Kong which my figure that recalled from memory was rebut the "claim" that HK has a lot of English/ bilingual publications. There are a lot of domestic helper in HK so that if include them the figure may be not 99%. Also, Chinese (華人) can means Chinese (Cantonese/Mandarin) speaking culture group / ethnic group instead of citizenship / self-identity sense (self-identity figure can obtain from Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute) . If you want to frame me as "not constructive" please provide reliable source. Note that there are 451 183 non-Chinese minority in HK in 2011, or 6.4%, but a lot are domestic helper. This figure already rebut your low claim of only 92% people are Chinese culture group. The government report lists the figure so badly that there is no concreate figure of domestic helper, but at least table 7.2 and 7.3 shown if excluding domestic helper (hired from aboard), the non-Chinese minority is down to 194,854. (And i need to dig out the correct denominator to calculate the actual %, so that it may be ~96/98%? ) Matthew hk (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is to confirm that the problem is real, and the IP edits are mostly disruptive, but I do not know what the best solution would be.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  What was disruptive? For talking too much? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"New" issue. Ask for unprotect the talk page yet again. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Talk:List of countries without armed forces. Matthew hk (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

More newer issue. Start to POV pushing other dependent territories:

• List of borderless country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) bold change redirect target
• Military of the Faroe Islands ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (ask for article at talk page for a deleted article )
• Borderlessness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Matthew hk (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

What's been wrong with my edits to List of borderless country and Borderlessness? You don't seem to be able to understanding what'd happened and what you did was apparently disruptive. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

At Bordelessness, you removed a redlink to Borderless country. That redlink was likely placed there by someone who thought it was a subject that could support an article. And you did it without leaving an edit summary, so no one knows what your reasoning is. And given the edit history of you and your fellow meatpuppets, no one here is likely to give you much more benefit of the doubt than we already have. You've all proved yourselves quite willing to be incredibly disruptive, which wastes the time of well-intentioned editors. If you actually want to contribute productively, you probably are going to need to create an account. —valereee (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• This has been an ongoing problem for six weeks also at Talk:List of lighthouses in China. I believe there is a forum somewhere that is whipping up Hongkongers who believe registering an account will make them more vulnerable to Chinese surveillance and sending them in here as meatpuppets on various articles. I hate to semi a talk page, but I'm not sure what else to do. —valereee (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  Pinging @Atsme, who's seen this at various articles too. The IPs have followed to my user talk and to SPI investigations. They seem to think they're upvoting. —valereee (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's a serious problem that needs to be resolved, because if what they're doing works successfully for them, it will spread like wildfire and allow for the ultimate takeover of WP by IP unions. It may seem far-fetched at this point in time, but our policies have already laid the bedrock for something like this to occur right under our noses, and with no resources to stop it unless we change our policy. Atsme 💬 📧 12:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  IP unions? Are you thinking way too much... As a matter of fact it was you who sparked off all these trouble around these three lists of lighthouses. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  You believe? So where's that forum post? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  There's indeed nothing strange[23] given what'd happened here over the past two years. And these were what'd happened just over the past couple of days...[24][25][26][27] 220.246.55.231 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have looked into the edit history of Country, the very first case you mentioned in your submission, back to early to mid-January,[28] and have been surprised to learn that the issue is kind of irrelevant here. It had been all around the statuses of the Holy See and the Vatican City State. And 124.217.189.34/124.217.189.124 had been right if the articles on the Holy See and the Vatican City are correct - The former is the sovereign entity and the latter is the country the former governs. So Matthew Hk would you please clarify what'd been the issue with that article so that you brought it up here (and a few other noticeboards too)? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, above admins, feel free to block 220.246.55.231 first....I don't think the ip is willing to make constructive edit. It just purely for POV battleground. Matthew hk (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Just look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#List of borderless country. Matthew hk (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, any admin able to protect Ma Tau Chung? The ip don't wanna add any citation and flood the article with list of building that they think they are part of the historical area, and i keep asking and they still fails to show a modern map that have that place name or have a boundaries of the alleged area. Matthew hk (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Has this article on Ma Tau Chung got anything to do with what 220.246.55.231 mentioned above? And no it was just you who keep refusing to consider what are submitted in the talk pages of relevant articles (such as Sung Wong Toi Garden, Sung Wong Toi and Holy Trinity Cathedral) or what are added to the article as citations. "The ip don't wanna add any citation ..." is clearly a false claim. You simply lied. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I protected the article a few days ago and will protect it again if disruption resumes after the protection has expired.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@1.64.46.31: Where is a map in English that publish after 1960s (as alleged by ip, they exist)? I never saw one and all i saw are borderline OR. Matthew hk (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

For example, i agreed that Sung Wong Toi was located in Sacred Hill that the hill was located in the area that once called Ma Tau Chung, based on reliable source. However, news article almost all credited Sung Wong Toi Garden is located in Kowloon City (the articles did not specify it is the neighbourhood or district) , which it is not constrictive to keep on asking to add Category:Ma Tau Chung cat to the redirect. For the address of the Church. The church uses Kowloon City in its official address, and it is on the page "Ma Tau Wai" of a modern atlas, and news articles credited the church is located in Kowloon City. It is 100% original research that based on a WP:UGC historic photo and its caption, which credit the area next to the church was called Ma Tau Chung, to assume the church is also located in an area that modern day still call Ma Tau Chung. You can easily find a map that Hong Kong was part of Bao'an County, but we never called Hong Kong is part of Shenzhen in modern day. Also, quite a lot of place name in HK are retired or substituted due to land reclamation or demolition of hills, or other reasons (Tai Wo Shi v. Tai Po Market v. modern day Tai Wo). And quite a lot of road that named after place name is not part of that place. E.g. Tai Po Road and Castle Peak Road have a large portion that outside Tai Po District and Tuen Mun District (Castle Peak). It is another original research that whole of the Ma Tau Chung Road belongs to Ma Tau Chung neighbourhood, unless you cite a secondary source. Matthew hk (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem of ALL HK neighbourhood articles is there is no postal code or official tessellation in HK (Here is ABS example for Australia https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC80016) If there is a lot of secondary source that state X is located in Y or the official address state the building is located in Y. It does not need original research to add it to wikipedia. However, base on the logic of X is next to Y and Y in 1900s was stated locate in Z, so that X must locate in Z, is original research or synthesis of sources. The limitation of official address is sometimes company mis-state it, or on purpose to do it, such as Central Plaza is located in Wan Chai not Central. Citing a shop inside Sky Tower which uses Ma Tau Chung as address, seem pale compare to way other reliable source that either credit Ma Tau Kok, Kowloon City or To Ka Wan. What i pointed in the RFc in the talk page of the Church, if such dispute exist ( Ma Tau Kok? To Ka Wan? or the poorly sourced Ma Tau Chung?) then it just better use the base administrative unit Kowloon City District instead of argue the boundaries of neighbourhoods which does not have any legal or reliable source that try to define it. Or even worse, keep on making disruptive edits without provide any reliable source. Matthew hk (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Lastly for map. Sino United Publishing may have censorship or POV problem (e.g. , they have their special Chinese wording for 1967 riots of HK), but without stating a better source and then claim map by the subsidiary of Sino United Publishing not reliable, would only making there is no reliable source as citation (as the ip never gave example of company that "reliable " to them for HK map) (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#Category:Ma Tau Chung). I knew zh-wiki has serious problem that most article are OR and /or without any citation. But i don't think it is acceptable in en-wiki. Matthew hk (talk) 04:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd suppose it's more to do with incidents and behavioural issues for discussions here on this page, rather than the actual content for the relevant articles. From what I came across Matthew hk's problem is that he can't actually comprehend what are mentioned in discussions. He's been told old maps aren't UGC, and that he's also been told he may refer to maps published by other more trustworthy publishers of Hong Kong maps, such as UP. He was also referred to plan no. LK 10/18/4. He simply ignored all these and has kept on pushing forward his POVs by making things up, e.g. vote stacking in a talk page where there's not even any vote taking place. With such a level of proficiency in the English language, as well as reference to "To Ka Wan" (as opposed to To Kwa Wan) I would have much reservation towards his claims that he's a Hongkonger residing in Australia and that he's familiar with the Hong Kong-related matters he edits on Wikipedia. False claims would of course be the much bigger issue here than where he actually comes from. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter would you please protect the article against Matthew hk's disruptive edits instead? He cannot actually contribute to encyclopedia entries in proper English, to the extent that there are even spaces before full-stops occasionally. And he removes references to old maps and calls them UGC just because the site which hosts these maps accept submissions of UGC. Many thanks. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Francis Schonken edit-warring

• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Eight Short Preludes and Fugues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Francis Schonken has been edit-warring at Eight Short Preludes and Fugues and many, many other articles (see recent contribs) about the addition of Authority control templates by Tom.Reding. These are generally added without incident, and as far as I have seen are usually considered mostly harmless. I note that this user has a rather long block log for edit-warring, with the most recent block being for a year; perhaps the next one should be permanent. Graham87 15:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is worth noting that Tom's edits, in addition to adding {{Authority control}}, are conforming these articles to best practices on a lot of other minor points (using spaces instead of underscores in piped links, eliminated stray spaces after paragraphs, direct links to template titles and parameter names, etc.). Reverting these additions often means reverting these common fixes. BD2412 T 15:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There's also this comment by Francis Schonken (which was made while I was filing this ANI), which provides more context, for what it's worth. Graham87 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Authority control templates in general are dubious, and in these cases, where they link to Muscbrainz, a wiki which repeats Wikipedia and sometimes has user-added text as well, are silly at best (and sometimes simply wrong). E.g. Francis Schonken removed this addition of AC, which linked to here instead of her. This is a relatively minor error, I have seen worse, as we rely on an external wiki (Wikidata) with minimal correctness and vandalism control (even compared to enwiki) to add these links to another external wiki (Musicbrainz), and then hope that they are correct anyway. Edit warring over them is rather fruitless and pointless though, as the AC lobby has won and these templates are added everywhere, no matter how useful they are, no matter what's in them. Fram (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Fram. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • FWIW I've fixed it on the Wikidata end (though I'll leave its addition here to somebody else if they so desire), but I'll admit that Wikidata can certainly have problems (see my comment there). Graham87 16:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• While I don't agree with FS's reverts (thank you to those restoring my edits), I am respecting them & blacklisting those pages so as not to accidentally add {{Authority control}} in the future. Also, Fram is anti-Wikidata in general, so grain of salt, etc., etc.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  What part of Fram's statement do you take issue with, @Tom.Reding:? Tiderolls 15:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Tom.Reding: Re. "I am respecting [FS's reverts] & blacklisting those pages so as not to accidentally add {{Authority control}} in the future." – apparently not, on the same article:
    1. 15:31, 27 January 2021 ("+{{Authority control}} ...")
    2. After my revert, 21:12, 28 January 2021 ("+{{Authority control}} ..."

  Sorry, you don't do what you promise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: actually, I do, if you care about nuance.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: no, you didn't keep your promise, neither with nor without nuance. Don't add where I'm a major editor, if that is indeed the nuance you're trying to make, and if you say you don't redo after a revert, then don't redo after a revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just looking at the first mentioned article: the template provides useful links to the French and German National libraries, and WorldCat. One questionable link among them seems no good reason to revert. Is there project guidance about the topic? Tom.Reding, if you see articles without the template where I am a major editor, please add it, - thank you for those where you did! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: will do! Also, I've made relevant suggestions re: "questionable links" @ Talk:Eight Short Preludes and Fugues.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I started editing this page in 2008. I saw Graham87 on my watchlist: there were plans for BWV 1 to be promoted to a WP:FA, which Gerda Arendt and I planned to do by restructuring the discography, which risked never being promoted (because of tags). For Eight Short Preludes and Fugues, I have almost doubled the content of the article. It was improperly sourced so I added WP:RS using the 2003 book of Peter Williams on Bach's organ works and the 2004 book of Joel Speerstra on clavicords (the prel. In my experience, almost daily I have seen notifications about "authority control" from Tom.Reding for various articles that I have edited, e.g. Orgelbüchlein, Clavier-Übung III, Concerti grossi, Op. 6 (Handel). These are harmless and I have not paid any attention. The article Eight Little Preludes and Fugues has been copy-edited by User:Graham87 and I will continue editing the snippets about each short preludea and fugue. I had hoped to add a creative-commons clavichord audio file, but regrettably it is labelled "non-commerical use". Mathsci (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  New day: I think it's not a good idea that principal authorship of controls whether our readers receive the information or not. What do others think?

  Francis removed it BWV and others today. I understand that denying readers access to information by a principal editor in "control" of an article is a practice supported by some, but I'd like to see that examined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  For clarity, I don't like the idea of editors "controlling" a Wikipedia article. Not at all. The idea disgusts me, it is more often than not an impediment to sound development of an article. If there's a point on whether or not to include a template in an article, take it to the talk page, and try to reach WP:CONSENSUS there. For the article mentioned in the OP, this seems to work now, in the talk page section I initiated. For the diff Gerda quotes for the BWV article: the "Authority control" box for that article shows only a single identifier, and really a bad one ([29]). Its short intro is a mirror of Wikipedia, and the WP:USERGENERATED list itself is incomplete, doesn't distinguish properly between differences in the several editions of the BWV catalogue, haphazardly names a few "artists" connected to some of the works (not by far the most memorable performers of these works), and lags behind on recent information: in short, it is quite inferior to what Wikipedia has on the subject. BTW, not providing a direct link is not "denying" readers access to whatever: two clicks from Wikipedia's BWV page (instead of one) brings you to the same MusicBrainz page. We don't link to whatever information the internet is churning out, that's an editorial choice, not "denying access" too loads of low-quality material. As an identifier for multiple versions of the BWV, MusicBrainz's "(series/)d977f7fd-96c9-4e3e-83b5-eb484a9e6582" identifier is "exotic" (as in: not commonly used anywhere else). Further, the "External links" section of the BWV article already contains an "Authority file" entry, which makes an additional authority control system completely redundant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining, only: I don't have the time to look at each individual article. The normal place where I - as a reader - would look for authority control is where the template is, not within the other external links. I guess readers are educated enough to judge whether to follow any link in it or not. I suggest to use the ac template and remove the other to avoid duplication. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  Re. "I don't have the time to look at each individual article" – nor do I. Maybe trust my judgement for the few I looked at for this aspect, and updated accordingly? Thanks. Saves you the trouble to look at it (for which you don't have time anyway). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

About Authority Control

• Unrelated-related: as I queried elsewhere, Wikidata — who here understands what it actually is? And can you spare a few brain cells? El_C 16:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It is a WMF project that is effectively a large queryable interconnected database that stores information on the encyclopedic topics and their various "properties" (for example, the "composer" of "Symphony No. 9" is the encyclopedic topic "Ludwig von Beethoven" from which other properties can be looked up) This database can be used by various scripts and tools across WMF projects to generate human-readable output based on the encyclopedic topic (such as this authority control template), as well as for external tools that help with the semantic web. It is meant to run parallel to how we editors here prepare information in places like infoboxes and elsewhere into human-readable organized forms. --Masem (t) 16:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
    • To add specific to this, part of the Wikidata for songs include the details of entries for those songs/compositions in major world music catalogs (alphanumeric codes or URL links) which is how the authority control template is populated by pulling the relevant data and formating the proper URL callouts for each catalog. --Masem (t) 16:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Masem. That should be in the article! Next rabbit hole: Semantic Web (new concept for me); wondering if the robot in-charge will want to be my friend...? El_C 16:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • If you go to Google and search "Symphony No. 9", Google pulls some of our data to fill that box to the right to tell you who composed it and when. That's part of the external features. But you could also do, in Google or possibly your local home assistant (Siri or Alexa) "Who wrote Symphony No. 9?" and that's where the semantic web comes in, the backend systems using natural language processigng to figure out that you are looking for 1) the song "Symphony No. 9" 2) that by "wrote" for a song, you mean "composer" and 3) using Wikidata tools to identify the composer as Beethoven. Perhaps a simplified example, but the idea is there. And as Tom Reding points out below, the idea is to make this all centralized rather than project-by-project. --Masem (t) 16:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
        • El_C, I've tried out half a dozen non-WMF wikis that used the WMF software, or a derivation of it.

One wiki I spent some time on was a Darpa project, focussed around counter-terrorism. It used an extension of the WMF software, where ever wikilink could specify the relationship between the current article and the linked-to article. So the article on Lief Ericson would say something like:

Explorer Lief Ericson's father [[Son-of::Eric the Red]], the Norse explorer discovered [[Geo-place::Greenland]]. Ericson, would, in turn explore the coast of [[Geo-place::Labrador]] in [[Geo-place::North America]].

The metadata before the "::" was the relationship between the two articles. So, they didn't need a separate project to support semantic links.

Related articles with a semantic-link to the current article could be listed at the end of the article, sorted by the relationship.

I stopped testing that one out about 8 years ago, because, while they supported this cool extension, they didn't support essential core templates, like {{cite}}. I'm afraid, at this particular moment, I can't even recall the name of that wiki, I do recall it was a weird name. Geo Swan (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• • @El C: TL;DR of WD: it's a unified, cross-language database on every^(ideally) page on all wikis. If the information contained therein about a subject changes or is added (like a new {{Authority control}} ID), anyone from any language can effectively update all wikis, instead of having to do so one-by-one.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• With the flipside of course that this way, you can just as easily vandalize all wikis, instead of having to do so one-by-one. Or not vandalize, just by mistake introduce errors which get duplicated all over Wikipedia, without most editors noticing this in recent changes, without appearing in page histories, ... That vandal and error control at Wikidata are dramatic is their problem: which, if any, entries to allow in AC, and which pages need or want an AC, is our problem and not an issue with Wikidata in itself (they offer it, we are free to accept or reject it). AC adds wikis, adds databases with no use at all for most pages it is on, and adds some good info as well. Look at e.g. Jan_van_Eyck: not only has it a MusisBrainz link[30] of absolutely no value at all, it is also very dubious that anyone on Enwiki will be helped at all by this, this, this, this, this, this, this (not available), this, this, this, ... All these are probably perfect for Wikidata, and this is not a plea to change this over there: none of these are of any use on enwiki, and duplicating all these authority control links is not using Wikidata for its strengths, but diluting it.

