Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Reverted New topic
Line 1,239: Line 1,239:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes
[[User:Danielbr11|Danielbr11]] ([[User talk:Danielbr11|talk]]) 19:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Danielbr11|Danielbr11]] ([[User talk:Danielbr11|talk]]) 19:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

== boys as pearls sucks ==

lol rangeblocks r not working [[User:Wikimedianism is by far the most evil and disgusting ideology.|Wikimedianism is by far the most evil and disgusting ideology.]] ([[User talk:Wikimedianism is by far the most evil and disgusting ideology.|talk]]) 20:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:14, 5 February 2021

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries

    User is leaving hostile and uncivil edit summaries and comments. Diffs: [1], edit summaries at [2], [3], [4], [5], and generally at [6] 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)[reply]

    • 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 [7]. 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 [8]. 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 [9].
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • Support: as proposer.  // Timothy :: talk  07:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Comment: I think the opposition here is basically trying to give HW a pass on [10] 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 [11] is not ignored.  // Timothy :: talk  08:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • Support based upon editing history and the fact that there's a clear, logged editing restriction. If editors object to enforcing it, then we should have a discussion about lifting it, but nothing leads to recidivist behavior and chronic problems like setting clear restrictions for problematic behaviors and then just shrugging when the restricted editors ignore said restrictions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Oh maybe Wolfo only has 25 Minutes to Go...! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Sdrqaz, it's all good. Thank you for sharing your perspective. El_C 22:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for closure

    Given that this discussion is close to being automatically archived, I request that an uninvolved administrator determines what consensus (if any) has emerged from the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • 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