Authority control, just like lots of things Wikidata is used for on enwiki, is essentially lazy editing, adding heaps of stuff automatically without care whether it is useful, wanted, needed. It's available, so we use it. It should be either trimmed to keep only the essential ones (essential for enwiki that is), and/or it should be replaced with more tailored templates: for artists it would include RKD, for people from or with a link to Japan the Japanese national library, for subjects with a link to Czechia the Czech one, and so on. That might turn it into a useful template with a lot less objections, a lot less clutter. What we have now, ugh, no. Fram (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I tend to ignore everything in/past the "External links" section. Tends to become a dump of misc stuff much of which is of dubious usefulness to an article. Authority control is one of those things, the things on the right about "X project may have more" is another, and navboxes, many of which are just mass-added and tend to not be tailored for usefulness or relevance. TfD decides to delete subset navboxes (smaller ones which may be useful) as "duplicates" or "redundant". There are some articles where it's carefully curated to be useful, eg Coronavirus_disease_2019#External_links, but most articles it's a mess. It can be difficult to tame stuff down, because many people believe in "mostly harmless" / "WP:NOTPAPER", or other suspect arguments which advocate clogging an article up with everything possible. And it's simply not worth spending time over arguing over stuff on that part of a page, imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! I learned tons about this branch of science. I am fascinated by this ongoing debate (a much as I am able to parse its various components), though am not confident enough to opine in any way at this time. I might gently note that I wish the Wikidata article itself could provide the clarity that a few brief comments here were able to — yes, there's simple:Wikidata, but it's quite spartan. Anyway, carry on! El_C 17:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As an example, I have created Template:ACArt (and the accompanying module), a tailored authority control template for visual arts. I have now added it to Jan Van Eyck, reducing the 35 or so AC links to 15 ones, discarding the superfluous, useless (for enwiki), tenuous or redundant ones. The list of what to include or exclude obviously needs further refinement, this is a rough first version, but it gives the idea. Of course, if we start using this, we no longer can blindly add authority control to all pages... The same could be done for all kinds of groups of subjects, wherever wanted. A separate group could be created not based on the subject matter, but on the country of origin for example, so that e.g. the national library of Croatia doesn't appear for subjects with a tenuous link to Croatia. Fram (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a good direction, but I am not an expert on the issue, and we should hear from librarians, pinging some I know about: @DGG, Megalibrarygirl, and Phoebe: could you comment on the general Authority Control or the new {{ACArt}}? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: tried it & like it! Thanks, looks like we might be getting somewhere after all with this protracted issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it's exactly correct to say that Wikidata is " a unified, cross-language database on every(ideally) page on all wikis". It's a unified cross language databases of every definable object or concept,, which includes of course everything that has a page in any of the wikis, or that is mentioned in any of the wikis, or in any other reasonable source. I consider it very dubiously reliable for authority control of any sort:. If it takes its information from the wikis, it's no more reliable than we are; if it takes it from external databases, it's as reliable than they are. I don't know how it works for music--classical music seems a reasonably definable field, with good external databases, so it might be a good place to use it, but I am not a specialist. .

I do know how it works for authors, at least US authors. It takes the information from enWP, and from the Library of Congress database. (OCLC is just a unreliable derivative of LC as far as authority is concerned; ISBN is a publisher's database) Library of Congress was an excellent authority for many years, based on expert research, until around the 1970s , when it started resorting to simply copying whatever the publisher wrote on the book's title page or put on the copyright form. In the 2010s it deteriorated further, and if it had no other source, for an author's name or birthdates , it has been using Wikipedia. All the while, if we have no other source for an author's name or dates, or if there is a conflict between sources, we use LC. (VIAF for American authors is a copy of LC). Wikidata uses them all, and unless I am mistaken, has no real mechanism for resolving conflicts--certainly no automatic mechanism. Our habit of listing all possible authority control databases for an author strikes me as absurd, for they copy each other. (But I trust the German national bibliography for German language authors better than LC, just as I trust deWP more than enWP. I am unsure about the others) .

WD is potentially extremely valuable, for collecting everything in one place, and already it is remarkably helpful as the much-needed multilingual index to the various WPs. . It has not yet come to terms or even acknowledged the lack of exact semantic equivalents between languages; it has not yet come to terms with the unfortunate fact known to all WP editors that it is much harder to document data than to copy it. I am particularly concerned about circularity of references; the circular references of Google andWP is already a serious problem, and additing WD into the mix does not make it better. Every year that we do not definitively solve this, it will become more difficult.

and fwiw, I too am among them who tried to develop a specialized true semantic wiki--as the scale increased ,the work became more than I could handle. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Compositions of well-known composers usually have catalogues to identify them. For such compositions, any other authority control system is usually (in the best case scenario) redundant, if not exotic of sorts and/or copied from a less reliable source (such as Wikipedia). For compositions that have no unique identification via a composer catalogue (by a less studied composer, with a contested attribution, etc) another system would be welcome, but through the unreliability of the general databases in such more difficult cases (often contradictory, while based on user-generated content etc.) the usability of these general authority control systems is also of limited value. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: I checked the {{authority control}} listing for Graham87's report about Eight Short Preludes and Fugues, an article which has recently been expanded. The "musicbrainz" information, particularly about recordings, is extremely useful, although it still needed checking from different sources. It is a spurious work, in which apparently the Bach-Gesellschaft editor Johannes Brahms showed almost no interest (according to the Bach scholar Russell Stinson). On the other hand, for the article on the celebrated Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543, the corresponding wikidata had to be manually entered (with some tweaking). The list of recordings from musicbrainz is again useful: the corresponding section on "Recordings" has not yet to be added—Helmut Walcha, André Isoir, Ton Koopman, Marie-Claire Alain, etc, will be listed. The audio file recently added on Commons for Robert Köbler playing on a Silbermann organ is now in the file: authority control shows that it was made in 1965, even the month. There are no scratches. Mathsci (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Mathsci Iban violation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please note that Mathsci is under an indef interaction ban with Francis Schonken, so this seems like a rather blatant violation of that Iban. They received previous blocks in November 2020 for other violations of that Iban, so it's not something from the distant past. Fram (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC) And looking at their recent edits, they seem to be following Francis Schonken around, sometimes avoiding the IBan by appearing after Francis Schonken but replying to others, sometimes not even trying to keep up the appearance and simply reverting FS[31]. Fram (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC) @Fram: I have made edits to Ballades (Chopin), Scherzos (Chopin), Waltzes, Op. 70 (Chopin), etc. Some days back, in this report of User:Graham87 on WP:ANI, I discussed the problems of Eight Short Preludes and Fugues. I believe that the article has been expanded from a stub into a proper article. Similarly the article BWV 543, mentioned above. Similarly, for BWV 1, I saw the poor quality image for the infobox, so I added a high resolution image as a favour for User:Gerda Arendt. I have made edits like that many, many times and have been thanked. I discussed with Gerda Arendt and Graham87 about the problem of discographies, on User talk:Gerda Arendt, and Graham87 agreed to help. That is how things work on wikipedia. There have been recurring problems on Talk:Frédéric Chopin, where there is an ongoing RfC. It is normal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music that matters be disucced with participants, such as User:Nikkimaria, User:Toccata quarta, User:Nihil novi, User:Kosboot, User:JackofOz, User:Ealdgyth, etc. Wny did you not comment when I added remarks in the report previously a week ago? I was talking about {{authority control}}, and the minor notifications of Tom.Reding that appear daily on my watchlist, etc, etc. Please remember to assume good faith. Mathsci (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC) I didn't notice your earlier IBan violation in this very discussion, so I didn't comment on it. Having gotten away with it there does hardly excuse continuing making these violations. Note that e.g. reverting each other is one of the things specifically listed in WP:IBAN: "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;" it doesn't matter whether you implement a consensus or not, you are interaction banned and should thus leave it to others. Fram (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC) @Fram: All I can see is that Fram is making a number of bad faith edits. He has ignored the ongoing RfC on the "Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin" which has been listed in about 8 different noticeboard, including WP:DRN, organised by User:Robert McClenon. The RD was listed for Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin by the uninvolved administrator User:Thryduulf. there have been problems with the edits of User:Chip-chip-2020 and Frédéric Chopin the initiative for a discography for BWV 1 was an initiative of User:Gerda Arendt and User:Graham87 the article BWV 543 was largely expanded by me from a stub to something reasonable the article Eight Short Preludes and Fugues expanded by me recently the stub BWV 53 has been a collaboration of User:Nikkimaria and myself Fram has a history (which involved my stroke three years ago), his own arbcom case and then WP:FRAM. Mathsci (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC) I'll let others comment, as I have no interest in starting again with pointless sideshows (as happened in the original discussions that lead to your Iban in the first place). I doubt that making personal attacks will help your case though. Fram (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC) @Mathsci: to clarify, my only involvement in any of this has been to procedurally close Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 27#Sexuality of Frédéric Chopin and protect the redirect pending closure of the directly related RFC. The title was created as an article by Franscis Schonken, turned into a redirect by Mathsci and listed at RfD by Robert McClenon. I have no interest in being involved any further with dispute regarding Chopin. I've had no involvement at all with authority control templates and do not wish to have any so do not plan on watching this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC) @Thryduulf: Hi there. Agreed—that's why I used the word "uninvolved administrator". User:Piotrus initally created the new article which I changed to a redirect; the slightly complicated edit history can be sorted out from that (one fly-by editor), but as you have said that is no concern of yours. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Likewise, all I've done re the BWV 1 discography is to advise about attribution. Graham87 14:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Exactly—and many thanks. Several other editors helped improving the discography, including Thoughtfortheday and Miorokado. Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

BoMadsen88

• BoMadsen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

BoMadsen88 has been repeatedly uncivil and disruptive. The issue stems from discussions at that can be seen Talk:Elon Musk about content that is critical of Musk. Many of their comments have been directed towards QRep2020. I recently split a section of Musk's page into a subarticle to make the article more summary style. After I did that, they opened these taunting discussions ([32] and [33]) on our talk pages. Can an admin please address this. ~ HAL333 20:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Block. This is clearly a troll. The 88 almost tells you everything you need to know if the talk page comments didn't already. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

What exactly does 88 tell you? But it is really funny how the same guys alwaaaaays comment and back each other up on the same topics. It does not seem very objective to me: Take good ol' MJL who was the first to respond here for example. MJL has rewarded Qrep2020 with a barnstar just over a week ago. Qrep2020 in turn rewarded a barnstar to Hal333 also about a week ago. But let us get into the serious and VERY concerning discussion here at hand: Qrep2020 has been under huge scrutiny for allegedly being a short seller of Tesla. Take a look at this entire thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020 (OH! and look who has come to defend Qrep2020 in the thread: no other than Hal333 and MJL - Surprise!). I was the one responsible for pointing out in the first place that Qrep2020 was in NO way objective when he edited the article on Elon Musk because he has every single reason to post him in as bad as light as possible. I raised my concerns in the talk page on the Elon Musk article but all my points was STRONGLY refuted by Qrep2020 AND Hal333 (surprise!). However, since then all my suggestions have been implemented in the Elon Musk article because it was clearly not high enough quality for a Wiki article - and almost all the edits by Qrep2020 have been removed. Something very fishy is going on with this trio - the lengths to which they are immediately present to defend each other paints a picture of 3 wiki editors that are not able to edit articles in an objective way. Wikipedia strives to make as good and unbiased articles as possible - the way that these 3 people back each other up regardless of the topic discussed is VERY troublesome. BoMadsen88 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The number 88 is commonly employed by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. And, QRep still has the third highest percentage of authorship. ~ HAL333 21:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I smiled reading that - I am from Denmark, and had absolutely no knowledge of 88 as having that meaning. SPOILER: It is my birthday year. But would you please address the concerns I have raised HAL333 - THIS is the serious problem here. You have gone to great lengths to agree with and defend Qrep2020 in many matters here on Wikipedia - this poses a serious risk for not-so-objective edits.BoMadsen88 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are accusing editors of meatpuppetry, you must supply evidence of these accusations, as otherwise they can be considered to be personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No I am not accusing any editors here of Meatpuppetry (quite a word that is)... And I can not see how you would think that - I am quite clear in what I am accusing them of: Regardless of topic these editors will back each other up “to have each other’s back” - like in the schoolyard where some kids always gather together even if one of them misbehaved. And by misbehaving I am referring to Qrep2020 blatant biased edits and highly probable violation of COI (as seen adrressed in the link). HAL333 and MJL and Qrep2020 has a habbit of this “schoolyard” behavior, as seen in their quick support of each other no matter the topic. THAT is not good Wiki-editor behavior. (By the way, just to be clear, i am no way implying that each guys know each other personally, other than here on wikipedia).BoMadsen88 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Comparing editors to misbehaving children is still a personal attack... ~ HAL333 05:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@BoMadsen88: Literally, only this has been the extent to which I have ever sided with Qrep2020 in a content dispute. As for Hal333, apparently they didn't get the memo on this collusion plot when she opposed my FLC at first (lol).
Also, I'm not a guy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Not condoning BoMadsen88's behavior. The user is new, but should know better than to gloat on user's pages. It's relevant that QRep2020 is an SPA that works closely with HAL333 on the Elon Musk article, and seems unable to contribute neutrally to Wikipedia. I think WP:NOTHERE is relevant. See the active discussion on the COI noticeboard: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

To touch on SPA, BoMadsen88 seems to contribute almost solely to the Elon Musk talk page and hasn't made an edit to English mainspace since 2019. ~ HAL333 22:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Block. Continued harassment and false accusations. I have not coordinated with anyone in response to it, and only asked HAL333 to make good on their previous ANI warning to BoMadsen88. QRep2020 (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC) edit: BoMadsen is now taking advantage of another user's spamming of Talk:Elon_Musk to repeatedly post an accusatory text with slight variations. The attacks have been happening for days now. The user clearly is not contributing to the article itself and shows no interest in doing so. QRep2020 (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm giving my cents here to say block for WP:NOTHERE, even if I'm not involved in the dispute. Frequently messing on the talk pages rather than editing on Wikipedia mainspace articles (last mainspace edits on 2019!) to make sure that Wikipedia is unbiased suggests that their intentions don't line up with most of Wikipedia, which is to assume good faith and be civil. MarioJump83! 03:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

But, since I said things about AGF, I'm also going to AGF here - BoMadsen88 should first be warned for these actions they have done, which they should know better as a new user instead of gloating at user talk pages. If they repeat, it's probably over for them (blocked for NOTHERE), which is what I said above. MarioJump83! 04:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a strange argument to use that I have only been active on the talk page. I have been unable to edit the Elon Musk article, and therefore I was forced to use the talk page. And I made A LOT of work to point out what was wrong with that article - and EVERY SINGLE one of my points have since been implemented in the article, which I am damn proud of. Thanks to my points the Elon Musk article can now mostly be passed of as being unbiased and objective, in NO WAY could it before I intervened. By the way it is not true that I have not edited anything on Wikipedia since 2019 - I edited an article just a few weeks ago (“Camilla Hessellund Lastein”) - that was since deleted thanks to me pointing out that it did not belong on Wikipedia. 2.104.116.221 (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Whups forgot to login. Message above is mine BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's the edit count to prove it. ~ HAL333 16:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

To prove what exactly? Did you even read my message before? I would have made a TON of edits on the Elon Musk page to make it a high quality AND UNBIASED article had I been allowed to (The Elon Musk article is locked). Oh and the argument that I violate NOTHERE does not really make sense: I was the one who saw that Qrep2020 did make biased and non-objective edits in the first place - which then led to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020 being created to address the issue. The reason why I wrote on the talk-pages of HAL333 and Qrep2020 was to point out that these edits have no place here on Wikipedia and will be found. BoMadsen88 (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTHERE, a single article seems like a very narrow interest. ~ HAL333 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hold it hold it right there! Narrow interest? Luckily we have my edit history to see that my interests are broader than that. AND when speaking about narrow interests - I hope we can agree that it would seem MUCH more narrow for our friend Qrep2020 to almost solely contribute to Tesla and to the Teslaq, the shortsellers of Tesla article (an article that Qrep2020 himself created and which noteworthiness itself has been discussed). It screams of narrow interests and a very probable conflict of COI - Wouldn’t you agree on that old chap? BoMadsen88 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: Haha, this is getting more and more hilarious. Let us hold on to Hal333 statement above: “Seems like a very narrow interest”. I just decided to dig a little deeper to take a look at Qrep2020s edit history. Why dont we all take a look: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/QRep2020 As we can see if “narrow interest” ever applied to a user it is this wiki edtior. The articles he has most contributed to is: 1. TESLAQ, 2. Elon Musk, 3. Tesla, 4. Ken Klippenstein (a person that has has disputes with Elon Musk), 5. Plainsite (a website that has had disputes with Elon and Tesla). Should we continue? Further down at number 7 we find “List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla inc.”. I repeat myself, Hal333 wouldnt you also call that VERY narrow interests? BoMadsen88 (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In the same time period that QRep2020 has edited 167 different pages, you have made a single edit that does not directly relate to Elon Musk or editors who have contributed to Elon Musk. Yes, that does seem like the actions of a single purpose account that is not here to build an encyclopedia. ~ HAL333 20:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed the same about this user QRep2020. The users Elephanthunter and BoMadsen88 are absolutely right. See the active discussion on the COI noticeboard: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020. --JShark (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Update On Talk:Elon Musk, BoMadsen88 posted a block of text in which he claims QRep2020 "is unable to make edits that are unbiased and ojbective". He pasted it onto the talk page three times ([34],[35], [36]). It's really just disruptive at this point. ~ HAL333 12:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

He is also displaying battleground tactics, refuting an admin and excusing the disruptive actions of another editor: "JShark has every right to try to push a solution through asap". ~ HAL333 13:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I fully stand by that claim. As I have explained multiple times Qrep2020 is in so clear breach of COI and WP:SPA. I would urge every editor to take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020 . Now to address you accusations that I pasted it three times into the Talk page of Elon Musk: I only did that because the user Jshark adressed his very valid and serious concerns in three multiple talk-sections (a concern involving yourself and Qrep2020). I wanted to show my support and had to make sure it was seen, so I had to paste it into all three sections. You know damn well that that is not "distruptive", and it is a claim that also deliberately tries to distort the truth to make it seem that I started the spamming. Jshark's three sections have been dealt with here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Excessive_talk_page_spamming_by_JShark and he has apologised for it since. I will soon have to open an incident section here on your behaviour here HAL333. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoMadsen88 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the discussions at Talk:Elon Musk and the diffs provided above, I think that the taunting on editors' talk pages by BoMadsen88 (such as Special:Diff/1003504553 and Special:Diff/1003503381) is out of line and deserves a formal warning. Beyond that, they should be reminded that they should comment on content, not on contributors when participating in discussions about article content. Other than that I don't think there's need for blocks or bans provided that the harassment stops. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Rosguill: I'm fine with a warning, but I just want to make sure you have seen these statements where this user made practically the same comment in 5 different places, 3 of which are just simple copy-and-pastes- ([37][38][39][40][41]) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  MJL, yeah, I saw that, saw that they were warned about that (Special:Diff/1004219407), and that they said that they didn't intend to spam (Special:Diff/1004220916). Provided that all borderline-harassing behavior stops, I think that a warning is all that is needed right now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  Can we remove at least some of the flood text, especially on Talk:Elon_Musk, regardless of BoMadsen's and Jshark's intentions? QRep2020 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  QRep2020, I've hatted the near-duplicate comments. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hitler's prophecy—TFA undergoing ongoing vandalism

• Hitler's prophecy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please, would an admin protect this article. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, we should just semi-protect TFA by default for the duration it's on the main page and be done with it. I could have sworn years ago that was standard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: It should be discuss at TFA's talk page and explain why TFA are suspected to high level of IP vandalism and should be semi-protected. I believe it happens sometime ago but was removed for unknown reasons. 110.137.117.75 (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The most recent discussion seems to be WT:Today's featured article/Archive 14#Question about protection (July 2020}. Narky Blert (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I've had that thought myself. I've recently become highly active after a past of patchy gnoming, and I vividly recalled TFA being protected-by-default at some point. It seems the rather overwhelmingly obvious solution. I get the desire to seem welcoming to new editors -- but having your edits reverted is a lot less welcoming, and the archive @Narky Blert linked makes it clear this is the case in practice for the majority of even good-faith edits. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Floating an idea - would {{pending changes}} on TFAs for only so long as they're on the main page work? I doubt that any serious-minded newbie would be put off by a message saying "We're going to check your work"; indeed, the best ones might be encouraged by it. If a TFA is actively patrolled (and I imagine that the godparents usually pay loving attention), newbie edits would either be rapidly approved (kudos!) or tossed into the garbage before the public has the misfortune of seeing them. (OK wrong venue, but this is just an idea-float.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't know about other people, but I really didn't like seeing that on the main page. Makes me feel ill. But for the nature of the article, I would assume that it should be semi-protected permanently. Govvy (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That strikes me as an excellent idea, Narky. The PC backlog can get a bit choked, but very rarely more than a few hours, and I wouldn't be surprised if a change like this gets more attention to it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes seems like a great solution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article. Narky Blert (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that automatic protection for TFAs is a perennially rejected proposal. The article itself? As said above, semi indefinite is probably warranted, but I'm not in a position to adjudicate that. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Every time that protection has been proposed in the past, it has been semi-protection, not pending changes. Some TFA's are far more likely to be vandalised than others, and maybe proactively protecting articles on similar topics to which articles had to be protected in the past would be helpful. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I was replying to The Bushranger's suggestion for semi in his quote Seriously, we should just semi-protect TFA by default for the duration it's on the main page and be done with it. I wasn't commenting on PC autoprotect, and I personally would support that.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bain Ligor

• Makushima (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bain Ligor

I'm not sure what the solution is but Makushima has been disruptive in bludgeoning the discussion, especially with refactoring other users in order to line-item respond to them.[42] This edit cannot be reverted now and no user would want to manually refactor this mess for the closing and archiving of the discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

sorry about this. I thought wiki smart enought to format my answers, if I insert them after sentence which I answer, so it looks more like real discussion. But technology is not ideal. Makushima (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree about bludgeoning. In real world it calls discussion, when people exchanges their opinions and arguments, highlight information to others. Some people don't read carefully so I help them to clarify the evidence and arguments. I don't know why Morbidthoughts call it bludgeoning... It is very confusing. Makushima (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC) if man in discussion says that Bain is Russian. It looks complete not logical. All official sources says that she is Kalmyk. If you look at her youtube channel, she wrote many times, that she is Kalmyk. So I am trying to clarify to such person that his statement is incorrect. If you live on territory of Russia it doesn't mean that you are Russian. If I didn't answer to his incorrect arguments, how he will find that he is wrong? This calls a discussion in real world. Why it calls bludgeoning by Morbidthoughts I don't understand.Makushima (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this is problematic. It now looks like I made the comments "This article doesn't belong here on the English wikipedia at all." and "She is a Russian." and other such comments that I never made. I'm not sure that this AfD should really be kept open anyway as it's been running for 11 days and consensus is quite clear. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm the one who said those statements, I had to state it in response because the creator was claiming multiple times that she becomes popular just because she's "recognized" in her ethnic group. Its probably in mine and everyones best interest that we don't bring the afd discussion here. Its a sad and awful thing to do, but I feel me, and multiple other editors already gave the creator clear, kind , helpful suggestions on how to proceed and what kind of sources to look for , he still kept blaming us for minority discrimination, until @Phil Bridger:'s russian expertise showed that news articles did infact exist. Daiyusha (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I won't do it, as I was one to warn him, but given the number of warnings, discussions and attempts at explanation met by wikilawyering, I think it's safe to say this discussion would be fine without Makushima's additional input. S/he has weighed in numerous times and should probably be partial blocked from editing that page so that the discussion can reach a consensus. StarM 16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Given this quote,

“ So it is hard to tell that this is blackmail. It is like threat with paper poster heavy armored SWAT officer ”

a block until they calm down does seem neccessary. In same comment, they also promise to write a negative essay on wikipedia. Slywriter (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slywriter: said essay is User:Makushima/Minority descrimination on Wikipedia which I userfied following the first speedy. I have subsequently declined @Daiyusha:'s speedy as I don't think it meets the standard of an attack page. I don't think the user has edited it since its creation out of frustration with Wikipedia policies. StarM 17:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The sad thing here is that it may be possible to find sources here that show notability, but, instead of concentrating on that, this editor has chosen to lash out. In a couple of minutes I (with my 45-year-old Russian A level) found a few seemingly reliable sources, but without much coverage, so anyone spending a bit of time on this may be able to find some more significant sources, but people are understandably reluctant to spend time when this editor is acting in such a way. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking into this further I don't think that any action is needed unless there is any further disruption. This is a brand-new editor who apparently doesn't have English as a first language, who has written an article and is understandably a bit upset that it looks like it might be deleted. Let's wait and see if the warnings have sunk in. Makushima, please understand that nobody here is trying to denigrate you or the Kalmyk people, but just trying to judge an article and its subject by consistent standards. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Having participated in AfDs of young performers in the past, these usually start out in good faith: A new editor enjoys a performer's work and believes that they should have a WP biography. They don't understand WP:MUSICBIO or WP:RS. So they create the bio and when it's up for deletion they are upset that their beloved performer isn't getting the recognition and respect that the editor believes they deserve. I must note that this editor has not made a single edit in any area outside of Bain Ligor. This may be a WP:SPA and calls to question possible undisclosed WP:COI. Blue Riband► 04:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bain Ligor has been sitting there for 12 days (as I write this), far longer than normal before a decision is made to keep, delete, or relist. I suspect that Admins are avoiding it because the text is such a mess to get through, due to Makushima's rambling and inexperienced editing. But the result is an interminably awful argument in which Makushima repeats the same grievances again and again and again, badgering more experienced editors and accomplishing jack squat for the singer, while clumsily trying to guilt-trip everybody with an obvious agenda about how the Kalmyk people are covered in world media. The solution is Admin action in closing the AfD at long last, deleting the singer's article (the clear consensus) and doing whatever is necessary to prevent Makushima from creating it again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with DOOMSDAYER's sentiments. There is an overwhelming consensus at the AfD and there has been for 10+ days at this point and the bad faith accusations. The personal attacks have not subsided and the editor appears not to want to adhere to Wikipedia policy, and it looks like the editor will outright refuse to do so in the future based on their comments both in the AfD and on their talk page. I also share Riband►'s SPA/COI concerns. At this point at least a partial block, if not an indef until the editor agrees to adhere to policy, is necessary. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I've closed the AfD. Makushima, if you're willing to accept this result and let this matter drop now that the AfD is over, I think this can be closed without any blocks. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

POV, softening edits on white supremacist/white supremacist organization pages by User:Wikiuser100, battleground mentality

• User: Wikiuser100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User made changes that included softening the tone of the Council of Conservative Citizens and Lester Maddox, both of which are articles relating to American white supremacy. This user, in both cases, downplayed the nature of white supremacy in the purview of these articles (removing it entirely from the CofCC lead and portraying the view as coming from one organization), as seen with this diff from the CofCC. User's edits on Lester Maddox were reverted here by User:Symmachus Auxiliarus with the edit summary I'm sorry, but much of this appears to be subtle whitewashing of some aspects of the subject's bio; i.e., false balance and softening the language surrounding his pro-racial segregation stances, violation of the Civil Rights Act, and founding of the Council of Concerned Citizens.

On the CofCC talk page, the user left four responses (one, two, three, four) that were blatantly rancorous in nature, accusing User:Beyond My Ken and others on the talk page of zealotry and McCarthyism, and dismissing dissenting views as "naked nonsense." Based on the behavior presented at Talk:Council of Conservative Citizens and the editing pattern there, at Lester Maddox and likely elsewhere, a topic ban on at least articles relating to American conservatism at bare minimum seems appropriate. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban Wikiuser100 says that neutrality requires that we use to the self-description of white supremacists instead of reliable sources, which they consider biased. But the policy actually says the opposite. Editors who are unable or unwilling to follow content policy should not contribute and the personal attacks they made make this worse. I suggest you clearly phrase the topic which the editor should be banned from. TFD (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Perhaps articles relating to American conservatism? Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Warned. AP2 alert also issued. El_C 17:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Overreliance on first-party/SPS sources are a problem, but the user is not wrong in the matter about how the tone about these type of articles, which can be addressed without adding content from those sources - we're supposed to write impartially and neutrality about these types of people and groups even if they have detestable views per WP:OUTRAGE. --Masem (t) 18:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about all that, but regardless, their tone and tenor is a problem. El_C 19:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Given the near-complete dismissal of what seem to be very valid complaints about the article's state, the tone may be harsh and dipping just into the edge of NPA, but can be rationalized and is no worse that I've seen typical in these types of discussions on other pages that go by unaddressed or are left without concern. I do agree with a caution that they're on the line related to tolerance of civility and need to step back. The edit warring is something to be concerned about (tagged with the AP2 warning). --Masem (t) 19:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Masem, I don't view there being any mitigating circumstances to ameliorate the nature of my warning —as a last chance saloon, final warning— in any way whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact. El_C 21:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "very valid complaints"?? So you think they weren't trying to whitewash a well known white supremacy group by removing a label that RS applies to them? Whycome do you only care about article tone when it's about white supremists or conspiracy theorists? If you think these were very valid complaints then perhaps you should step away Masem. This is getting rediculous having watching people waste their time rebuffing your rediculous arguments. I don't care if this isn't appropriate, this above comment is just too much. Valeince (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no whitewashing. NPOV and LABEL requires us to not speak labels in Wikivoice, but to use attribution, which is part of the edits they made to attribute it and move it to the second sentence of the lede. (I fully disagree with most of their other edits, the subsequent use of the group's own sources to create the false balance otherwise) The problem is that WP is required to have a dispassionate and impartial tone per NPOV, and speaking any of these terms in Wikivoice and throwing those as the first things said about a group or person is absolutely not dispassionate or impartial, regardless of sourcing. We don't do that for politically "left" labels, we don't do that for "positive" or other favorable labels, it is only this drive (likely due to the political climate) that editors force this on the right and far right areas, perhaps out of a RIGHTGREATWRONGS sense of need, and it clearly stands out as a major problem with our coverage in this area over the last 5-6 years. And when editors just seem to dismiss complaints like the case here, that's not helping at all, it creates a cycle that feeds on itself. Again, Wikiuser is not 100% in the clea of wrongdoing here, but the refusal to address valid complaints on the talk page and claiming their edits are whitewashing is BS behavior that is not helpful. --Masem (t) 22:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, you do not believe there was whitewashing, but the editors in the consensus discussion on the talk page do not agree with you. You seem to want to mandate how consensus discussion must be carried out, since you've now repeatedly described the contributions of multiple editors in that discussion as "dismissive" or otherwise impugned their value -- saying that the editors were attempting to "RIGHTGREATWRONGS" -- or have implied that they drove Wikiuser100 to take actions out of frustration, even though the evidence -- which I've pointed out below -- does not support that thesis. As to this being part of some anti-right wing drive by nefarious forces, well, this is merely a repeat of the age-old "cabal" argument, which rarely had any value, and certainly doesn't have any value now, in a consensus-driven project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I have never said there was a cabel; but I do believe there's a broader echo chamber problem related to how we've handled politically right topics on WP that is far more difficult to break, which the behavior at that article's talk page towards Wikiuser negatively reinforces. --Masem (t) 22:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no doubt there has a been an "echo chamber" problem on Wikipedia, but only of an echo chamber of the right, where Trumpism, the alt-right, Fox News and the right-wing media have combined to create one. Fortunately, it has been mostly contained in the encyclopedia by judicious semi-protection of articles, stalwart watchlisting and defense of the truthfulness and neutrality of those articles affected.

Although such claims have been thrown around, these is no appreciable "left wing echo chamber", because there is no left-wing media of national importance, nor any influential "leftist" leaders in the US who go beyond advocating a tepid democratic socialism.

I will admit that a white supremacist attempt to subvert the Constitution and do bodily harm to our elected representatives does raise hackles, but that's only natural, and it's unfair and rather insulting to label heightened concerns as attempts to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you believe that the editors involved in the consensus discussion on Talk:Council of Conservative Citizens#Whitewashing are NOTHERE to help create and maintain an encyclopedia, I suggest that you open ANI reports about them individually, and present whatever evidence you may have. Otherwise I think it would be best if you stop broadly WP:Casting aspersions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That's the wrong echo chamber. I fully agree in the political world about the concerns of the dangers of the echo chamber related to Trumpism and white supremacy and all that, but as soon as we put on our WP editor hats, we are supposed become dispassionate and impartial to that, and WP's voice and tone needs to reflect that impartial tone. WP can't take a side here no matter how detestable those poeple have been or have acted. We're not supposed to be writing articles in a passionate manner reflecting our concerns even if that's the way the media wants to present the topic - we are suppose to stay to attribution and keep WP's voice out of it, as otherwirse your're engaging in RIGHTGREATRONGS. Doing this right, these groups will still come out with articles that will not reflect well on them for the reader, capturing the key points the media has made early on, but in manner that still treats the topic neutrally and impartially. But the echo chamber I speak of is that too many editors involved in these articles let the media's aggressive tone echo into Wikivoice and forgo the proper encyclopedic treatment that we use on every other equivalent topic. The specific accusations towards Wikiuser of "whitewashing" and "softening edits" which are 100% in-line with NPOV are thus complete inappropriate since they are trying to correct this echo chamber problem. (this is not 100% absolution of what Wikiuser has done, as explained already). --Masem (t) 14:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Your understanding of policy is perfect, but your interpretation of how policy applies to this dispute is very far off the mark, and you insist on casting aspersions against the multiple editors who disagreed with Wikiuser100's edits in the talk page consensus discussion, which I do think you ought to stop doing, you being an admin and all. In point of fact, there are -- as I and other editors have stated above -- no "valid concerns" about either the tone of the article or about the behavior of the other editors in the consensus discussion, while there are real, serious questions about an editor who attempts to soften articles about white supremacists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Given that what's on the talk page is only local consensus and not yet evaluated for more input (which seems to be what Wikiuser was trying to do but made poor judgement and missteps that they should have know better given account age), the statement "there are real, serious questions about an editor who attempts to soften articles about white supremacists" is extremely troubling because WP is not supposed to take a side and is supposed to be amoral and dispassionate about these topics even if they are an afront to a large portion of editors/readers/sources/etc. per WP:OUTRAGE. Taking the view that we should not soften how we write articles on these topics of outrage is completely inappropriate and aligns with RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It is certainty possible to go too far in softening the POV on such, which would be, for example, injecting false balance from first party sources like Wikiuser did include, or completely removing the "white supremacy" term outright (which Wikiuser did not do). But we should be letting the sources speak for themselves and not force that into Wikivoice in both a factual nature nor in tone if we are staying neutral and dispassionate about the topic, and this is exactly what Wikiuser was trying to argue on the talk page for. This is exactly the same type of BS (including personal attacks towards me) I was getting during the whole GG article situation just for trying to argue for a neutral tone, hence why I'm sensitive to what's being thrown at Wikiuser here just for trying to argue neutrality. Again, there are other things Wikuser has done beside arguing for neutrality that are of issue to be considered in terms of mainspace edits, but the argument that a user is not allowed to challenge the local consensus related to neutrality given polices around neutrality and the current state of the article are pretty much nonsense. It is very much an allowed point of debate. --Masem (t) 19:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support AP2 topic ban, especially considering edits of a similar nature on Lester Maddox. Masem is incorrect concerning the tone of the CofCC article, which relies on WP:RS descriptions of the organization, and is therefore neutral by definition. To soften those descriptions is non-neutral, especially when primary sources from the organization itself are used to do so. There are no "very valid concerns" here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)]
  • WP:TONE is a NPOV policy, in addition to considering WP:WEIGHT of sources. There is a proper balance to this particularly when it comes to these labels, as outlined at WP:OUTRAGE and WP:YESPOV There is appropriate room for discussion on this matter, it is not a done-and-done, no-questions-asked policy matter as implied by the replies on the talk pages to Wikiuser. --Masem (t) 19:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I'm saying that the tone of the article is neutral. Obvious, you disagree, but editors on the article's talk page disagree with you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Predicating that edit warning and near-NPA are not acceptable and thus are points to be concern here, the behavior of Wikiuser in response to the complete dismissal of discussion on the talk page is not something that I concern actionable. Wikiuser probably is having problems figuring out a proper dispute resolution pathway here (I see they went to the EW noticeboard which is not right here) but they were trying to seek resolution and editors on the talk page refused to engage in that and in fact shunned any attempt to resolve dispute. --Masem (t) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, your conclusion is not supported by the evidence, since I pointed them to the talk page both in edit summaries [43],[44] and on their user talk page. [45]. Further, the edit warring notification I put on their page [46], also directed them to the article talk page. There was absolutely no chance that Wikiuser100 couldn't have known what the proper action to take was to resolve the dispute, especially since there are numerous other edit warring notifications on their talk page, dating back to August 2015. In addition, an explicit pointer to using talk pages to resolve disputes was given to them earlier that year, in January 2015.
          This is not a newbie editor, they've been here for 13 years and have almost 54K edits. [47]. Their going to WP:EWN (without informing me, as they are required to do) [48], before they ever engaged on the talk page [49], [50] seems to me more of a WP:BATTLEGROUNDy tactical decision than the action of a confused editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - though it's not the most out-and-out slap-a-yikes-on-that editing I've ever seen, this user doesn't seem to be approaching the extremely delicate topics of white supremacy with nearly the right tone or approach to their fellow editors. Articles on contentious topics need to be some of the most carefully-constructed articles on Wikipedia, and in that regard, this user seems to be WP:NOTHERE based on their Talk page activity. If a considerably more serious issue came up in the same topic in the future, could they be relied upon to respond neutrally and constructively? My answer, and my best guess, is no. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Way overboard for the two reverts on the one article and none of the second. The subjective parts of tone for articles is not a reason for a topic ban. Also the idea of nothere seems baseless. PackMecEng (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I proposed the TBAN not just because of the content of the edits (really? whitewashing RSs of white supremist orgs is "subjective tone"?) but also because of the inability of the editor to civilly discuss when consensus is clearly not in their favor. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, I just think it is a step to far at this point. I stand by my response. PackMecEng (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly support an indefinite topic ban from post-1992 American politics. The big problem with this editor isn't tone or civility, it's a) their insistence that the most neutral and accurate information about an organization comes from their own self-description, and b) the tendentious editing that follows logically from this insistence. People have explained to them that self-descriptions are not reliable sources. (We have a pretty good essay about it, also.) As for PackMecEng's count, that the entire problem with the user consists of their two reverts (?), I don't understand it. This isn't WP:ANEW, and the reverts are a very small part of the point. Wikiuser100 refuses to understand, or genuinely can't understand, our sourcing policies. Bishonen | tålk 09:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC).