    Set two: cat spamming

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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[12] or censured/inquisited,[13] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[1] 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)[reply]
    That would be about 95 to 96% isn't it? Still quite far from 99%. And after all domestic helpers are inhabitants there. Most of them are long-term residents. They aren't slaves as you might have unfortunately implied and they are always counted towards population figures. 223.197.192.15 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    More newer issue. Start to POV pushing other dependent territories:
    -- Matthew hk (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The red link was an old article that was moved into personal user namespace and the redirect generated as a result of that relocation was deleted many many years ago. There had been no new article in its place. Is there any chance that someone might think an article might develop? Irrespective of that why can't that be pointed to a relevant, existing article?
    As for allegations of sockpuppetry, I am afraid there is no sockpuppet and there's been no solid evidence or conclusive investigation. Having an account or otherwise is irrelevant to whether anyone is sockpuppet or whether someone wants to contribute productively. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked into the edit history of Country, the very first case you mentioned in your submission, back to early to mid-January,[20] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Just look at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#List of borderless country. Matthew hk (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    for "LK 10/18/4", you still haven't quote it in order to allow other editors to verify it. Matthew hk (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, stop ip hopping and claim live in Hong Kong is the only definition of Hong Konger or use "Hong Konger" as the criteria to edit article. The problem of you/ they/ ip hopper, is fails WP:V by provide reliable source. Posting a HKID does not make all your edit met WP:V. Matthew hk (talk) 08:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Third party comment: If you (singular? plural?) created an account and cut down on all the snide remarks regarding English proficiency then I think it would be much easier to have a constructive discussion regarding the issues at hand. Citobun (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @1.64.46.31: Please read WP:UGC. I don't mind open yet another RFC (at WP:RSN and then MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist) to formally black list gwulo.com. Matthew hk (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (More on gwulo.com. It accepts upload of map (or just fragment of a map that original legend is missing, which impossible to reader to determinate original publish date and publisher) with unknown origin. Uploader just claimed as old and "genuine". This re-publish action itself is counted as "Self-published source" in wikipedia and the caption added by uploader is UGC . It is different from a reliable author which includes an old map in a book and wiki editor cite the map / book.) Matthew hk (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, for the history of Ma Tau Chung POW camp , i don't believe HKU or Oxford University Press or whatever reliable publishing house , did not have books about that part of history. Instead of spamming wikipedia with UGC, facebook, forum or other not reliable source (the guideline is WP:RS), just borrow or bought a book and cite it. Offline source is acceptable in wikipedia and i often do that by digging out "offline" physical copies of books that related to HK, from SLWA and UWA libraries, or ordered second hand out of print from ebay and amazon. Matthew hk (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More off topic on biased source. Yes citation may be biased but usually out of scope of wikipedian to make original research to determinate . The argument of map are censored by Chinese government company, but without provide their own list of citation (which i think 齡記 had published a few student atlas (at least before 1997), not sure it uses maps that derived from the colonial HK government or not, but yet again no one willing to have a look by borrow one from HK library; sorry not i HK so that i tried to access as much offline source as i can edit: see below), is not constructive. Clearly biased source, such as recently published comprehensive history of HK, by Our Hong Kong Foundation, already have criticism by independent historian and academian[2] so that wikipedian does not need to do themselves. In case people claims all news article routine mention of place name and their belonged neighbourhoods are all wrong and their unsourced version are right, i am afraid this is not an acceptable behaviour in wikipedia. Yes, it can be wrong for news article but the more appropriate way is citing book and other news articles. Matthew hk (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If in case you don't already know, public libraries in this country are closed. They've been closed for most of the time since early 2020, only managed to open for a few short periods. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can buy digital book in Google Book store anyway instead of using non-reliable sources as citations. Matthew hk (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the already broken slogan "one country, two systems" means China is the country. It is not constructive to POV pushing in wikipedia that HK is a sovereign country, or the general context of "country". HK is a "country" more commonly in the context of "country of origin" and the HKSAR passport in fact is a subset of Chinese passport while BNO passport is a subset of British passport. Matthew hk (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Citobun, the problem obviously isn't about English proficiency but the tendency of unfortunate and repetitive miscommunications. And the quality and readability of his contributions and comments. False statements would be another equally important matter. 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Still offtopic. Ling Kee maps[3] for whatever reason, are somehow similar to modern government map, does not have the place name Ma Tau Chung. So that i really can't find a source that prove the place name is still commonly used. HK people do retire some place name such as 青山 Green Hill (Castle Peak's Chinese name) and use Tuen Man instead. So that i really don't know the agenda of the ip? Some kind of restorationist? Matthew hk (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this allegation a fabricated one..? Restorationist? What is "Tuen Man", btw? 223.197.192.15 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yet another ip hopper. It is a typo. I have problem of not proof read and hit enter (so that most of my minor edit has typo as edit summary). Tuen Mun. Also read "香港地區史研究之四：屯門". It is yet another book by Sino United Publishing (since it is the dominant publishing house of HK) but the author are lecturer and professor of HK universities. Matthew hk (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What point of view are you referring to? So are you disputing the fact that the Vatican City State is a country whereas the Holy See is the sovereign entity which administers this country, Matthew? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, ip hopper, please ask why the SPI filer places Country in the reporting. Matthew hk (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So you just copied and didn't try to understand what'd happened? You just claimed that there is a POV issue but you don't know what's that POV issue is? 220.246.55.231 (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Thematic Report : Ethnic Minorities 2011 HK census website
    2. ^ https://www.dw.com/zh/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E5%BF%97%E6%83%B9%E8%AE%AE-%E5%AD%A6%E8%80%85%E6%89%B9%E6%AD%AA%E6%9B%B2%E5%8E%86%E5%8F%B2/a-56411893
    3. ^ https://www.lingkee.com/hkmaps/

    Francis Schonken edit-warring

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
      • @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)[reply]
    • 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[22] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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[23]. Fram (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    @Fram: All I can see is that Fram is making a number of bad faith edits. He has ignored

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Warned. AP2 alert also issued. El_C 17:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Not sure about all that, but regardless, their tone and tenor is a problem. El_C 19:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)][reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • Unfortunately, your conclusion is not supported by the evidence, since I pointed them to the talk page both in edit summaries [24],[25] and on their user talk page. [26]. Further, the edit warring notification I put on their page [27], 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. [28]. Their going to WP:EWN (without informing me, as they are required to do) [29], before they ever engaged on the talk page [30], [31] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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).[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      "Dispassionate"? Did you read the same talk page consensus discussion that other editors did? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    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: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]) 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)[reply]