  Part of the complaint on the page itself was a charge of edit waring. Not sure what ANEW has to do with that? Did you look at the history of the page in question? As to the rest while I agree they relied to much of WP:ABOUTSELF in this situation I don't think it goes far enough to warrant a topic ban. I was a little surprised by the leap in logic it takes to get there. PackMecEng (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose tban based on evidence presented here. Even if this is POV pushing, it appears the editor was warned. If they continue then a tban may be the correct answer. However, if they listen to the warning then any additional sanction would be purely punitive. Rope has been given, let's see what happens before pulling it tight. Springee (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose tban - this user has a clean blocklog, and I'm not seeing anything in his edits that is worthy of a t-ban. The OP's accusations that the editor is "downplaying white supremacy" is pretty far-fetched based on the diffs provided, which simply demonstrate the editor's attempt to comply with NPOV in a dispassionate tone. Pretty much the same words are being used, just rearranged so that they read dispassionately. For as long as I can remember, there was never anything subtle or ambiguous about white supremacy; it's blatant and easy to recognize without having to dig for evidence or argue that it's so. Implying that an editor is a white supremacist based on nothing more than one's POV is where the focus of an admin action should be per WP:PA. I can't help but wonder how things went down when the article about Hitler was created, and promoted to GA. I can only imagine what those editors went through to end-up with a GA. Perhaps it should be used as a case study for editors to learn from and to help them acquire a better understanding of what comprises NPOV, regardless of the subject or how we may personally feel about it. We are not here to RGW. Atsme 💬 📧 16:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What? No one -- myself included -- has implied that the user in question is a white supremacist based on the actions that caused me to file this report. I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you or if you are misunderstanding me but suggesting that this was done as a personal attack is casting aspersions as clearly as you possibly could. And we are really going with Godwin's Law now? Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose tban and possibly a wp:trout boomerang for people who have lost their cool. Let's try to avoid casting personal attacks, as Whycome do you only care about article tone when it's about white supremists or conspiracy theorists? certainly seems to be. Civility is free, folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrxBrx (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose tban Being neutral and dispassionate is a requirement, no matter the topic, yet this editor is being punished for doing so? Articles, no matter how objectionable the subject, should not require editors to choose their language in order to pass a virtue test. If there are remaining issues with regard to dispute resolution and failing to use RS appropriately, then allow the editor to correct these. RandomGnome (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  "Dispassionate"? Did you read the same talk page consensus discussion that other editors did? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to the basis of this incident report, in which Wikiuser100 is accused of softening the tone and downplaying white supremacy in articles. As I stated above, with regard to the additional issues raised concerning dispute resolution behavior and tone on talk pages, if the community feels these are valid concerns, then the editor should be afforded the opportunity to correct this behavior prior to a tban, in my opinion. I'm concerned that a block is being zealously pursued prematurely by the opponents of Wikiuser100's article edits simply because they disagree, the behavior on talk pages being used to flesh out the 'rap sheet'. RandomGnome (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not an unreasonable request given the sourcing and POV problems at the two articles mentioned. With regard to the basis of this incident report, you will notice that I also mentioned their battleground mentality in the talk page of CofCC. As BMK mentioned above, this is not a new editor. They have been around the block a few times and the behavior at the talk page does not give me an indication that they will change that behavior. Had it just been the edit warring, this wouldn't be here, but the talk page behavior was a major red flag that they seem unable to deal with conflict in this topic in a civil manner (did you miss the blatant personal attack of calling us McCarthyists?). I certainly do not favor a topic ban as stringent as some have suggested but at least a temporary topic ban on American conservativism is not an unreasonable recourse. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

STSC has engaged prohibited canvassing on Talk:Taiwan and disruptive editing on Taiwan

• STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Taiwan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 23 January, 2020, STSC created an RFC on the talk page for Taiwan regarding whether or not the first paragraph should mention its contentious international status. Soon thereafter, STSC left messages on multiple user talk pages (diffs: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]) to notify select users of the RFC that they created.

Three-quarters of users that were selected to receive the message have have made prior comments indicating that they would be inclined to agree with STSC's proposal, and/or subsequently gave support to STSC's proposal. This is behavior that falls under the prohibitions of WP:VOTESTACK.

Other users, including Horse Eye's Back, have also expressed concern for canvassing on the relevant talk page, while other editors such as intforce have expressed concerns for disruptive editing, including two edits that were later reverted by itnforce and Chipmunkdavis on January 28. These edits added tags that appear to attempt to draw doubt upon the status of Taiwan as a country. STSC has engaged in the refactoring of others' comments on the talk page, earning warning. STSC has since deleted related warnings that were placed on their talk page (which is their right, but is noted here so you can see them). Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for tagging me Mikehawk10. To this I would add making unsourced additions [59] and using misleading edit summaries [60][61][62][63][64]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to refer to the statement I made on Talk:Taiwan#Allegations_of_misconduct. STSC made an initial suggestion which was overwhelmingly rejected, but nevertheless opened an RfC, and when that turned against his favor as well – despite his attempts at canvassing –, disrupted the article (see [65] and [66]) to make a point. intforce (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Of the last 250 edits on Talk:Taiwan, 59 are by User:STSC.[67]. (Previous is a live link and the count will change over time. Not sure how to do a fixed link.) The majority have to do with arguing about whether or not Taiwan is a country, and what if anything the lead should say about who recognizes it.[68][69] His or her edits on Taiwan, while thankfully less numerous, focus on the same issues.[70][71] Furthermore, User:STSC has a history of being sanctioned for pushing pro-PRC and Pro-CCP points of view. [72] [73]. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing this up – as they have removed those notices from their talk page (which is their right, but usually not without motive), I had no idea. Perhaps a partial ban on all topics related to China is in order. intforce (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• I've investigated this case as an uninvolved admin and would like to report the following findings:

1. The notification diffs provided in the first comment do appear to comprise improper canvassing
2. As identified in the first comment STSC added citation needed tags to Taiwan's status in the lead of Taiwan (Special:Diff/1003356866, Special:Diff/1003309363), while an ongoing discussion on the talk page had an overwhelming consensus in favor of the status quo wording, making these edits rather POINTy.
3. As identified by Intforce, opening an RfC when there was clear consensus against the proposal was not appropriate. This is particularly the case when we consider that a well-attended RfC 7 months ago was closed with a consensus to call Taiwan a country.
4. While the diff of an unsourced addition identified by Horse Eye's Back does appear to be poor form (Special:Diff/1002867162), further discussion on the talk page ([74] does not suggest that this is a matter of ongoing disruption, and I don't see any evidence that unsourced contributions are generally a problem with STSC's edits
5. The edits described by Horse Eye's Back as misleading edit summaries appear to be edits with the summary "archived" (sometimes with typos) when STSC was simply deleting the messages. I don't think that this is something that needs to be considered when evaluating the need for sanctions.
6. Regarding the AE case identified by Adoring Nanny (Special:Diff/717448271), the case was about tendentious editing related to Falun Gong and does suggest that STSC was actively trying to insert pro-PRC content into articles. I note as well that a key piece of evidence in that case was this comment by STSC, where they express support for the elimination of Falun Gong on a talk page. I do not note any comparable breach of civility regarding Taiwan on the article's talk page or in diffs presented here.
7. Regarding the edit warring block identified by Adoring Nanny (Special:Diff/806174819), I don't think that a 3-year old edit warring block without any further blocks has much bearing on this case.

All told, in light of the canvassing and point-y behavior at Taiwan, and the past history of POV editing, I think that a 3-6 month ban from topics related to Taiwan and China, broadly construed, is appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rosguill makes a convincing case with his diffs showing problematic POV pushing from this user. I agree with the topic ban of 3-6 months.Jediting1 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:TylerKutschbach - mass unsourced changes and ignoring talk page requests

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

I stumbled upon this editor making several hundred unsourced changes to vote counts (among other changes) on county (and other) articles. When asked about the changes, they ignored the talk page request and continued editing, including undoing the revert, only narrowly avoiding 3RR. When they finally did respond to the questionable changes to votes tallied, their initial response was a vague lie regarding what changes they had made, followed by another unrelated response regarding only one year's worth of numbers being changed. When they were once again asked for a source for the changes, they simply offered a link to an online calculator as an explanation. Followed by another source that did not provide the historical numbers they were changing, and finally a source that only lists the 2020 results. Within a few days, I noticed the user was continuing to change historical data (numbers of votes cast), citing the source which only provides 2020 data. I asked the user to explain the continued edits, was ignored, gave a final warning for disruptive editing (uw-disruptive4), which has also been ignored. This entire time, I was not the only editor asking the user to explain their questionable edits. According to their talk page, at least 2 other editors were concurrently having the same issues with their unsourced changes and ignored requests for comment.

Upon reading the user's talk page, and researching what to do about them, I noticed they have been brought up at ANI three times previously, and was blocked less than a month ago for this exact same scenario (followed by a second block apparently for sockpuppetry during the first block). I'm not sure what more to do at this point, the user clearly either does not understand how Wikipedia works, or just does not care. But it would appear some kind of mass rollback is required, or someone more experienced than me in the area of historical votes does some major cleanup/sourcing/verification. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a case of simple disruption. I did some digging on one of their edits earlier in the week, and I did find a source to support the data. The problem is with behaviour: I had to dig to find a source that supported their edits; they didn't cite the source they used. They've been reminded of the need to source their edits repeatedly.

They've added a number of maps that they created and uploaded to Commons today with county-by-county results for an election. Guess what's not mentioned in the description for the graph? So, effectively, we've got more unsourced data creeping into articles, after they've been told repeatedly to cite their sources.

I think this is reaching the point of willful refusal to cooperate. I've asked them to cite their sources for the maps. I'll give them two edits to see the notice of the talk page message, but if another map goes in at that point, I'm ready to block the user indefinitely until they engage in discussion on their talk page and convince us that they understand the need to cite sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Today's are not the first images, I did the same thing two days ago... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

At User talk:TylerKutschbach#Penobscot County, Maine, I engaged in an exhausing back-and-forth trying to get this editor to disclose the source they used. TylerKutschbach finally disclosed their source, which in fact did not support the edit. They then led me to another source which did. Just yesterday they made this edit to Hunt County, Texas, adding 2020 election results from a source that had been accessed in 2018, and which did not show the 2020 results for Hunt County, Texas. I reverted the edit. TylerKutschbach then added the 2020 results back into the article here, this time citing this vague source. I looked through that source, but could not find a link to data which could support this edit. Do I start another grueling back-and-forth with TylerKutschbach to find out where they actually got these numbers from? My real concern is that TylerKutschbach is a very active editor, having made 13,865 edits in 2020. Thousands of city and county articles in the United States have large chunks of election data added by TylerKutschbach, and I have found it difficult to find sources to support a lot of it. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

TylerKutschbach is edit warring today at Hunt County, Texas, claiming their edit is sourced by "Dave's Atlas". Back in December I asked this editor where in "Dave's Atlas" to look for county-level election results, and got just a run-around reply. This eventually led to a block for this editor, yet here we are again doing the same thing. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) "Dave's Atlas" seems to be WP:UGC by and with editorial oversight only from Dave Leip. How is this source WP:RS? Narky Blert (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I struck my comment above. I located the 2020 election results. My previous concern with "Dave's Atlas" was with historical results. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I will only provide my experience with the user. In the past three years, the user has made many what would seem to be automated edits when it came to population updates. The user would rarely provide edit summaries on their edits. It seems like the user moved onto voter records after being told numerous times to provide sources and at least replied to comments on their talk page. The first block they received in 2018 was to get their attention. Their edits have more-or-less not changed since the previous ANI discussions. I want to assume good faith but at this point, there is no more rope to give. It shouldn't be a hassle to ask for verification for sources. – The Grid (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

While we are discussing this, the user continues their unsourced edits... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This isn't the first time that this user has been a subject of ANI: [75], [76], and [77]. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

YaSiRu11 – POV-pushing and other problems

YaSiRu11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I hope this won't be a WP:TEXTWALL, but there are many diffs despite only having edited on six separate days. YSR has:

• Stripped the page on 1958 anti-Tamil pogrom to just the lead and removed sourced sections on background, the pogrom itself, sexual violence, and massacres, saying that they lacked reliable citation.
• Removed multiple pieces of sourced information regarding ethnic cleansing, pogroms, bombings etc, saying that they corrected the grammar and spelling mistakes. and deleted information that lacked reliable citation and did so again on List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces
• Changed "civil war" to "rebellion" and "terrorist uprising" and called civilian deaths and casualties "collateral damage", saying that they corrected the grammar and spelling mistakes on Sri Lankan Civil War
• Appears to have just copy-and-pasted material from a website directly onto Wikipedia
• Removed sourced information, while saying that they added new information
• Again, saying they deleted unsorced infomation [sic]
• Again, saying it lacked reliable citation and added their own commentary
• On Jaffna District, removed sourced section regarding twinning with Kingston, saying No official and reliable citation were found for the deleted section. Did so again after I added an archive URL for the government source
• Added probable original research (the source did not support their claim)
• Tagged Draft:Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka, under as a blatant hoax, despite what seems to be over 100 sources (albeit not controlling for duplicates), including ones from Amnesty International
• PRODed Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonisation schemes and said it Contains many misleading facts that were possibly added with racist motives
• Removed section headings and a hidden note without explanation
• On my talk page claimed that a council source was no[t] [a] government link and claimed that another did not mention Jaffna as a twin city when it says it was "twinning with the city"
• Added an unexplained nowiki

To conclude, I suggest either a topic ban from Sri Lankan pages, broadly construed, or an indefinite block. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

To add to this the I suspect the user used this sock-puppet Kisnueque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which was created during edit reverts) to indulge in abusive behaviour against me, by attempting to pose as me, and falsely accusing me of being a member of the LTTE. Notice the misspelling of the word message as 'massage' which he also misspells on his original talk page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:YaSiRu11 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oz346&oldid=1002489539

Oz346 (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply: I will say why I did that particular thing in the order he has presented them.

1. This was a mistake. I am new to this website I was just figuring things out. I'm sorry I wasn't able to undo my error.

2.I deleted the attacks that lacked credible sources. the listings which claim credibility "Department of State 2009" doesn't actually verify these claims. and many of its findings are repeated with different names on the list. for example the document states;

"Embassy Colombo reported that 58 people were killed and 143 injured due to shelling in Ampalavakanai and Mullaivakal. This may be the same incident reported by a source in Mattalan reported to HRW shelling in the NFZ and heavy fighting in the north"

but the listing doesn't clarify this. and I deleted the repeated listings.

3.I corrected the grammar and words that didn't sound right. and for the change of words, I quote this website

              "The main difference is who the battles are fought between... A revolution is a battle fought in hopes of a new system, by overthrowing a government and a civil war is fought between people of the same country."

LTTE fought for a different country. So, they had a rebellion not a Civil war.

4. I am the original writer and the photo editor of the website. I don't know why I can't publish my research-backed writing on Wikipedia.

5. The description there lacked new information so I added new Info and changed the existing. but I never deleted the existing information. You can still see both the etymology theories in my updated version. I changed its wording. that's the only thing I did.

6 and 7.I corrected a piece of wrong information. and I provided the necessary references.

8.I explained this to Sdrqaz and I still don't know why he still hasn't understood that. There is no way to confirm "the town twinning" as currently there is no official mention of this on the website.

9. It wasn't original research it's clearly mentioned in the source I referenced. I ask you to read this website to further clarify.

10. It is a blatant hoax. none of the sources support the claims. Please read the sources first. 11. I don't know why I can't do that.

12. The page was a bit messy. I made the page more clear.

13. I explained this before.

14. I literally didn't change that page.

and as for Oz346's claim, are you sure it's me because you seem to have edit wars with an awfully lot of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YaSiRu11 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't know what I did wrong. I tried my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Just because I didn't agree with you why did you make things up to defame me? YaSiRu11 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Rebuttal: I'm sorry that this has been poorly formatted, but I didn't want to create a block of text.

1. I don't find that argument plausible. Removing 75% of a page is not easily done. Moreover, an edit summary was provided for the change. That does not seem consistent with accidental deletions.

2. The State Department source does verify those claims. If you feel that there are possibly repeated entries (the source makes it clear there is ambiguity), then add a note. Don't remove both entries. It is not for editors to improperly synthesise sources, or reach conclusions that the sources did not reach themselves.

3. As it states in the disclaimer above, that is a student-written essay. Moreover, that essay is about the American Revolution and Civil War. Not only is that not a reliable source, it is not even relevant.

4. Please see WP:SELFPUB and WP:SELFCITE. With all due respect, are you an established subject-matter expert? Has your work in this field been published by reliable independent publications? Even if you have, copy-and-pasting paragraphs over is excessive.

5. The page history doesn't lie. 2.7kb does not just disappear with a minor rewording.

6 and 7. How are they incorrect? They were pieces of sourced information.

8. There is a way to confirm the town twinning: look at the newspaper source. Look at the archived council source. Link rot happens. It doesn't mean that we disregard the sources just because the URLs are dead.

9. The source you referenced was from Encyclopaedia Britannica. That is not that. The Britannica source does not mention substantial evidence to say that Nagas were Buddhist followers after the 4th century B.C.

10. I have read the sources, and they do support the information. Wikipedia is not censored, and includes information that you may not like. Calling it a hoax is not the solution.

11. Casting aspersions is not allowed. Where is your evidence for racist motives? How are the facts misleading?

12. If anything, you made it less clear. You removed a section headings without explanation, which had the effect of making it seem like one uninterrupted table.

13. Please read the sources.

14. There just didn't seem to be any rationale behind that nowiki.

In addition, YSR has accused another editor of having no ability to say what is "serious" history and whats not here.

Sdrqaz (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC) amended 02:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• As an uninvolved administrator reviewing the above allegations, I find cause for concern with YaSiru11's editing. While some of the issues highlighted by Sdrqaz remain at the level of content disputes, overall the identified edits (particularly #1, #3, #5, #10, #11, #12 and #14 as enumerated above) suggest carelessness at best and intent to POV-push on Sri Lankan topics at worst. Either way, YasiRu11 does not appear to be able to contribute constructively to Sri Lankan topics at this time. An indefinite topic ban from content related to Sri Lanka, appealable after several months in the event that YasiRu11 can demonstrate their ability to abide by our policies when editing other topics, seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Support Rosguill's proposal. I am grateful that they have taken the time to sort through all the diffs. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Rosguill for taking the time. Also it may be necessary to look into Yasiru's suspected sock-puppet Kisnueque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well, it was used to slander me on my personal talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oz346&oldid=1002489539

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oz346&diff=prev&oldid=1002489539

He seems to have tried to do it with his original Yasiru account, but then had second thoughts before deciding to use the sock puppet to evade detection:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Oz346&diff=next&oldid=1002487988

Oz346 (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oz346, sockpuppet investigations should be handled at WP:SPI _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Obi2canibe I see a message has been left by you on Yasiru's talk page regarding a sock puppet investigation, if only one account gets banned, it may not solve this perennial issue.Oz346 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Tarik289

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

---

• Tarik289 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has already been reported here for POV and disruptive edits in the past, yet no one batted an eye [78], let's hope this time is different.

Here are some examples, I could probably find more but this should be more than enough:

WP:PERSONAL ATTACK and WP:ASPERSIONS:

You didn't even read my sources and only revert back. I didn't removed any sourced information. Don't try to spread your goverments propagandas into wikipedia cause wikipedia isn't your national Encyclopedia.

I write a correct information with several sources and you 'HistoryOfIran' removed it for 2 times for your nationalistic ideas. I will complain you have a good day.)

I read sources one of them literally named "Greater Albania" and i cannot find any sourced in google like 5 million Albanian in Turkey. Its just funny. And one of the albanian facist banned me for fixed this.

I understand you are Albanian and you want to show your ethnicty bigger in wikipedia. But please be more convincing. But for god sake was you good when you write 5 million Albanian in Turkey? There isn't any source about it and its too clear. So be sensible and read real sources, not named like "Greater Albania".

You banned me for swearing and i didn't do that also you changed my topic at "tartışma" section. You are hard pro-kurdish i know that but i will complain you for banning me for no reason(Actually banned for you are pro kurdish). I already banned for my anti thesis like 24 hours and you banned and deleted my comment for no reason. It was literally called "Kürdistan Halkı" and you deleted my good point cause you try to make when turkish make this change its racist, when kurdish make this change nahhh whatever.

WP:BATTLEGROUND and Wikipedia:NOTFORUM:

The turks are there because of irredentism? It's been 100 years that you gone from area, and armenians still complaining about their old lands, then we must write all balkans to our old lands for claim? Slavs there for their irrenditsm bla bla. Its wikipedia not your countrys history book and history doesnt't work like this.

'Iranian Azerbaijanis are a Turkic-speaking people of Iranian origin.' Nope they are Turkic people came to there during Turkic Migration. Its just sided and you can look to the history of article changes its maded by sided persian Admins. English wikipedia is garbage, shame.

WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:JDLI:

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

WP:EDIT WARRING at [85], I know he didn't broke the 3 revert limit, but waiting for the cooldown to expire and then come back and resume his edit warring is equally if not more disruptive.

EDIT: He has now broken the 3rd revert limit as well in the same article.

TLDR: He is clearly WP:NOT HERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So why are you reflecting your nationalist ideas here? Even the South Azerbaijanis know themselves as Azerbaijanis, not the Iranian subgroup. the Iranian government spreading this idea for blocking separatism. And you didn't even read my lots of infos just for WP:JDLI

--Tarik289 (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I rest my case ^^ The admins may take over from here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the compelling evidence (i.e. the structural violation of numerous core Wikipedia policies) its safe to say that user:Tarik289 is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

On 26 January 2021 user:Kevo327 posted on this very board;

• "User:Tarik289 is making edits and deleting sourced content with reasons and edit summaries that imply that he just didn't like it [86][87][88] and adding forum style uncivil talk page discussions, filling them with name calling and assuming bad faith;[89][90] even once calling an editor 'fascist', user current engaged in persistent deletion in ‎Nâzım Hikmet ‎and when asked to explain had this to say[91]"

I believe this proves user:Tarik289's disruption is extensive. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the user for the issues listed here. The indefinite block will require them to appeal their block and explain their behavior, why it happened, and outline what they'll do so that it doesn't continue before the account will be unblocked. I've left a user talk page message notifying them of the block and gave them instructions on how to request an unblock if they wish. The user's uncivil behavior, personal attacks, and other issues listed here show me that administrative action was clearly needed. The user has been warned before, their behavior has been discussed here before, and the problems have continued to no avail. Violating Wikipedia's founding principles and to this length and level is not acceptable; enough is enough. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

England/Wales business

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

---

• Doubledoppler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Edit warring with multiple editors at multiple high profile articles, with the main rationale appearing to be "I know what I'm doing." More eyes appreciated, to discern whether the edits are worth the disruption. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Though I agree with 'parts' of @Doubledoppler:'s changes. I disagree with his approach to adding them. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of WP:IKNOW... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 48 hours for edit warring. I was going to apply a partial block, but once I got to the fourth article that it would have to apply to, I knew at that point that a site-wide block was necessary. Doubledoppler was warned on their user talk page for edit warring, and asked multiple times by other contributors to stop. They had multiple opportunities and chances to cease the behavior, and their contributions clearly show that it was going to continue until administrative action was taken. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I was going to close this, then I looked at their talk page since the block. [92] [93] I don't think 48 hours is going to fix this, alas. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I've just made an attempt at his/her talkpage, to explain to them why he/she was blocked. GoodDay (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay - Thank you for doing that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Lovely... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Continuation of IPs posting personal grievance on various Indian gov articles

Hello, the LTA previously raised here has returned with another edit here. It's different text from what I remember but clearly the same guy. --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision deleted, IP blocked for 3 months. Thank you, Paul. Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

Looks like this edit by 49.15.154.132 might be the same person, but my guess is that it's a highly dynamic IP and blocking it might be fruitless. Perhaps the impacted articles need some page protection? In this case it was Government of Delhi and Supreme Court of India. Shritwod (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. El C did semi the articles that he dealt with before, but it's very easy for the disrupter to move to another article. We can't exactly semi everything to do with Delhi / Indian politics. I considered a rangeblock for the obviously connected IPs 49.15.156.126, 49.15.144.1, 49.15.73.164, and 49.15.154.132, but 49.15.0.0/16 is too big to block (I did check its contributions, there's naturally a lot). But I know Indian IPs are an enigma wrapped in a mystery. Is anybody out there good with them? Bishonen | tålk 10:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

It seems like an edit filter should be able to catch them? Particularly bits that appear to be personal data, I think an EF would be appropriate for. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Back again vandalising Government of Delhi and Delhi High Court (example) from another cellular IP of 106.67.89.89. I reverted the two, but again they'll just come back on another IP. Shritwod (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• This person has been active since, I think, October 2019. I suggest monitoring Special:Contributions/49.15.0.0/16 and Special:Contributions/112.110.0.0/17 (drop these into your user space - I have them in my sandbox - and check them periodically). Very easy to spot. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

Please see [94]. Ifnord (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Unquestionably a legal threat, but DaddySaurus was removing contentious material from a BLP [95], and I'm not sure that People and Distractify are high quality sources. WP:RSP says People "should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source."-- P-K3 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I added one of those two sources. I will endeavor to find better ones. I don't think there's any question that the information is factual, but finding a more solid source strikes me as a good idea. Wes sideman (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I added two articles from Fox News. There are a bunch more that exist, but that should be enough for now, I think? Wes sideman (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this is probably fine with Fox News, but remember that when it comes to BLP "information is factual" is not the only consideration. The information can be unquestionably factual but excluded anyway because it's poorly covered in reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As long as the original topic was "Legal threat", how do you handle veiled threats against another editor? Please see this edit. It's obviously the same guy. Wes sideman (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wes sideman: They've been blocked for sockpuppetry, so issue should be moot now. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

BlueGhast

The user BlueGhast keeps removing messages and warnings from his own Talk page added by me and other users, and he/she just edited my own user page without any permission to do so. Does that qualify as a personal attack?--GenoV84 (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

User reverts my edits making false accusations, then later adds it back after he realizes he's wrong. I removed his comments as I felt the accusations have been rectified as implied by the user. I also left a comment on his page informing him that wiki articles are not owned by anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGhast (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not the appropriate place to leave comments, isn't it?--GenoV84 (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: Blanking your own talk page is explicitly allowed. Justarandomamerican (talk) Also, have a nice day! 20:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Justarandomamerican: To harass and accuse other users by leaving comments on their own user pages is also allowed, according to you? Because that's a violation of Wikipedia guidelines regarding user pages.--GenoV84 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Nope, it's WP:Casting aspersions. I disagree with BlueGhast's conduct on your user page heavily. Justarandomamerican (talk) Also, have a nice day! 20:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@GenoV84: (Non-administrator comment) I'm concerned that you seem to not be assuming good faith, as evidenced by this ANI thread, your reply to BlueGhast, and importantly, your reply to Justarandomamerican, where you frivolously accuse him of excusing all of BlueGhast's actions just because he excused one part that is supported by policy. Please learn to work with others, even if they disprove your arguments, or else this thread is likely to end poorly for you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire300: Are you kidding me? I collaborated with BlueGhast before, he/she is a valuable editor (see his Draft:Joy of Satan and edits on Satanism), and we reached consensus together about what to do with the sources on Talk:Theistic Satanism. Take your threats somewhere else. I don't doubt that BlueGhast is in good faith, but, as someone else on this thread said before me, he/she is still inexperienced.--GenoV84 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@GenoV84: I am not concerned with your attitudes elsewhere in the project. I am concerned that you are actively violating WP:AGF in this ANI thread, such as To harass and accuse other users by leaving comments on their own user pages is also allowed, according to you?, addressed to justarandomamerican. Ergo, your collaboration elsewhere does not excuse your violation of AGF here. Take your threats somewhere else. is another WP:AGF violation, as you assume that I am trying to harass and threaten you, without evidence to suggest that is the case (I only used polite, low-modality wording, except for the "frivolously" part where I have supporting evidence). I am not the only person concerned with this; Bishonen below also brought up AGF. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In the future, please remember to leave a notification on the user in question's talk page, as is required by policy at the top of this page and when creating this report. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• BlueGhast is allowed to freely remove messages from their own talkpage. They're not supposed to post a message on your userpage, GenoV84; it should have been on your user talkpage. But that "violation" is a common mistake made by inexperienced users, as BlueGhast is, and is not a reason to jump down their throat. Please assume good faith, GenoV84. Bishonen | tålk 22:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC).

problematic stubborn user Meters

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

---

Greetings administrators

A problematic stubborn user with so called name Meters keeps deleting a whole section to the article that is named http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwear_fetishism#Pantyhose and then writes to the view history and talk pages lots of "excuses", as if he "edits" to make a "point" or something

By the way the whole section has something to explain in detail and references will be added sooner or later no matter when as it is done to all the other articles

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2noname2 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Scare quotes much? The problem appears to rest with 00.IP.00.IP. (talk · contribs), who keeps putting unsourced material in. Warned, and their userpage, which claims to be an IP, blanked. And Goth is not the same as Gothic. Meters is doing nothing wrong. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. And I have no idea who 2noname2 is or why they would be concerned with this article or me. Meters (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sock? Meat? Why is this complaint from an account with no apparent connection to the article or editors involved? Slywriter (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Slywriter: A generous interpretation would be they stumbled across the page on recent changes. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, 00.IP.00.IP. didn't add the material originally. It has been in the article since before the merged article was created in 2010, and the section had been tagged as OR since 2007 and as needing sources since 2008. The current version I removed [96] had been tagged since 2014, and was little more than unsourced speculation. It even starts off: "A few typical examples of subcategories perhaps would be:"

Given that 2noname2 actually repeated verbatim part of 00.IP.00.IP.'s talk page post [97] it's hard to AGF wrt to the two new users here. Meters (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: is a kinder soul than I. Not sure if its actionable for a Clerk but I am going to drop a request at SPI. Better than idle speculation and rabbit holes. Slywriter (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion thanks for the reply friend

"And Goth is not the same as Gothic." Meters seems to had written something about "same" but didn't explained for what it was

"Meters is doing nothing wrong" we didn't said that is doing nothing wrong

"Scare quotes much?" what you mean? not so "scaring"

"The problem appears to rest...." doesn't appear to be so much "problem" as you say

"....who keeps putting unsourced material in." and other users had put unsourced material in, then why it wasn't deleted in the first place and now have all those misunderstandings?

"....and their userpage, which claims to be an IP...." we know fellow 00.IP.00.IP. to this public library here and claims unique jokes sometimes, we will also tell to fellow 00.IP.00.IP. to abort that edit to that article too and all will be right as if nothing happened

understood what you are saying with complete detail and sorry for the situation friends

by the way "acroterion" is a Greek word, are you Greek? just wondering — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2noname2 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not Greek, just named after an architectural ornament. Meters has done nothing wrong, despite your accusations. 00.IP.00.IP. has been the problem, and I strongly caution you to stick to one account. I am also concerned that your proficiency in English may not be sufficient here on enwiki, or that you're overestimating your capabilities. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is probably WhiteStarG7 (talk · contribs), but it's a bunch of abusive socks no matter who the earliest account is. When you see this guy pop up again, please let me know. It shouldn't be hard to tell. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

And to nobody's surprise, both accounts are blocked as block-evading sockpuppets. Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Accusations of bad faith and POV derailing

BunnyyHop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BunnyyHop has a long history of POV pushing sections. On the previous ANI he was warned if he keeps adding POV sections, action would be taken against him. He has not stopped. He has tried add a random paragraph quote in Wikipedia's voice, I reverted these edits as they were disruptive. At which point he accused me of being on a "anti-communist crusade" completely unrelated to the article, assuming bad faith, and attempting to derail the conversation and making useful discussion impossible. BunnyyHop also has prior disruption on the article Slavery, removing sections he doesn't like and tagging them as minor to avoid it being reviewed. BunnyyHop does so here and here. This is not BunnyyHop's first time of trying to derail conversations with accusations of bad faith, as shown by his talk page. Des Vallee (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a side note - I really suggest you to take a look at WP:FALLIBLE. Anyways, even the diffs used here date back to last year, so it's not even what me and the other editor were discussing. There's a long history between me and this user, leading even to the filling of a big WP:ANI report. Related to this report, provocative replies such as «[y]our complete waffle of sources and POV sections aren't allowed» (while these were not even my sources!) and «[y]ou have tried three times to add POV pushing sections into articles and all have failed, every time» made me reply sourly, which I apologised shortly after and opened a report on dispute resolution (as suggested in the ANI report). PS: Apparently the paragraph being disputed here was not even given a diff to. Diff. An ANI is really not warranted here if one is looking to sort this out. I opened a section on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the afterwards opening of this ANI report closed it --BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you have done this, you did it here, and warned here. You did it when you were reported for edit warring calling, and were warned for it here, you constantly did it at Marxism-Leninism. You also generally are un-cooperative and keep adding POV pushing sections, and editing only off your to push your POV. Des Vallee (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm tired of this stalking, following me and reverting what I do for no valid reason. You yourself stated here that you would continue to follow my edits, as well as that I'm «an extreme waste of time [...] as it is clear his only goal is to push his POV, and a toxic one at that [...]». I'm pretty sure you didn't assume good faith. I reached an agreement with the other user until you came and disrupted everything with aggressive provocations trying to get a reaction, and I was too dumb and fell for that. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 03:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple other editors have found you to be disruptive, ever since you started removing chunks of articles and tagging them as minor, or adding POV language. You have edit warred with so many users, added POV text to articles and wanted to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes and the success of Bolshevik comrades from exploitative monetary systems" to articles. It was only after I pointed out what you are doing that you retracted your comments. As shown previously you have a long, long history of these actions and I don't think you will change, because well it's been over 4 months and you haven't. Des Vallee (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, Des Vallee's and BunnyyHop's behavior is essentially equivalent from opposite POVs. The diffs you provide are BH removing unsourced info from Slavery article about Soviet Camps. Without sources describing Gulag as a form of slavery, the content violates WP:V and WP:OR. Even Nazi concentration camps as a form of slavery is complicated, see Forced labor in Nazi concentration camps#Slavery analogy and I would NOT support adding them to the Slavery article without qualification. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

buidhe, right, if there are no reliable sources linking to slavery it can't be included, despite any opinion editors might have (which holds no water whatsoever). I made concessions with the other editor to include it on the basis of the opinion of one scholar - but is it enough to not be considered WP:FRINGE? And still - even if we have the Gulag sorted out, there are another 2 countries there. This thread closed the one on dispute resolution, what steps should we take now? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated to this article in specific, there was a clear avoidance (diff) to discuss the changes added here, purposely missing the point(I underlined that the conservative turn in the paper was referred to Maoism and this was interpreted as "completely ignoring" the citation). Remember that WP:CIR, and this is not the first time Des Vallee shows trouble in basic reading comprehension. Anyways - related to the first diff, it was reverted for "lacking consensus" yet there was no response by anyone to the section I opened in the talk page Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies, not even this editor who reverted the edit for "no consensus". Note what content is disputed here - Cultural conservatism in the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• How many different pages are these two feuding on? I’m familiar with them going back and forth at Chinese Communist Party. Normally I’d recommend a voluntary interaction ban in lieu of blocks or other bans, but it seems that BunnyyHop also has an ongoing and partially overlapping feud with at least one other editor so that might not even be an option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to My very best wishes, I don't consider it a feud, I don't have anything to complain about him, even though it's clear we as editors have very different personal POVs. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is no hard feelings on my part. However, your editing is a matter of concern. For example, here you followed me on a page you never edited before, only to revert my edit in a matter of minutes. And again [98]. And what was your reason for revert, exactly? According to your edit summary, "I should mention that I'm entirely neutral on this and this revert is purely mediation." What? Now, speaking on the content, you restored text sourced to writings that you did not even bother to check (you can't because these references are in Russian, have no pages and not available on line). Why? Because, as you said in your edit summary, these authors have PhDs? You do not know that. And even if they did, their "candidates of science" diploma would not be accepted as PhD by typical US institutions. Do you even know that students of history departments in places like MGU had a second "secret" degree in "military disinformation"? But most important, you did not check what these authors actually claimed, while just blindly reverting my edit two times because ... you are "neutral". My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do but swear that I did not follow you, I follow a lot of pages about Lenin. I had been following that discussion for a while, and I even commented here. There was a lot of accusations and no actual linking to WP:REliable sources, so I didn't give much attention to it. This was reverted because there was no consensus on the talk page to remove it, and content shouldn't be removed just because one can't verify it, hence why I added the (request) quotation template. My opinion was neutral because I wasn't taking any side, just in case it was interpreted as such.

I have accessed the file, and I'll be posting it on the respective talk page. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: BunnyyHop is 7 months old, with ~1,100 edits and in this short period they have been able to create a great amount of disruption:

I think this individuals contributions,[99] show they are here to push a personal and postive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and soften or remove negative information about Marxist Leninism. Examples on article and talk pages: Marxist-Leninism, Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, Slavery, User:Vincentvikram/Yes Marxism-Leninism, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, Chinese Communist Party, Communist Party of the Soviet Union Portuguese Communist Party, Anarcho-communism. (See editor history for more).

They have created Walls of text in their attempts to soften or remove negative content about communism related articles. Talk:Marxism–Leninism is a BunnyyHop wall of text; this is an extreme example of DE TE. Other examples can be found by looking at their contributions, eg: Talk:Slavery#Soviet Union continued in Talk:Slavery#Forced Labour and this ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1057#Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy.

They have engaged in edit waring to this end (See block log and edit history) and create timesinks using sematics and word games in discussions in order to push a postive pro-Marxist viewpoinit (See talk pags for Slavery, Soviet democracy, and Marxist-Leninism for examples).

This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to push a positive representation of communism/Marxism. They should be topic banned from anything having to do with Marxism, communism, socialism, broadly construed.  // Timothy :: talk  21:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has already come to an end and the conclusion is very clear: No consensus. Don't try to rebuild it here. Thus, I'm not replying to anything within the scope of slavery. Just a side note: I can't help but notice that those who choose to insist I'm a menace to Wikipedia are those who have an extremely opposed view of communism as an ideology (you yourself stated that bolshevism is the moral equivalent of nazism).

I don't think asking for sources that link said camp to slavery to justify its inclusion in slavery is an outrageous claim? In fact, it's necessary to not violate WP:OR. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I have never edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests neither Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 23:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You have edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and its talk page multiple times with POV edits. You are right about Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I intended Portuguese Communist Party. Corrected above.  // Timothy :: talk  23:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You're right, just manually checked my contributions (only about the editing part, hah.), I wonder why it's not showing up here? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Quote from the previous ANI closure: A majority of editors is of the view that BunnyyHop should be topic-banned for consistently non-neutral editing, but there is not currently consensus for this view. Nonetheless, if non-neutral editing by BunnyyHop continues, editors may request a block or other sanctions at WP:AE (if in a topic area subject to WP:DS) or at WP:ANI. I don't know why the closer chose to ignore the majority and side with the minority. Typically, we go with a majority in binary decisions unless there are reasons not to.
  The editor is very obviously only here to push their political POV. They also apparently have a serious problem with plagiarism; see the log for Marxism-Leninism: [100] We know this is them from the timing of this and because the main copyvio (all the sciencedirect links) was from the International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences, a source they favor on their user page [101] and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism [102] (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: [103] Editing Wikipedia is not a right and competence (including in NPOV) is required. This user is a complete timesink and needs to be separated from the topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I think BunnyyHop is taking the wrong lessons from the former ANI post. Instead of viewing it as a close call with a block and changing their ways, they seem to have interpreted it as license to double down on their POV editing.  // Timothy :: talk  07:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Here we go — the same group who was rallying to get me banned is doing the same thing once again, the same arguments are being used once again. And note — I only asked for sources that link labour camps to slavery to avoid WP:NOR, but this is interpreted as pushing a POV. I wonder what would happen if we did the reverse? I publicly state on my talk page my political views to avoid any confusion and to show that I have no problem with it — I'm simply here to improve Wikipedia — but this has caused users that have extreme opisition to it to interpret every edit I do as having some secret motive behind, every edit I do is to "soften" my political POV.

I am tired of being followed, harassed, provoked and not being assumed WP:GF. When my edits are reverted there's always a personal remark — the ones that led me to reply sourly are really blatant. It's not hard to see my edits were being followed, so that when I reached consensus and edited the page they would be promptly reverted.