    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 ([55] 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)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from China-related subjects due to long-term POV pushing – STSC is already subject to an indefinite topic ban on Falun Gong, a religious movement banned in China. They were also (long ago) banned from participating in the Senkaku Islands naming dispute. When I complained in 2019 about their editing, the discussion was concluded with this comment by an administrator: "There is a consensus among editors here that STSC has fallen short of [NPOV and BLP standards] in the past and that future issues may result in blocking or other sanctions." Considering STSC's recent conduct on Taiwan, it is evident that they have not changed their behaviour despite the warnings, topic bans, and blocks incurred over the past decade. Citobun (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I put the country as China; Hong Kong is not a country. There's a discussion on the talk page. STSC (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Rosguill

    1. I followed the guideline which advises me not to notify too many editors. I therefore left out most of the editors who had been active in the discussion, and they did join in without my notification. Amongst the editors I notified I think it's about 50:50 in terms of different opinions.

    2. I didn't make edits on the content itself. At any time I may challenge the sources by applying the tags. Nothing improper here.

    3. As I've already mentioned in the discussion, I don't object calling "Taiwan is a country". My RfC is different from the previous RfC, it asked whether additional information should be included in the first paragraph as in State of Palestine and Somaliland.

    STSC (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw your answer #1 as your response to canvassing allegations at Talk:Taiwan and find it to be an unconvincing explanation, as the perspectives on the content dispute shared by the editors you notified is a distinct outlier when compared to editors' overall perspectives expressed in both the RfC and the talk page discussion prior to it. Your responses #2 and #3 strike me as trying to abide by the letter of policies while ignoring the spirit. It should have been clear from the prior talk page discussion that there was no need for the inline tags and no need for an RfC. signed, Rosguill talk 16:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have followed the guidelines in RFC and other policies. STSC (talk)
    Please don’t fudge the truth, thats not the question you asked. The question you asked was the highly ambiguous "In the article Taiwan, should the first paragraph contain the international status of Taiwan (Republic of China)?” which makes no mention of Palestine or Somaliland or additional information to be included in the lead. Its also too ambiguous to be a good RFC topic, for instance I agree with the question as asked because I think that out first paragraph *already does that* but not the question you meant to ask which was clear from the preceding discussion and your continued refusal to accept the wording of “country” without a modifier. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept your criticism about the RfC; it wasn't well constructed but I did mention Palestine and Somaliland in the discussion. STSC (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

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

    Note: This isn't the first time that this user has been a subject of ANI: [56], [57], and [58]. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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]

    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[1] 

                  "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)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/difference-between-the-civil-war-and-revolution.php

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Oz346, sockpuppet investigations should be handled at WP:SPI signed, Rosguill talk 15:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Legal threat

    Please see [59]. Ifnord (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unquestionably a legal threat, but DaddySaurus was removing contentious material from a BLP [60], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Wes sideman: They've been blocked for sockpuppetry, so issue should be moot now. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [61]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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,[62] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Also, I have never edited 1989 Tiananmen Square protests neither Communist Party of the Soviet Union. --BunnyyHop (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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: [63] 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 [64] and are constantly pushing at Talk:Marxism-Leninism [65] (use your browser's Find tool to see all the times). This paper which was plagiarized was also their idea: [66] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Talk:Chinese_Communist_Party#Ideologies BunnyyHop (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Statement by BunnyyHop: I decided to make a proper comment after taking a break from this. This ANI report came only five days after the closure of the previous one. The three diffs provided by Des Vallee when opening this report include one Talk page comment I made on 2 February, and two edits I made on 26 October and 26 December of last year, before the previous ANI report was even started. Then Des Vallee posted an additional three diffs: Two edits I made on 24 December of last year and one warning I received on 1 December. In other words, the only activity I've had since the previous ANI report that is being reported by Des Vallee now is one Talk page comment in which I accused them of being on an "anti-communist crusade." I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry for it (I should've maintained a positive state of mind), but I do not see how it amounts to "continued POV pushing".

    After that, other editors have essentially repeated the exact same accusations made in the previous ANI report, based largely on my previous edit history from before the last report. I wish to emphasize again that it has been less than a week since the closure of that report. In that time, I have only made 24 article mainspace edits, and 12 of them have been small edits of 50 characters or less. It is true that I am involved in several long-running content disputes, and I have continued to engage with those disputes since the last ANI report. Note that I've had 47 Talk space edits as compared to the 24 in mainspace since the ANI report. I am mostly just trying to resolve the disputes that I was already involved in.