This has a clear goal, however. Those who defended me in the previous ANI will get tired and those who follow me will get what they want, because I too am getting tired of this. Edits being reverted and not being discussed, lack of WP:CIR when they are discussed. See how many times POV push was used in Marxism-Leninism and by whom. Also, the "text wall" (you act like I was the only one engaged in that discussion and that I was alone in defending my arguments) led to a RfC and probably major article restructuring.

Diffs on how my "POV pushing continued" are non existent however. And yes, paragraphs were added into the article that violated copyright, and although I was not the sole editor involved in them I assume full responsibility for it.

I would really appreciate some feedback by an unbiased reviewer willing to go through the talk pages of this thread (minus Marxism-Leninism due to its sheer size and uselessness — it's a dispute based on what's the scope of the article) and edit summaries. Realising that this witch-hunt will continue until I get banned probably just killed of any joy I had editing this wiki. Harassment wins, I guess. Won't reply soon, unless obliged to. TimothyBlue, I don't even know which content dispute you're referring to, but whatever. BunnyyHop (^talk) 07:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for BunnyyHop. Edit wars on multiple pages (here is the most recent example: [104], [105],[106],[107],[108],[109]), WP:NOT HERE and WP:CIR (BunnyyHop does not really know these subjects and does not even care to look for any references which do not support their views). What they do on article talk pages is not really discussion of improvements, but trolling. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban BunnyyHop hasn't stopped making POV pushing edits since last time, as well as him now, doubling down at pushing his POV even harder. Des Vallee (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Newest example of what I said above: diff. Completely provocative edit summary:

Just because you feel you know Wikipedia's guidelines doesn't mean you do, trying to override consensus by saying "I am right and this a break in policy therefor I can ignore consensus" without understanding guidelines or consensus one bit isn't going to work

bold and italic added by me

Well, what did I do this time? A simple [[ ]] edit, with a little note to the previous edit diff, where I affirmed:

+ [[]]; furthermore, local consensus shouldn't overwrite Wikipedia's guidelines, local consensus shouldn't violate WP:NOR nor WP:V

Most likely didn't even check first what I edited! Why else would I be accused of "trying to override consensus"? It should be noted that the edit was reverted by the same editor a minute later. diff.

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

IP vandal rapidly deleting text

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

---

112.198.169.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making apparent nonsense changes and deleting blocks of text with no explanation. There are several warning on TP that are ignored. Happening across multiple articles, some already reverted. MB 03:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

24.60.225.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:AGF at Talk:David Paulides

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

---

• 24.60.225.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimeTravler777777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP, apparently now using logged out editing having commented with a WP:DUCK-detected comment in the first post in the thread with the mentioned account, has commented many times with his opinion on Wikipedia articles while not actually discussing improvements to the parent article, violating WP:FORUM. They have also:

• In Special:Diff/1004353721:
  • Failed to assume good faith by commenting Are you trolling? and Do you not know how to use Google? (in response to me asking for them to provide proper sources rather than commanding me to Google search)
  • Told me that it was my job to properly indent replies, refusing to do so themself, expressing contempt and rejection of our guidelines.
• After I removed the comment because of WP:AGF violations above, they reinstated the edit (Special:Diff/1004354640) without comment. I reverted it again, pending a response to the warnings, but they decided, again without comment, to reinstate their edit.
• All user warnings were removed from their talk page without comment and without response (Special:Diff/1004355448).

Given the above behaviour, especially the violations of WP:FORUM and WP:AGF, I believe this user is WP:NOTHERE. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

IP continues not getting it. [110] --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

And the IP has reinstated a personal attack that I removed from their comment. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 12:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Stix1776

• Stix1776 (talk · contribs)
• Holodomor in modern politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been working on cleaning up and improving the referencing for Holodomor in modern politics since yesterday after Stix1776 attempted to remove material from the article [111]. Since then I have been working at it, have asked this editor repeatedly to stop while I add references, but to no effect. They continue to remove stable sourced content [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117],

Now an IP editor is suspiciously doing the same: [118]

I have reverted changes this editor has made more than 3 times to add references. Let me know if I should cease, but then I cannot continue to add references to content that has been removed. Again I have left messages on the talk page, this users page, edit summaries, page tags, etc to let them clearly know I am working on references.

It is going to take time to look up resolutions in dozens of languages. These mass repeated deletions of sourced content is disruptive, and make it impossible to improve the article. The article needs work and this editor is impeding it.  // Timothy :: talk  06:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My browswer, without my knowledge, logged me out of Wikipedia. I apologize about the IP edit. It wasn't intentional.

TimothyBlue is claiming that it's old material, but it's content that he added not 2 days ago (edits on 18:08-18:12 on 31 January).

The content he's adding is poorly sourced (original research) and the admin on the page agrees with my assessment on the talk page.

Expecting to hold a Wikipedia page for several days while an editor looks for sources is unreasonable, especially for an issue on a contested topic. Stix1776 (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Stix1776 concerns seem reasonable to me. Wikipedia articles should be precise about exactly who is recognizing what. I would suggest separating out declarations of genocide from declarations that do not use the word "genocide". Furthermore, we shouldn't leave up unverified content indefinitely while editors work on finding sources. It can always be restored later if sources are found. The in construction tag should not be misused to shut out other editors. (t · c) buidhe 06:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• The under construction tag is not being misused. I agree the article needs improvement, but the content is sourced already. I can't improve the article if Stix1776 keeps removing content.  // Timothy :: talk  07:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Clearly it's already sourced and that Stix1776 isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Removing mass content isn't allowed, specifically when hyperlinks in other articles can be used as a source, if the article being hyperlinked is well sourced, which it is. Des Vallee (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  I just checked one diff[119] Stix's edit summary is correct, I checked the source and the resolution does not mention "crime(s) against humanity". It is therefore false, or at best WP:OR to say that this resolution recognizes the Holodomor as a crime against humanity. I see you've repeatedly restored this incorrect content so I would recommend being more careful about citing sources correctly. (t · c) buidhe 09:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd recommend you read the article and references more carefully. The note is a list of resolutions and the resolutions are listed below with references. Its sourced and it is accurate.  // Timothy :: talk  10:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Also I've been working on this for 2 days, the content has been there for years, it can wait a bit as editors work on it.  // Timothy :: talk  08:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I guess everyone can see how tedious it is working when TimothyBlue. The UN has never "passed" any of the resolutions you are citing. A little humility and consideration with editing is appreciated, so everything doesn't have to be resolved by administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• The references are there. You're just ignoring them. I've been very patient with your reverts.  // Timothy :: talk  14:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I swear I've read through your references. Joint statements and declarations signed by 30 something countries do not count as "passed" by the UN. This is tedious. I genuinely feel bad for admins that need to go through your edits.Stix1776 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I am still working on the article, but Stix1776 DE POV editing is only getting worse and making it difficult. I believe this is intentional to wear down editors trying to improve the article. See Talk:Holodomor in modern politics, [120], and my talk User talk:TimothyBlue/Archive 2#Sorry, I unintentionally made an IP edit again for the latest exmamples.

Mzajac posted helpful comments and I used their feedback, I hope some other experienced editors can join the discussion. I think it is clear this editor simply wants to delete the content they do not like, not improve the article. If there is a consensus my efforts to work on the article are not constructive (no one is perfect), I will step back and hopefully others will save the content from Stix1776.  // Timothy :: talk  16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

ThePharoah17 and Kurds and Kurdistan

Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Thepharoah17 is really disruptive in the Kurdish section of Wikipedia removing mentions of a Kurdish name or Kurdistan in articles really hey wow

They remove Kurdistan in Articles like Kurmanji (an article about a Kurdish language)

diff From Kurds in Iraq

diff Remove the sourced Kurdish name at Gaziantep

diff

this time of today was the one that triggered this report

They made quite controversial statements regarding Kurdistan and Kurdish language/names mentioning I will just say this for the record followed by Kurdistan is a secular "idea". (emphasis added by me) and It doesn't exist because it has no reason to exist then also in the same edit there isn't really such thing as a Kurdish name. + WP:Weasel mentioning I am done and have no further interest in the Kurds issue. They also promote a powerful Erdogan/Muslim POV in regards to Kurds in the same edit:Even when Erdogan said Turks and Kurds are brothers, he meant Turks and Kurds are both Muslims.

They also compare the Kurdish YPG with ISIL, the probably best known active UN designated terror organization in the world with front page appearances in English language reliable sources. The YPG is fighting ISIL with an international coalition including EU and NATO member states. Sorry to be so explicit but they compared the YPG with ISIL on this very ANI and there was no action on this at the time.

diff

I was also a bit hesitant to bring this up here because someone was blocked indef. for bringing up this kind of behavior at the ANI and I also thought to give the Arbcom case on Kurds and Kurdistan a bit of time to solve the issue as there are involved several Admins, but this probably not the way it works.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify that it is a current issue. The green highlighted text is from the ongoing ArbCom Case on Kurds and Kurdistan.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Devlet Geray

Devlet Geray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is making a range of WP:TENDENTIOUS by attempting to Turkify several articles. At Template:Turkic topics he has added loads of non-Turkic entities, most notably First Bulgarian Empire, Old Great Bulgaria, which he claims to be "Turkic" (were not they Turkic? think twice). He has refused to take his concerns to the talk page and instead has resorted to edit warring.

He has already been reported here before [121], and by the looks of it, this conduct of his already got him banned in the Russian Wikipedia.

More WP:TENDENTIOUS here;

[122]

[123]

Not to mention he isn't shy of casting WP:ASPERSIONS/making personal attacks;

Hello. Please refrain from ethnic vandalism and historical revisionism on English Wikipedia.

tendentious pro-Iran nationalist vandalism

simple vandalism

Your revisionism is amazing

(f***, are you so sick that you still keep track of my contributions? i know that this page is not in your watchlist

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• The topic-starter tries to violate neutrality based, as I understand it, on his pro-Iranian position. For instance, here [124] he removed a huge text with sources only because he didn't like it. Here a removal of a large text [125] based on his attempts of historical revisionism. He claims that First Bulgarian Empire, Old Great Bulgaria weren't Turkic (apparently Iranian). Let's see. Here is the information from the First Bulgarian Empire article The First Bulgarian Empire (Old Bulgarian: ц︢рьство бл︢гарское, ts'rstvo bl'garskoe[12]) was a medieval Bulgar-Slavic and later Bulgarian state that existed in Southeastern Europe. Let's see the article Bulgars: The Bulgars (also Bulghars, Bulgari, Bolgars, Bolghars, Bolgari,[1] Proto-Bulgarians[2]) were Turkic semi-nomadic warrior tribes that flourished in the Pontic–Caspian steppe and the Volga region during the 7th century. Now let's see Old Great Bulgaria article: Old Great Bulgaria or Great Bulgaria (Medieval Greek: Παλαιά Μεγάλη Βουλγαρία, Palaiá Megálē Voulgaría), also often known by the Latin names Magna Bulgaria[3] and Patria Onoguria ("Onogur land"),[4] was a 7th-century Nomadic empire formed by the Onogur Bulgars on the western Pontic–Caspian steppe and It is generally believed to derive from the Turkic verb bulğha (to "stir", "mix", "disturb", "confuse"),[9] possibly suggesting that other Turkic peoples regarded the Bulgars as a "mixed" people[10] or as "rebellious". Devlet Geray (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

When did I claim that they were Iranian? Please show revisions for this. I am not "pro-Iranian" either. And no, I did not remove anything "because I didn't like it" or because of "historical revionism" - I literally stated why. More WP:ASPERSIONS/personal attacks and whatnot. I guess you forgot to add the part from the article where it literally says that the Bulgars were eventually Slavicized? Claiming that the two Bulgarian dynasties were Turkic would be like claiming modern-day Bulgarians are as well, this is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Pinging admin @Ymblanter: (I assume this isn't canvassing?) as he seems to be more knowledgeable of your past actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I repeat it again: think twice. 1. I didn't add/mention/write about modern Slavic Bulgarians, I wrote about historical Turkic Bulgars. 2. I didn't write that you claimed that they were Iranian, I wrote "apparently Iranian". Devlet Geray (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This is useless, I'll let the admins deal with you, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Concerning First Bulgarian empire, it could have been moved to Turco-Slavic (or Slavo-Turkic) states section (it could have been created, as already done with Turco-Mongol states or Turko-Persian states. It's clear that I'm not against it. The previous section doesn't mention that the state was completely Tukic either, it's just the state that is related to Turkic history, that's all), but this does not seem to be the appropriate reason for reverting everything. As for your pro-Iranian position, you mentioned it on your page "this user is proud to be Iranian" and I especially say "as I understand it", but I may have been mistaken (you on the contrary say that I attempt to "Turkify several articles", which is not true at all) Devlet Geray (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just taking a random example above [126], the user does not see a difference between his personal position and encyclopedic material. I propose a topic ban from everything related to Eastern Europe and Turkey, broadly construed. For EE, it could be arbitration enforcement. I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Taking into account Ymblanter's cross-wikipedia persecution and attacking me [127], this "I remember I had to take the user to this noticeboard in the past" sounds at least inappropriate Devlet Geray (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

For those who can not read Russian, the above "persecution and attacking" was in fact removal of copyrighted material (a text of a poem). When Devlet Geray restored it claiming it is fair use, I removed it again and said that the fair use policy must be adopted forst on that wiki.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this was the previous instance Devlet Geray was featured here, though I could have missed something.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• the fact that you was looking through my contributions to Crimean Tatar wiki shows that it was a clear persecution. Your taking part in the previous discussion on the noticeboard and your mentioning about my contributions to RuWiki, which is unrelated to this Wiki, proves it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I joined the Crimean-Tatar wiki when it was still in Incubator (I was in fact one of the people who helped to get it out of the Incubator) and have been editing it every day ever since. I check all edits on that project, but, indeed, before your edit I have never detected any copyright violations, not mentioning that I had to edit-war to remove copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Just saw that topic-starter was involved in the conflict on the same topic (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tarik289) just two days before, which seems to me like he creates conflict situations, preventing the editing of articles in a direction - towards a neutral presentation - that does not coincide with his views. As for Ymblanter and Каракорум who previously mentioned me on this noticeboard, they are both from Russian Wikipedia and both harrass me cross-wiki Devlet Geray (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not from the Russian Wikipedia. The last user who had pleasure to call me a "Russian admin" and would not stop against my objections, was recently site-banned by the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

And, well, to claim I am not an active English Wikipedia user is ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• No, I didn't say anything about your activity on English Wikipedia and I didn't call you a Russian admin. Devlet Geray (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment When I recently added a WP:RS source by the Encyclopedia Iranica to the further reading section of the Crimean Tatars article, user:Devlet Geray reverted my edit and called it "propaganda".[128] Looking at the compelling evidence, there are definitely WP:CIR issues in relation to user:Devlet Geray's editorial conduct. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• He was right to remove the link to Encyclopedia Iranica in the article. Encyclopedia Iranica is an encyclopedia with a focus on Iran (and may be a RS for Iranian history), but it's coverage of topics outside it's purview is subpar, to put it mildly. The specific article linked to in question was absolute monstrosity of misinformation, steryotypes, misconseptions, distortions, and generalizations, - all contradictory to the text of the Wikipedia article itself - and ergo should not have been linked to. Removing it was the appropriate action.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, Encyclopedia Iranica is known for forgeries and inaccurate presentation of information. It's not me who says it Devlet Geray (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I know you didn't even bother to read the article that PDF was referencing, so here it is [129]. At no point does it state any accusations of forgeries or inaccurate presentation of info. All it states is that Yarshater being Baha'i and its description of pre-Islamic Iran means it's opposed by elements of the Iranian government. Your false presentation of news is yet another example of disruptive editing. --Qahramani44 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• refrain from your agressive style [130] of talking with people who are not Iranian --Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Based on the evidence and the discussion above, I propose a 6-month topic ban on all topics related to the Iranian/Turkic world for Devlet Geray. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is way too mild. It should be an indefinite topic ban or even a long-term block. The issues have been ongoing for several years.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I was willing to hand out a final straw of WP:GF, but, looking at his final response in relation to my comment above, I believe this won't change anytime soon. User:Devlet Geray is indeed not here to build this encyclopedia, and thus, I will support a block as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with this. LouisAragon was involved in conflict with me (knowing that Iranica was accused of being propaganda, I deleted it - but when it was returned I didn't revert it again), Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki and is clearly prejudiced against me, Каракорум (the user who created the first notice on this page) harrasses me cross-wiki, these are Ukrainian Wikipedia, English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata. I've never broken the rules of English Wikipedia and always acted with sources (see my reverted edit). Devlet Geray (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The statements "I've never broken the rules of English Wikipedia" and "Ymblanter keeps track of my contributions cross-wiki" are demonstratably false.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I have already shown an example here, the same situation is here - [131], but Ymblanter didn't delete it (though he says that he checks "all edits", so this claim seems to be false, not mine). Devlet Geray (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, I see that Devlet Geray is obviously not interested in addressing his own behavior and tries to excuse his year-long disruptive editing that other users "keep track" of his contributions. Could an admin please just block him, preferrably indef. Last ANI thread was closed because the general sentiment was that someone is importing conflicts here from other wiki; in this thread it is clear that Devlet Geray is disruptive on the English Wikipedia, and in addition he tries to import real or imaginary conflicts from elsewhere. Thos thread should not go forever, there is enough proof given here that he is not capable of editing Wikipedia in an appropriate manner.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• What "my own behavior"? Adding information with many authoritative sources and then just got it reverted with one click? Yes, I reacted slightly emotionally on this mass-deletion of what I added, I shouldn't have done it and I'm sorry for that. All other conflicts were solved long ago. I edit conflicting topics, it is obvious that it may cause far more conflicts than if I were editing articles about nature, this should also be taken into account Devlet Geray (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support a block: Looking over this users contributions it's clear they're not interested in reliable sources. They're not interested in amicable discussions. They're not interested in a neutral representation or the widely accepted interpretations. They are just pushing their view, and anyone who disagrees with them is clearly wrong. They are simply not compatible with a collaborative project. Canterbury Tail talk 17:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Provide at least several proofs to your claims, without them it is like your point of view. Thank you Devlet Geray (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