    These other editors continuously accuse me of "POV pushing" for what I consider to be simple engagement in content disputes. All I want is to resolve the several content disputes that I have already been involved in for some time, and then move on. But it seems that my very act of engaging in those disputes is considered "POV pushing".

    I have discussed every edit (in fact, one of the accusations against me is that I discuss too much). I would like to ask my accusers what, in their opinion, it would be necessary for me to do in order to engage in our content disputes without it being POV pushing. It seems to me that their only request is that I simply stop disputing the content they prefer, with nothing else being considered good enough. I think that is self-evidently unreasonable.

    I would also ask everyone reading this to consider the dates on the diffs used to accuse me. I can't go back into the past and undo edits I made in October or December. But for the future, as I said, I wish only to resolve the content disputes I am already involved in and then move on. --BunnyyHop (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BunnyyHop Stop posting walls of text. This isn't only a month ago you tried to add "The independence of Soviet comrades from clandestine monetary systems", you edit warred on Chinese Communist Party a week ago with three separate editors, you have also doubled down on your POV pushing. You edite based off your POV, you add "accuse" to proven facts, add "quote needed" to text you dislike when there is an inline citation, whitewash text like trying to add "The liquidation of the hostile classes, and the rise of the proletariat". Stop trying to redefine the definition of consensus to "I am going to wear out this conversation with walls of text until you don't respond", stop bringing up peoples positions in conversations, stop trying to poison the wells of discussion, don't tag edits as minor that remove entire paragraphs, stop using POV words like "imperialist" "exploiter" "comrade". Stop soapboxing positions by using quotes to state fringe theories on Stalin. You have constantly been a huge disruption to Wikipedia it's clear your just here to try to spread your agenda. Des Vallee (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BunnyyHop This was the edit but it was already reverted. Des Vallee (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have been trying my best to work with Bunnyyhop, today at [73]. They are still changing text to fit their POV [74] without consensus and contrary to what sources state. This is going on in almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic Ban for articles related to Communism/Marxism/Socialism, in both theory and practice, broadly construed.
    I waited to !vote, I hoped BH would stop, but their POV pushing, source twisting, word games, walls of text, etc, are only getting worse and its getting worse on almost every article they edit.  // Timothy :: talk  02:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute, not POV pushing. If we aren't discussing this in WP:GF no amount of discussion will solve this. I could do the same thing and ask why are you so reluctant to change it from slave camps to forced labour camps, holding to an interpretation of the text which is different from the one seen in Gulag and in every other academic source. I'll explain it (link):
    On the start of her text, she states «The Gulag was the vast network of labor camps which was once scattered across the length and breadth of the Soviet Union, from the islands of the White Sea to the shores of the Black Sea, from the Arctic circle to the plains of Central Asia, from Murmansk to Vorkuta to Kazakhstan, from central Moscow to the Leningrad suburbs»
    In the same paragraph, she states «But over time, the word has also come to signify the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women’s camps, children’s camps, transit camps»
    In the same paragraph, but later, she says «Even more broadly, “Gulag” has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself»
    The text under dispute is «Between 1930 and 1960, the Soviet Union created a system of forced slave labor camps called the Gulag»
    Applebaum uses «Gulag» with three meanings: to refer to the camps themselves; to refer to the system of repression; to refer to what she calls "the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties". Between 1930 and 1960, they created a system of forced labor camps, like we can see in Gulag's lead. And this is something so minor - these three meaning's Anne Applebaum gave to the word Gulag are fully quoted just below, as well as Golfo Alexopoulos' - an author which I recommended to add. Even Alexopoulos refers to it as a system of forced labour camps. TimothyBlue, maybe if you didn't have such an intransigent attitude towards me I could've gotten your point sooner. As I come to grasp your side of the argument - she doesn't refer to it with three different meanings, but rather one unified bloc. As a matter of fact, I kind of agree with you now.--BunnyyHop (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban at this point. All the new examples cited in this report are just examples of standard content dispute. TimothyBlue cites them changing "slave" to "forced" labor in Gulag, but the changed wording is probably more WP:IMPARTIAL in my opinion. I do admit it would be preferable if BH was more brief in making their points. (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Stix1776

    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 [75]. 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 [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81],

    Now an IP editor is suspiciously doing the same: [82]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      I just checked one diff[83] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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, [84], 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)[reply]
    I think the reverts made by User:Timothy Blue speak for themselves. Especially those when he was reverting edits removing unsourced ideas and original research. Guy, use the talk page if editors disagree with your content. Reverting edits while ignoring the problems listed is just edit warring. I apologize to the admin for having to deal with this. Stix1776 (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My work on the page does speak for itself and so does Stix1776 deletes. And you provide no diffs.
    As I stated earlier, if a consensus of editors believes I should step back and allow you to delete the content, I will. // Timothy :: talk  12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 [85], and by the looks of it, this conduct of his already got him banned in the Russian Wikipedia.

    More WP:TENDENTIOUS here;

    [86]

    [87]

    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)[reply]

    • The topic-starter tries to violate neutrality based, as I understand it, on his pro-Iranian position. For instance, here [88] he removed a huge text with sources only because he didn't like it. Here a removal of a large text [89] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    This is useless, I'll let the admins deal with you, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Just taking a random example above [90], 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)[reply]
    Taking into account Ymblanter's cross-wikipedia persecution and attacking me [91], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    And, well, to claim I am not an active English Wikipedia user is ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • I know you didn't even bother to read the article that PDF was referencing, so here it is [93]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • After the indefinite blocking on the Russian Wikipedia, it was Devlet Geray who began to harass me in Commons and on the English Wikipedia, canceling my edits without explanation, like this [96]. He began corny to take revenge on me for the fact that I dared to resist his pushing on the Russian Wikipedia. Therefore, Devlet Geray is lying again. Каракорум (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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 [97] 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    But some his edits (like that) do look highly opinionated. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support indef ban. On the Russian Wikipedia, where he was blocked indefinitely, here on the English Wikipedia, at Wikimedia Commons, Devlet Geray is behaving aggressively, pushing the Crimean Tatar POV. You can be sure that in case of blocking, he will create sockpuppets, as it regularly does in Russian Wikipedia. So you need to monitor it to avoid damage. Каракорум (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't see any proof of the endless stream of accusations (such as "he's not interested in reliable sources" or "pushing Crimean Tatar POV" — attempts of removing soviet anti-Tatar propaganda/adding another well-sourced point of view to maintain a balanced presentation may seem "Crimean Tatar pov-pushing" on Russian Wikipedia, but I have a patroller status on Ukrainian Wikipedia). Second, it was RenatUK who deleted sourced information adding his information and after revert, instead of going to the talk-page and discuss, he decided to start an edit-war (though it was not a conflict situation at all before he started to bring the RuWiki, which was completely and for sure unrelated to the discussed topic). I agree with the fact that I shouldn't have accussed the topic-starter of vandalism/revisonism because of a mass-text deletion and had to go to the talk-page and discuss everything (as I see now he is not a vandal (as I mistakenly thought then) and has more than 50 thousand edits) Devlet Geray (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a piece of advice. Continually replying to everyone and posting isn't going to help you, in fact it's much more likely to hinder your cause and is considered bludgeoning. Also ultimately what happens on other Wikipedias is not relevant here, we're only interested in behaviour on the English language Wikipedia. If there's evidence of issues on other languages it may be taken into consideration, but it's about edits here that people are concerned about. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "there the opinion of one Vozgrin, a member of the Mejlis. This is a partisan source, at best". To make it clear, Valery Vozgrin is a Russian professor, Doctor of Historical Sciences who worked at Saint Petersburg State University, the Russian-leading university, until his death. Saying that phrase at the beginning of a peaceful dicusion doesn't seem to be an intent of a constructive dicussion. Moreover, there is a whole article (Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe), fully dedicated to this topic, there is no need to repeat all these again and again in the aricle about a modern people Devlet Geray (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vozgrin is a specialist in the Scandinavic countries. His works on the Crimean Tatars are tendentious and were criticized by specialized specialists. For example, the Russian Wikipedia carried out an analysis, and after that they refused to use Vozgrin's works on the history of Crimea. Каракорум (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BLP violations at Talk:David

    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. [98] and [99]. 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 [100]. Their edits may be interpreted as WP:Advocacy for Kalimi's POV. They have formally denied being a paid editor: [101].