This whole section is proof your actions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support indef (topic) ban: Per WP:NOT HERE, WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE, WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:NPA, lack of WP:COMPETENCE.. I could go on. The fact Devlet accuses me (among other things) that I like to "create conflict situations" because I reported a editor for whose disruptive actions he got banned [132] really says it all. It's almost as if he can't see anything wrong with the banned users actions, which would explain his own conduct. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• You are a topic-starter, it's clear that you are for my block. As for your claim, it's a simple falsifications/forgery of my words (not for the first time). I said, quote: "seems to me [I even stressed it] like [=as if] he creates conflict situations", I didn't say that you "like to create conflict situations". I leave now. Devlet Geray (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I started this topic indeed; because you were unable to behave accordingly. Okay, I accidentally added "like", my bad. But you do realize there's ultimately no difference between the two? Both are equally inappropriate. The fact that you can't see that says it all. It's a even bigger wonder you haven't been blocked yet after all the accusations and attacks you've made towards me in this noticeboard alone. I hope someone is taking notice of this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No topic ban, but a brief block for incivility could be appropriate. The block should be brief because this is a long-term contributor without prior blocks. But he definitely needs a wikibreak. Sorry man, I know how you feel. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Temporary block. The user is problematic and mean as proven by the diffs provided, however, they made overall helpful edits to the project in the past. So, I feel like a temporary block can help the editor take some time to cool off. If they continue their behaviour again after the temporary block, then a permanent block or topic ban would be appropriate. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Some editors can not productively edit some topics. If they're here to build an encyclopedia, they can find other areas where they can edit without contention. BD2412 T 19:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• support indef topic ban per HistoryofIran, as well as a forced "vacation". - Kevo327 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's unrelated to this, but probably you voted for my block because I added Turkic origin to Safavids (then probably i'm "pro-Turkic", if I'm "pro-Turkic" I can start adding anti-Armenian information/propaganda to wikipedia - so just to be on the safe side you supported my indef block - it's your option). But, fyi, I renamed article about Armenian Genocide from "Fake Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian Genocide" and removed all propaganda from it, which wasn't done by Ymblanter who claims that he "checks all the edits" there (another proof of what I said above). So, don't be that prejudiced about people, if everything I wrote is true. If not, I'm sorry Devlet Geray (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  For those who think that Devlet Geray can edit "unproblematically" may I please note that this is the second time in this thread he implies that I am lying. Without having any credible reasons for that. I am sure if he escapes with a topic ban he is going to be back here soon because of his unacceptable behavior (casting aspersions and personal attacks).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is the second time i give proofs that I'm not lying, not that you are lying. I'm not interested in attacking you, I'm interested in defending myself from attacks (as any person here) Devlet Geray (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  Doubling down again.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, English is not my native language, and it may cause some problems, something may sound like doubling down. For instance, here, which was "a random example above" of my violations mentioned by Ymblanter. So, i didn't mean that these "republics" are fiction or something like this I meant that these are puppet states (марионеточные государства) (Crimea unrecognized not only by Ukraine but by the whole world. And de-facto it's a part of Russia - we cannot say that Crimea is of the same status as this republics, as they were not annexed by Russia - we should differ them, don't we?) and the word fictitious (фиктивный) was the first to come to my mind (To understand more what I meant there is such collocation as фиктивный брак which means legal registration of marriage without the intention of starting a family, but for other purposes, for example, obtaining citizenship, benefits from state or municipal services. This is close to what I meant). I agree that this is my fault that I didn't find a better word, but I just want to show that I didn't assume bad-faith Devlet Geray (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

DNR and LNR belong to Category:Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states. Crimea is currently [annexed territory].My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban. (after edit-conflict). Devlet Geray's editorial behaviour is uncivil if you ask me. He reverts edits without looking if some of them are helpful or not and his edit summaries are too hostile. This suppresses useful activities of other editors and creates unnecessary conflict situations. Even here in the discussion, his comments reflect his attitude towards other editors.--Renat (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Reading what Devlet Geray has written here has violated most, if not all, of Wikipedia's pillars. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Hdeare

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

---

Hi all,

As you can see from the user's talk page, they have persistently violated WP:BLP policy by adding unsourced and, in some cases, blatantly false content to articles. He has also created an article on himself, see Harry Deare, and responds inappropriately when warned, with "Oh Shut Up". They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. He has been reported twice to WP:AIV but no action taken yet. Please could an admin take a look? They have been spoken to a number of times by User:Egghead06 but no obvious improvement seen. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h and was tempted to block indef: Not a single edit of this user in the article space was allowed to stand. If they continue ping me for an indef block.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully, that does the trick. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

New account duplicating administrator user page

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

---

• DrWickleSpoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:DrWickleSpoon was created today and they immediately duplicated User:AnemoneProjectors's user page and talk page archive from 2010 onto their own page, after replacing every instance of "AnemoneProjector" with "DrWickleSpoon". The result is very misleading, including claiming to be an admin on their user page. I'm not sure what to say, honestly. DanCherek (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Doesn't appear to be here to build. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:BLP violations at Talk:David

• Editshmedt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:BLP violations at Talk:David: whereas Finkelstein's analysis, incompetent as usual, ... He does this by basically doubling or tripling the length of the Megiddo strata he agreed to downdate in order to keep the gate strata in the 9th century BC. That is obviously insane and requires no further comment, as other archaeologists have pointed out. [133] and [134]. The editor seems to be an anti-Finkelstein troll, furthering a wiki-feud, I offered them a formal warning about paid editing. The editor has fascination for Isaac Kalimi (29 November 2018). Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-58837-9., which has been called a polemical writing [135]. Their edits may be interpreted as WP:Advocacy for Kalimi's POV. They have formally denied being a paid editor: [136].

Same editor wrote I decided to read the rest of Ahlstrom's paper and was disgusted by the sheer dishonesty of your claims. There is clearly no limit to what you will manipulate in order to establish your sheer and utter propaganda. [137]. They have been blocked once for violating WP:NPA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This again? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Don't accuse someone of paid editing if you don't have any evidence. Jerm (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  My idea was that they were doing promotional edits: for Dever/Kalimi and against Finkelstein. Therefore asking them if they were paid for such edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

If you knew the editor had already denied being paid, why would you even bring it up in this report? Jerm (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Err, I have written the above message in several steps. At first I was unaware they will deny. After learning that they denied it, I stated clearly that they did deny. Anyway, saying that Israel Finkelstein is both incompetent and insane made me wonder if they have an axe to grind against him. That's why I thought they edit promotionally. You may see all the steps of my message at Special:Contributions/Tgeorgescu. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is obviously a content dispute, and you are putting so much effort in having this editor blocked, so that you'd be the one to come out on top in the dispute. The fact that you had already made a previous report against the editor and about the same article David, still accusing the editor of paid editing even though you knew Editshmedt had already denied it, and filing an SPI case via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korvex only shows your desperation. As far as I can tell, Editshmedt has not violated any policies. Btw, in your previous report, you stated you could "smell a rat"? Seriously? And now Editshmedt is a troll? Tgeorgescu, you are really pushing you're luck with this report. Jerm (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't find it normal that Finkelstein gets called incompetent and insane. I thought that is against WP:RULES, like WP:BLP. If the rules have changed, and any editor may call names top mainstream scholars, let me know. At least I was bona fide in reporting what seemed to me a BLP violation. And believe me, I have a special sense for detecting troublemakers, many of my WP:SPI reports were successful. So it's not like I would cast aspersions without any reason. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't care if the editor thinks the source is good, bad, reliable, unreliable, that is an argument for the article talk page, and your past successful SPI cases have nothing to do with this report. You have been editing for many years, yet you couldn't start an RfC? Jerm (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I do know something about the editor, but WP:OUTING does not allow me to say it here. Anyway, my take is that that discussion should have been closed long ago, it no longer has anything to do with the article David. And I guess RfCs are not for closing discussions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Has there been any attempt to bring the dispute (behaviour notwithstanding) to the WP:DRN? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, that discussion is about the archaeological evidence for the United Monarchy especially in respect to the Low Chronology of Finkelstein. So, if WP:DRN is needed, it is needed for another article, not for David. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Sockmanwoman

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

---

Vandalism-only account, disruptive username, self-declared sockpuppet. Created Template:User wikipedia/sock‎ with first edit, and added it to his userpage with his second edit [138] Meters (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that the user hid his disruptive username when he posted to the Teahouse [139]. Meters (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Template deleted, user indeffed. Meters (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Edit warring over birth dates of famous actors

174.88.29.11 (talk · contribs) is removing sources and changing birth dates without consensus, and sometimes without providing supporting sources. Some of this falls under WP:BLP guidelines. See Julie Christie, Dorothy Provine, Hope Lange, [140], Lila Kedrova. Where there is ambiguity, we reflect that. Need more eyes, thanks. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bob! I've blocked this IP user for 36 hours for disruptive editing. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah! Thank you--I'm hoping some editors will also have a look at the content, and see if the changes were merited. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate further thoughts about edits like this [141] at Lila Kedrova. My impression is that there's no definitive date of birth. I'm also curious about the change in birthplace name. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Abra Youth Organizations Society

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

---

Help needed--several COI accounts are maintaining this new, promotional article with some copyright violations. Persistent removal of templates. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected 1 month. Mjroots (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Mjroots. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:HunsletMid: NOTHERE?

Morning Admins, can I make someone aware of the user known as HunsletMid, appears to be NOTHERE by the quality of their edits on EN wiki and rather crude uploads on Commons - if anyone here is an admin over on Commons could they take a look? I have nominated two of their additions - one is a copyvio. Courtesy pinging SK2242. Thanks Nightfury 11:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Also adding term on their user page is an English term for a sex offender. Would advise it be removed/revdel'd. Commons contibs have all been removed. Nightfury 11:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow that term has changed since I was a kid, when it just meant the same as numpty, wazzock, pillock etc. Canterbury Tail talk 14:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with what Nightfury has said above. Does not seem the user in question is here to contribute. SK2242 (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistent addition of improperly referenced dates of birth for living people

An editor whose IPs geolocate to the north-east of England persists in adding poorly referenced dates of birth for living people, their most recent IP is 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:989A:5809:8777:508D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) but they have also used others recently such as 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:29D1:7AFE:FA15:D336 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:8158:1E8E:E0B3:434 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The "reference" they are using is raw data, and has been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323#House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#House of Parliament raw data for dates of birth of living people and the consensus is that it cannot be used for the date of birth for living people. Given the IP hopping and history, it's probably a bit too complex for AIV so decided to bring here instead. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Now active on 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:73:3110:564D:47F (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) FDW777 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Mathsci Iban violation

User:Mathsci has since June 2018 a 2-way interaction ban with User:Francis Schonken (FS for short) (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Bach editing), and has been blocked for violations of this Iban in November 2020.

Now, in the above section WP:ANI#Francis Schonken edit-warring, they edited on the 29th[142] and again today[143]. I noticed this latter one, indicated that this was an Iban violation, and further discussion followed. It seemed more practical to have the discussion about the Iban as a separate section though (it was distracting enough when it moved from FS to authority control to Mathsci, but then Mathsci tried to make it about me, so better to not let it degenerate further).

Mathsci and Francis Schonken have very closely aligning editing interests, making it not unlogical that they edit the same articles. However, it looks as if by far most of the edits are Mathsci following FS around, including Mathsi reverting edits by FS, which is explicitly disallowed by WP:IBAN. I already gave the example of this revert by Mathsci, 1 February.

But there is e.g. also what he presented as part of his defense: "the stub BWV 53 has been a collaboration of User:Nikkimaria and myself". Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 was created in 2012, and first edited by FS in 2014, who edited it occasionally over the years. On 9 January, FS starts a major editing spree of this article, making 11 edits and adding about 10Kb to it[144]. 45 minutes after the last of this series of edits, Mathsci makes his very first edit to this pageremoving the in-use tag. A revert on a page you never edited, the day after your Iban-editor starts making a series of edits? Seems like a clear Iban violation.

They have many, common articles, with often hundreds of edits, so it's not always easy the patterns. If there are instance of FS doing the same to Mathsci, feel free to post them and take the necessary action in that direction as well. But it clearly needs to made clear to Mathsci that he is not allowed to follow FS around, to revert him, to join discussions about FS, ... Whoever makes the best edits or has the most editors on their side is not relevant here: if Mathsci feels that the Iban should be lifted, they should have made a request for it. Simply ignoring it months after being blocked for violations of the same Iban is not on though. Fram (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing a stale in-use template probably falls under non-controversial maintenance (although Mathsci might have done better to be patient and let the bot do it). Although in this case, replacing it with Template:Under construction might have been the more technically accurate thing to do - no comment on the underlying article content issue even if I do have an opinion on the matter. I don't know if lifting the IBAN would be problematic, but if neither of the two concerned editors has complained about it until now (that article was first edited and discussed on talk page over two weeks ago), this seems just like applying the rules to apply the rules, i.e. something Wikipedia is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

An in-use template is hardly stale after 45 minutes. And that's simply one example, showing that the current violation is not an unlucky one-off but part of an ongoing series. Their interactions are problematic, and when we are discussing issues with the editing of one of the two, it is definitely not helpful if the other one turns up to give comments which aren't about the other but just happen to be in a section about the other, about articles edited by the other. The Iban was imposed to end (or at least reduce) such problematic interactions, and should be enforced no matter if either of the two parties in the Iban complained or not (in fact, it is often seen as best if the editors in an Iban don't complain about violations, as a wrong complaint may be seen as a violation on their part instead). Fram (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

An in-use template should be used for when one is in the midst of an active editing session and likely to make multiple edits within a short period (so as to avoid edit conflicts - in this case the in-use template had been there for over 24 hours). Under construction is better for longer-term; lower intensity actions such as this was here. Anyway, I'm not keen on rules and bureaucracy so I'm not going to argue this any further. If only we could have such rapid admin interventions at AIV and other, actually pressing matters... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: it's perfectly possible that someone could take 45 minutes to submit an edit from when they started to when they click submit. Heck I can take 45 minutes to finish a reply. This doesn't work on highly active recent event articles but it should be fine on a fairly obscure one. P.S. I'm fairly sure I hit that mark with the edit below which I'm submitting with this and I'm 90% sure I didn't intentionally do it to prove the point. Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocked – for a period of one month. Which should really be viewed as a last chance saloon. Mathsci's three IBAN violations in the course of one year is too much. El_C 15:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

(ec) The timing of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 seems very suspicious although I'm generally reluctant to draw conclusion from one incidence of questionable timing I'd like to here Mathsci's explanation. The ANI thread seems to be a clear cut violation to me. I guess Mathsci is claiming that they weren't commenting on Francis Schonken's edits just on the general question about authority control inspired by that thread but they can't when the main question is over Francis Schonken edit's. If Mathsci is unhappy about such limitations they will need to reform their behaviour and convince the community of this so we don't need the mutual iban. Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

With respect to the second one, he was following up on a comment from me, not to Francis Schonken. El_C, if that edit was the deciding factor, I consider the block unjustified. DGG (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

DGG, it was not the deciding factor. Further explained on Mathsci's talk page (diff). El_C 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

understood. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: Note I never said anything about who Mathsci was replying to. It's irrelevant AFAIAC, as I strongly disagree that makes it acceptable. As I mentioned the main thread was clearly about Francis Schonken. The followup subthread was on the related issue (concerning the contested edits) of the utility and use of authority control templates and wikidata data. Because the main thread was obviously about Francis Schonken, as even the title made clear, Mathsci needed to stay away from it completely. If people said general stuff that Mathsci disagreed with and felt they wanted to reply or clarify, while I understand the urge as someone who also dislikes comments which they feel are inaccurate or misleading and often also has a strong urge to reply when they see them, it's still not acceptable. That's what it means to live with an iban. If Mathsci isn't happy with that result, tough luck. I'm assuming they are partly responsible for the result they are unhappy with, since mutual ibans are only generally imposed when both parties appear to be contributing to the problem in some part. Likewise it's also partly with their purview to fix the result by reforming their behaviour and convincing the community of such so the iban is no longer needed. Testing the edges of the i-ban is definitely not helping. The only case where it would have been acceptable for Mathsci to reply to a thread about Francis Schonken would have been if someone said something that was about Mathsci (including of course if it was about their iban). Otherwise Mathsci's on Wikipedia concern for anything that goes in a thread about Francis Schonken has to be completely zero as long as the iban remains in place. Privately if they want to monitor the thread in the hope it results in a long term block of Francis Schonken, while I don't think it's healthy, that's their choice. Of course if they do so they need to resist the itchy-finger urge to reply when someone says something they feel is wrong, misleading or otherwise needs a reply, even if it doesn't concern Francis Schonken directly, which gets back to my main point. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Prompted by El C's comments on the talk page, I looked more carefully at the Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 case and agree the editing there is another clear cut violation since regardless of the timing and sudden appearance of Mathsci, there was direct interaction. Even if I'm very generous and claim that a single removal of a recently inserted in use template qualifies as "uncontroversial maintenance" and so is exempt from the iban, getting into an edit war over it is clearly not [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]. Note that although the tag was later re-added for the last edit [150], this doesn't seem to be a concession that they should not have edited given the edit summary and their followup edits.

I'm going to assume that Mathsci was well aware of Francis Schonken's involvement in that article by that time since they had to self-revert multiple times when they tried BRD on edits by Francis Schonken [151] (at least I think despite the confusing edit summary that is supposed to mostly be a self reversion of [152], if not we have a bigger problem) [153] [154].

Then there's also this [155] which was never self-reverted and yeah most or all of those edits were by Francis Schonken [156] which shouldn't be surprising as that edit spree seems to be mostly edits by one of the 2. I think it's clear that Mathsci should have been aware that Francis Schonken was editing that page by that time considering that they'd been editing it for a while and there was even an RfC by that time which they had both participated in. Frankly even when they didn't cite BRD, a lot of Mathsci's editing to that page seems to be in directly changing stuff Francis Schonken had just edited.

An i-ban for two editors with very similar interests is always a bit difficult to manage although for obvious reasons these tend to happen a lot. It's accepted that these editors will sometimes edit the same page and this isn't an automatic i-ban violation. But the sort of editing Mathsci showed on that page is clearly quite far from what we expect.

To be fair, this also means Francis Schonken's editing had problems, IMO once Mathsci got so heavily involved they probably should ask admins to deal with it rather than just continuing to edit ignoring the fact that they were now effectively battling against Mathsci. However AFAICT, Francis Schonken seems to have mostly just kept editing rather than intentionally reversing or modifying stuff Mathsci had done and I'm not going to support sanction of someone because the other i-ban partner ignored the i-ban.

All this means even if I AGF that Mathsci suddenly came across the page by some means other than following Francis Schonken's edits, once they realised Francis Schonken was actively editing it, they needed to take a lot more care than they did. Considering how active Francis Schonken was on that article, they probably should have just avoided it completely except maybe for RfCs and other stuff on the talk page but it's their choice how they manage their iban provided they manage it which they didn't.

I don't understand Mathsci's defence. Francis Schonken didn't create the page but they got actively involved in it before Mathsci. Because of that the onus was far more on Mathsci to take care to avoid iban violations if they suddenly wanted to edit it. Friends of Mathsci being the early editors to the page doesn't mean Mathsci somehow has more "right" to the page. A key point here is I make no judgment on Francis Schonken's edits. They may have been crap, maybe they were ignoring consensus on the talk page, I don't care. If there were problems, other editors needed to deal with these not Mathsci. Francis Schonken damaging the work of User:Gerda Arendt and User:Nikkimaria is of zero on Wikipedia concern of Mathsci (if that's what they're trying to say). Again, that's what living with an i-ban means.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Mazenbestie, LGBT in Lebanon

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

---

@Mazenbestie keeps making unsourced edits to LGBT rights in Lebanon (along with other "LGBT rights in X" pages). When confronted with the lack of sourcing (discussion), I was told to "stfu" and that "his friend told him". When told that a friend is not a reliable source, his answer was "You are nonsense dude , by the way you don't know anything first of all". Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I've given them a final unsourced warning. Lets see what happens. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Problematic user on multiple WikiProject Politics articles

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

---

Hello, I would like to report SpaceSandwich activity on multiple WikiProject Politics articles - the last one here: Cold War (1947–1953) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

Part of his edits are vandalism: he removes sourced text by arbitrarily deciding that sources are "unreliable" and "biased" (claiming supposed lack of neutrality) but without consent or discussion, skipping procedures, removing or adding terminology as he likes. Also, there have been cases of personal attacks and insults - the last one, just barely more than 10 minutes ago. Check out his talk for further analysis which dates back to July 2020.

He also tried to obscure my initial report, and he edited his user page - probably to look less politically interested in his edits. And he also did this.

Thank you for your attention. Lone Internaut (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, with talk page access disabled. Wow, rarely do I see harassment of such a serious nature — diff (admins only). El_C 16:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, much appreciated. Lone Internaut (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Just for future reference, disruptive accounts should be reported here (or on whatever other pertinent noticeboards) — Wikiprojects are not really for that. El_C 16:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I will, thanks again El. Bye. Lone Internaut (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:咽頭べさ, intimidation/harassment

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

---

The user is threatening and accused me that I attacked him. (please see the user's talk page.) He was also blocked on Commons by the same reason. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 17:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ninjastrikers, please provide diff links showing threats and/or harassment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at [157], [158], [159] there is definite harassment/personal attacks. I will give an "only warning" to the user to stop their behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Warned here: [160] EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Carchasm reported by Smuckola

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an example why WP:AIV is not the right venue for such reports: WP:ANI requires notification of the editor and allows us to enforce discussion about the behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Carchasm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – This account is one month old and mainly does unilateral radical changes on a mass scale and edit wars. In the rare case he responds, that is mostly in the edit comments of edit wars.[161] His Talk page pretty much consists of people telling him to stop doing unilateral unexplained undiscussed edits. He pretended to unilaterally dictate the total reformation of Wikproject Literature by declaring one archived discussion from 2007 to magically be the status quo that he needs to suddenly reset the entire encyclopedia to. He just started mass editing the definition pages of what the wikiproject is, ignoring all responses via edit comments except to blithely instruct them to stop reverting him. He declared a few days on the project talk page to constitute zero feedback and a completely dead project (actually ignoring or defying all feedback), and thus spam hundreds of edits with no edit comments, which will apparently not stop. He did all this without even initially knowing the basic concepts of wikipedia such as edit warring and BRD, but learning it hasn't stopped him. So I call that massively disruptive editing. I discovered this when he removed Aesop's Fables from Wikiproject Literature. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 16:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Smuckola - I don't see you leaving the user a query about this issue on their talk page. Can you engage with them on their user talk first? -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Fuzheado Sorry, no, the whole point is that's already been done several times by several people and he simply refuses and escalates. — Smuckola(talk) 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I did engage with the people who raised objections to what I was doing - I'm not sure which feedback that you feel I was ignoring or defying. I also added a discussion of the changes to the wikiproject itself. Maybe I just don't understand WikiProjects, but shouldn't the talk page for the project be the place where discussion should occur on what the scope of the project is? - car chasm (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Also maybe I've read the community wrong, but it doesn't seem to me that "which WikiProject banners are on a page" should be a controversial thing - especially to editors that aren't involved in that WikiProject. If you look at the project, it still has well over 3000 unassessed pages. Honestly the only reason I didn't mark the project as inactive rather than semi-active was that I wanted to clean it up. - car chasm (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be better to engage with car chasm, who appears to be a new, and possibly too eager editor. Carchasm should be guided not discouraged. Rwood128 (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

Comment by Xxanthippe. I endorse the concerns of Smuckola. - car chasm edit wars over categories, persists with mass edits and does not respond to guidance. I suggest a topic ban from Categories and Literature, where the damage has been done, until they have gained more experience in editing Wikipedia before engaging in more major structural edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

Y'know, for all of the quoting WP:BRD you do you don't seem to be very willing to discuss things when other users engage you - looking at your contributions it seems like this is a pattern with you that extends well beyond your interactions with me. Are you sure you're here to build an encyclopedia? - car chasm (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Does this apply to all of my 17,000 edits over the last 15 years? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

I agree that the mass deletion of the literature project from author/book articles is disruptive (although based on their explanation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, I see the point to what they're doing), but I don't see them refusing to discuss on their talk page or on the project talk page. I just read through the history on User talk:Carchasm and I see the editor responding to concerns that other editors raise. If editors are solely relying on edit summaries to give guidance, that might not be the most productive approach. I agree with Rwood128 about "too eager". On the other hand, I'm skeptical on how "new" they are; their second day registered, they engaged in an ANI discussion, explaining that they'd removed a ref from multiple articles because it had been added by an account circumventing a block, linking to an archived SPI. Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Behavior by User:Belevalo

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

Pages that are mainly affected:

• Leon Draisaitl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ted Lindsay Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It all started on January 31, 2021, when Belevalo made edits to multiple NHL BLPs by adding explanations to the tables (for example, Sidney Crosby) and adding trivia to Ted Lindsay Award page (for example, my revert, because the editor made the initial edits in more than one edit). I reverted such additions giving my reasons. The editor then started two discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Adding some interesting trivia to furstratingly dry and boring articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#User:Sabbatino Deleting usefull information. Instead of trying to discuss it, the editor instantly started badmouthing me, which should not be done per WP:TALKNO. Other editors besides me specifically wrote that his improvements are not needed and are trivial. I then tried to discuss the matter on the editor's talk page in here and here.

Today, the editor returned and started its WP:BATTLEGROUND campaign against me at Leon Draisaitl (first edit, second edit and third edit), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#User:Sabbatino again deleting information, Talk:Klay Thompson (first edit, second edit, third edit), my talk page (here and here).

I am reporting here since I am not sure where to report the editor's behavior. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note from the accused. User:Sabbatino has been shadowing me and deleting my edit. And even when called out and proven wrong, (example in the case of the List of largest sports contracts and the subsequent updates to the Mike Trout, Patrick Mahomes articles) he made modification to said edits so he can have the last say. I can't say i care for the fact that he has to have the last say, but the behavior is toxic.

I have a lot of pages on my Watchlist so I was not following anyone. I removed those pages from my Watchlist after you made reverts in those pages, because I do not really care for baseball or American football. The List of largest sports contracts was on my Watchlist purely for trivial reasons. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

And there it is. If you don't care for it, why follow me to them and revert me? Those are some of the most looked after pages on wikipedia. If i made any wrong edit, it would've been corrected. But no, you just wanted to undo my work. Making those pages into WP:Battleground in the process. Belevalo (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what a Watchlist is on Wikipedia. But I am not going to elaborate on that if you are refusing to understand certain things. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't care, but you have them on your watchlist. You don't care but you followed me to hem to delete my edits. Belevalo (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

First, Belevalo, stop with the bad-faith accusations. People have articles on their Watchlists for all kinds of reasons, even topics they're not necessarily interested in. I personally follow some articles just because they tend to be vandalized, others because they've been sources of debate before & I want to weigh in as an outside viewpoint when that happens.

There is nothing to indicate Sabbatino was Watchlisting those article to "follow" you. They already had those pages watched, saw your edits, and reverted them.

Second, Sabbatino is correct in that references generally do not belong on the lead. The lead of the article should summarize the article's contents, and those contents are where you find the citations.

Third, you are both getting too far into bad faith argumentation, even in the edit summaries. Knock off the insults & unfounded accusations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND: Belevalo leaving this comment was not constructive, making a personal attack and reducing the discussion into a WP:VOTE, which also was an inaccurate declaration of a "2–1 majority" even if we were counting. Their last block, only weeks ago, had WP:POINTY cited in their block log. Lengthier re-block is warranted.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware that the editor has recently been blocked for similar behavior. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A few editors have been reverting all edits which replaced a questionable source with other reliable sources such as espn.com.

Even though there is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#Sherdog.com, which was closed with: The consensus seems to be that the source is less reliable than ESPN and other sources rated generally reliable. Some editors believe that Sherdog is reliable for some basic information, especially fight information and results, but not other information. Overall, the consensus is that the source should be used with caution, on a case-by-case basis., NEDOCHAN, Squared.Circle.Boxing, Cassiopeia reverted the edits which were made by multiple editors and IP users who replaced sherdog.com with reliable sources such as espn.com. It seems the editors in question who made the reverts actually took part in the rfc, opposing the eventual result of the rfc (Apperantly Squared.Circle.Boxing changed their thoughts later). They also were informed about the rfc in question multiple times by different editors in the edit summaries of the relevant edits.

A few weeks ago, an editor (78.190.164.254) wanted the help of mine and other editors, who took part in the rfc. They claimed (NEDOCHAN, Squared.Circle.Boxing, Cassiopeia enforce the usage of sherdog.com which wasn't found reliable at RSN, on the articles of Tony Ferguson, Dan Henderson and Conor_McGregor. I didn't really care much about it at first, But a few days after, one of the editors who were accused of some kind of wrongdoing, NEDOCHAN, replied to me in a very odd way. When I asked them what did they mean with that comment, they didn't reply. This raised my suspicions but I didn't look much into it. In the last few days however, when I saw them reverting an edit on the article of Tony Ferguson, I started to review these articles when I had free time, and I found multiple reverts of multiple editors and IP users which eventually has kept sherdog.com as the major source on these articles.

Since the closure of the rfc;

They have made reverts between 10 January 2021 - 3 February 2021 at Tony Ferguson.

They have made reverts between 29 november 2021 - 11 January 2021 at Dan Henderson.

The relevant reverts that were made by NEDOCHAN:

On the article of Tony Ferguson: 1 2 3 4

On the article of Dan Henderson: 5 6 7 8 9

The relevant reverts that were made by Squared.Circle.Boxing:

On the article of Tony Ferguson: 10

On the article of Dan Henderson: 11 12 13 14

The relevant reverts that were made by Cassiopeia:

On the article of Tony Ferguson: 15

In the last few months, they have eventually reverted the edits of; Chuachenchie, Theleekycauldron, Maximus Castiglione, Legendstreak0, Magnus Dominus, and a lot of IP users who replaced sherdog.com with other sources. Mostly espn.com and ufc.com. They also reverted the edits of those Wikipedia editors, which conflicted with sherdog.com but weren't properly sourced, hence I didn't list them here.

It seems even before the rfc, they reverted those that replaced sherdog.com with confirmed reliable sources from WP:RSP. I found a couple such reverts but I'm going to share them after I review the article even more. Shortly, the edit summaries of all those reverts which I listed above, simply mention three reasons. Block evasion, per sherdog and WP:MMA. They accused a few IPs and some editors of evading a block as the sole reason for their reverts, even before there was any SPI about them. Apperantly one of those editors who was found to be evading a block by CU, Legendstreak0, actually tried to reference sherdog.com on the article of Conor McGregor, not the other way around. Other editor, Maximus Castiglione, was suspected of being a previously banned user according to the sockpuppet log. I guess even the SPIs for these editors was opened after their edits were reverted multiple times. The SPI for IPs however, is still open.

As for Chuachenchie, Theleekycauldron and me, no SPIs have been opened yet. Their edits were simply reverted by a couple of reasons: "per sherdog, already sourced or WP:MMA.

In order to understand if these editors in question act in accordance with each other or not, I reviewed their talk page histories and found some connections.

Between Cassiopeia and NEDOCHAN:

diff: Cassiopeia seems to know NEDOCHAN pretty well.

User talk:NEDOCHAN/Archive 1#A_barnstar_for_you!

User_talk:NEDOCHAN/Archive_1#New_message_from_CASSIOPEIA

User_talk:NEDOCHAN/Archive_2#Gilbert_Burns: Apperantly CASSIOPEIA gives inscructions to PabloLikesToWrestle, PrivateHazzard and NEDOCHAN about how to deal with BLPs of a couple MMA fighters in these two different sections in the talk page of NEDOCHAN.

Between Squared.Circle.Boxing and NEDOCHAN:

User_talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing#October_2020,_revert_/edit_war

User_talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing#SPI

User_talk:NEDOCHAN/Archive_2#Ridiculous_nonsense: Without NEDOCHAN's consent, Squared.Circle.Boxing moves NEDOCHAN's comment to responses section of the sherdog.com rfc, to increase the count for the first option. Apperantly there was a problem with that and Squared.Circle.Boxing mentions it to NEDOCHAN to get their consent. NEDOCHAN even thanks for it.

User_talk:NEDOCHAN#SPI: They talk about the SPI which one of them opened about an editor, and an IP later, who replaced sherdog.com with other sources or the other way around for some reason. They were having a conversation about how to deal with those editors. They eventually even mentioned me here. Apperantly, they weren't happy with me mentioning on my talk page that I would take a quick look into those articles to search for any wrongdoings at the request of someone else. They talked about how they tried to search for any clues to link me with a previously banned user. One of them mentions they couldn't find any convincing evidence, "unfortunately".

It seems they even argued against the suggestions of those editors who tried to inform the acussing editor about how to proceed, including me.

User_talk:Nil_Einne#Sherdog.com_RfC_Closure_Has_Had_No_Effect_on_Wikipedia_Because_of_a_Small_but_Organized_Gang_of_Editors User_talk:Girth_Summit#Sherdog.com_RfC_Closure_Has_Had_No_Effect_on_Wikipedia_Because_of_a_Small_but_Organized_Gang_of_Editors

User_talk:Magnus_Dominus

Today, after I reinstated the edits of Chuachenchie, which replaced sherdog.com with ufc.com as the referenced source, NEDOCHAN reverted my edit and "not to my surprise" immediately tried to reach out to Squared.Circle.Boxing 16, and Cassiopeia 17, to do something about me, blatantly accusing me of being another editor in their talk pages, and inviting them to open an SPI about me. They also talked to me in my page 18 but this time they only "implied" to my face I could be another editor, because apperantly my nickname was half latin and another editor that was banned long time ago had a nickname which resembled latin although it could be seen as an english name. Oh, apperantly I created my account "some time" after that editor was banned. So, I create my account a considerable amount of time after the banned editor, edit Wikipedia for months about various topics which were not related to these articles and only a few weeks after someone requested the help of mine and other editors on these articles, I simply reinstate the edits of Chuachenchie. Out of nowhere, I was blamed with being a sockpuppet. It seems to be their usual tactic to keep sherdog.com as the main source on anything related mixed martial arts.

Long story short, there's a clear pattern of refusal to accept any reliable source but sherdog.com. They usually go to block evasion excuse which themselves decide on if the editor in question doesn't have an old account no matter how irrelevant that excuse sounds. Otherwise, they simply state it's already sourced, per sherdog, WP:MMA, like there's not a closed rfc out there. So far I have only analyzed these three articles but considering they're pretty active in various BLPs of mixed martial artists, I assume the three editors in question have been trying to keep sherdog.com as the major source on all of mixed martial arts related articles, which conflicts with the result of the rfc: sherdog.com. I don't know if they're related to sherdog.com or simply advertising it or there's another benefit in this, but as you could see from the appropiate links I shared, I found some kind of connection and relation between these editors. Does it mean they're organized or they simply share one common practice? That's up to interpretation. However, their desire to enforce sherdog.com as the main source on these articles, on the contrary to the RFC result at RSN, is very clear.Magnus Dominus (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kent Bargo

As a regular UFC editor on the ufc pages. I like to condemn Magnus Dominus for this ANI and for some reason approves this Disruptive RFC sherdog "closed by @Buidhe:. (Magnus Dominus only been here since October 2020) I opposed many of their changes in past. It upsetting to continuing to drag @Squared.Circle.Boxing: @Cassiopeia: @NEDOCHAN: on this issue. Kent Bargo (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think like a lot of the community, I find these MMA article fights boring and am sick of hearing them. Frankly I have no idea why they are so infested with socks either. But as I've mentioned both on my talk page and an article discussion, the way to challenge an RfC is to ask the closer to re-assess the close or open a new one or to use some other appropriate process to establish that the RfC consensus no longer stands. You cannot simply ignore an RfC because you dislike or disagree with the result. It is unfortunate that the RfC was started by a sock, but it's also unfortunately true it not the first time nor will it be the last. A sock starting and RfC doesn't automatically invalidate the RfC because RfCs are intended to be discussions which establish community consensus on how our policies and guidelines apply to a certain specific issues, and indeed AFAICT, most of the participants of that RfC are AFAICT, clearly not socks. I don't know if Magnus Dominus is a sock, but if the RfC result had been overturned or if it was clear it was being respected, this ANI could easily be completely ignored. Unfortunately the fact that there seems to be some validity to the claim the RfC result is being ignored means it's not so easy to automatically dismiss this complaint. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

These MMA article got alot of MMA fans, but basically same as Trump supported articles or others categories. It does make the RFC questionable when the sock got caught. In my view, when I look at that RFC, it look like it was to disrupt the UFC pages with a old case that already be discussed. That sudden name change "from same user" almost made it look it was another person with a strong support of the RFC. Kent Bargo (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Legal theat by User:Checkpoint18

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

---

See [162]. Please block from all articles and his own talk page. User:Drmies issued a partial block. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Done, by 331dot. Thanks, and thanWrong user lks Phil. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Yalta

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

---

User:Seryo93 changing coat of arms. --Vlixes (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• volunteering to give Wp:3O : To save some of the admins time and effort. It seems it's a common content dispute, 3RR hasn't been breached. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Kyopa repeatedly going against consensus, continued WP:OWN behavior and personal attacks after block

• Kyopa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Greek Football Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Greek Cup finals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kyopa has already been blocked for editwarring on these articles, yet refuses to stop. Consensus has already been established that as the match was abandoned neither club should be awarded a win for the cup finals in question. Sources (including those provided by the user in question) also agree with this viewpoint. The user has a habit of attacking other editors AND authors of sources (see: here, here), displayed OWN behavior here and noted that they would wait 24 hours to avoid triggering 3RR here. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, I apologize for the inconvenience. I made an effort to correct something I thought was wrong. Some users have the opposite view. I was treated hostilely and maybe I did the same. Because that leads nowhere, it's best not to dwell on these articles again. It does not mean that I am wrong. They just do not understand me. You should not punish me because users who disagree with me cooperate secretly (canvassing). User Padgriffin is negatively biased with me and please be excluded from the case. I generally think I have a group of puppets in front of me. --💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging @REDMAN 2019: and @Abudabanas: Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 07:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing from User:LED BodyBuilding

I found User:LED BodyBuilding via a recent MFD of something they've created. Their edit patterns suggest WP:NOTHERE behavior. To wit:

• An incoherent composite of articles at User:LED_BodyBuilding/sandbox.
• A duplication of said incoherent composite at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law,_Sport,_And_Science.
• An incoherent draft at Draft:Kamille_Brickhouse.
• An incoherent rambling with flagrantly false accusations of gender bias and disability hatred.

What say you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite confused by this user's contribs. But they clearly are not constructive. Blocking indef until user can articulate an understanding of Wikipedia's basic purpose and competence. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I think the complete gibberish drafts mentioned above should be speedied. Do you think you can do this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Persistent non-MOS editing by User:68.132.99.144

This IP has repeatedly edited Lawrence Summers [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] to include (ungrammatically) the term "cismale" (which appears to be a slang contraction of cisgender male) and "Jewish-American" in place of "American". Both of these appear to be against MOS:CONTEXTBIO, which states that:

Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.

I have repeatedly given warnings to the IP on his/her talk page, and there was some discussion on my talk page (which I moved to the article talk page, but no consensus was reached. The IP in question rationalised the edits as follows:

[H]e is a public figure, [thus] describing him as American implies he represents America[,] which marginalizes minorities[.]

At least to me, this logic makes no sense and is still against the MOS. As this is not quite vandalism, it would be improper to file a report at WP:AIV, so I believe that this is the better forum to seek administrator intervention. Thank you.

— Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 01:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (Edited 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC))

Leave it out, per Twassman.

This may or may not be the same user who was blocked for after edit warring on this IP a few weeks ago, but the style certainly suggests it is to me. It's contested material that seems to be against MOS and the IP continues to restore despite user talk page warnings, no consensus on the article talk page, and this ANI thread. The IP broke 3RR, and made yet another revert after being informed of this ANI thread. IP should be blocked. Meters (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Groguyoda

• Groguyoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Groguyoda has been edit warring across multiple articles to include the opinions of a John Bannon, sourced to self published books written by Bannon. 100% of their editing activity so far has been to insert mentions of Bannon. They've been reverted by multiple editors, and have now escalated to making legal threats (see edit summary). - MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)