    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. [102]. They have been blocked once for violating WP:NPA. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This again? M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I think there is no secret that I wanted Editshmedt blocked. But I am not desperate about it; I'm more likely bored by it. It is not so much that it would be because of disagreeing with them, but the inability of them to find a common idiom with the other three editors at that talk page. Bona fide editors recognize WP:RS for what they are and objective evidence for what it is. I am a rational, intelligent person and I can change my POV when provided with evidence, or at least write for the WP:ENEMY. But that has not happened at Talk:David: what Editshmedt says failed to convince three of us and what three of us say failed to convince Editshmedt. I sincerely believed that it is not done to call Finkelstein names. So yeah, Editshmedt pleads mostly their own understanding of archaeological papers, claiming an elusive consensus of archaeologists that the United Monarchy has truly existed. To this we replied that there is no smoking gun in that respect, all we have is a tiny, broken, multi-interpretable inscription which says something about the House of David. And we don't have even that much about Solomon, a king who according to the Bible become the head of a wealthy empire through maintaining military prowess and through international trade and diplomacy. It was a shock for me to learn that Wikipedians are allowed to call top professors names. We are supposed to be civil with each other, but everyone outside the Wikipedia Community has been declared fair game for casting aspersions against them. A Wikipedian just has to comment upon a source and boom, all dirty words become allowed for persons living outside of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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, [103], 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)[reply]

    Hi Bob! I've blocked this IP user for 36 hours for disruptive editing. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I'd appreciate further thoughts about edits like this [104] 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Originally prison slang, that meaning has been well-known in UK for about 40 years. I suspect it came into common knowledge through TV dramas; possibly including Minder. It was certainly well known by the time of Brass Eye#"Paedogeddon!" (2001); in which several celebrities were taken in by the idea of a spoof charity called Nonce Sense. Narky Blert (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in Northern Ireland we didn't always end up with the same changes that happened in Great Britain. Heck the 1980s have only just arrived :) Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In bits of it, only the 1680s... Narky Blert (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for correcting my typo :) Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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[105] and again today[106]. 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[107]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    DGG, it was not the deciding factor. Further explained on Mathsci's talk page (diff). El_C 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    understood. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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 [108] [109] [110] [111] [112]. Note that although the tag was later re-added for the last edit [113], 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 [114] (at least I think despite the confusing edit summary that is supposed to mostly be a self reversion of [115], if not we have a bigger problem) [116] [117].

    Then there's also this [118] which was never self-reverted and yeah most or all of those edits were by Francis Schonken [119] 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)[reply]

    I was pinged and replied on my talk. In a nutshell: I intentionally didn't even look at BWV 53 (my own problem BWV 1 being big enough), and now have to blame myself.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Robert McClenon

    I have been pinged in a closed thread here, and on Mathsci's talk page. My involvement, as noted, is that I put together an RFC on the sexuality of Chopin. I have very little knowledge of the circumstances of the block of User:Mathsci. I had no knowledge of the details of the interaction, and resulting interaction ban, between Mathsci and User:Francis Schonken. I have been aware that editing in the area of classical music is often intense with conflicts, and that one of the reasons is simply that many of the editors are passionate in their love of a great art which reflects the passions of its composers, and they allow their passions to dominate their reason. (Sometimes, when the editors become angry, they ought to put on one of their favorite recordings and read a novel, another great art, rather than editing.) I tried to provide a calming environment and may not have succeeded.

    I would like to see the RFC closed, by an administrator, but that is a different subject.

    The editor whom I thought engaged in what I observed as disruptive conduct was not Mathsci but Francis Schonken, who created a sub-article on the sexuality of Chopin immediately after the RFC began waiting for closure. That has been taken care of by redirecting and fully protecting the sub-article until the RFC is closed. I did not observe a violation by either editor of the interaction ban.

    I have no opinion as to whether Mathsci should have been blocked or whether Mathsci should be unblocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Carchasm reported by Smuckola

    Moved from WP:AIV
     – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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.[120] 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

    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).[reply]

    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).[reply]

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

    Behavior by User:Belevalo

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

    Pages that are mainly affected:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    Above all else, this report is of an exceeding length. It also makes unwarranted speculations about established editors in good standing. The OP is cautioned against copying the same comment across multiple talk pages, instead of finding a central venue, like a Wikiproject, to discuss something affecting more than one page. Much of this conflict seems to involve a content dispute that has yet to see much recent discussion. Again, all of that at a glance, because this is such a lengthy complaint! Please remember that everyone here is a volunteer, too. El_C 13:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Nil Einne, Kent Bargo; now I checked the block log of the editor who started the rfc. They were not a sock but apperantly a legit user at the time. The block log stated they were banned because of edit warring, false accusations, personal attacks, battleground attitude and similar stuff about 5 days after the rfc was opened. So I don't think there were sockets involved with the rfc, except perhaps the last IP user who had only one edit, but it's pretty obvious their opinion didn't really change anything. I actually don't care too much about this MMA stuff and don't think I will involve with anything about it in the future, but when one of the accused editors in question blamed me out of nowhere although I wasn't involved, I couldn't resist the urge to review the claims of the IP user who accused them. Anyhow, I agree with Nil Einne that rfcs, especially at the ones at RSN, should be respected and there's a clear violation of that policy in this situation.Magnus Dominus (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Yalta

    CLOSED
    content dispute, volunteer to provide 3O —valereee (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Arms of coats.

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

    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 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Kyopa has his own pov on Greek Football Cup honors and he is very persistent on this. I have a different pov and when edit war occured, I stopped reverting, opened a discussion on the article’s Talk page and called other users for help. You won’t find any reliable source that backs up his pov and that is why he was told to stop edit warring on Greek Football Cup and List of Greek Cup finals by multiple users (5-6) and blocked twice by 2 admins (48hrs and 1 week). I believe that Kyopa won’t stop until his edit is accepted and it has been proved pointless to talk/reason/reach consensus with him. I tried everything. Abudabanas (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came into this a month or so ago. Abudabanas asked me for my opinion on a "minor controversy" at the article in question. I had a look and found Kyopa's view at fault and said so on the talk page. Kyopa then repeatedly rejected my words and everyone else's. He made it clear that he wasn't going to stop edit warring, as shown by the message he left on my talk page and this revert. I then took the issue to WT:FOOTY here, where Kyopa was again found to be at fault by other editors, including @Nehme1499, Crowsus, and GiantSnowman:. Kyopa has been blocked twice already for edit warring, and both times he has come back and continued, accusing all who oppose him of being puppets, vandals, or negatively biased against him for some unknown reason. I too am of the opinion that he not going to change and that he needs to be prevented from continuing his trouble-causing. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block - kyopas has made it clear by their editing history (even after multiple warnings & blocks) and by their comment above that they don't get it and won't change. The only way to prevent this disruption is an indef block. GiantSnowman 11:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See first of all the difference in our edits [121]. The users who accuse me of lying are blatantly lying, as all the sources confirm that the final was stopped and the teams were punished. Only one journalist says he does not count on the final because no trophy was awarded. So what? The federation decided so, as in other cases it decided to share the title. They completely eliminate the fact. The federation records it normally. But from the moment he punished both teams, it means that we have two runners up. I see that they are asking for my final block. I consider it unacceptable and fascist. Ask them what is ip 195.xxx.xxx.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I see I am doomed. Of the 4 who have voted, 3 are directly involved in the case and normally should not have voted. But I have to accept the data. So if you decide to punish me, let it be only for these two entries and not from the whole wiki. I repeat, however, that I consider any punishment of mine to be unjust.--💫Kyopa▪ (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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:

    What say you? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    I discovered this user through AfD and had to blank most of one of their articles for being nonsensical. WP:NOTHERE I think is an inaccurate way of characterizing them, but their confusing contributions and the unilateral creation of an incredibly broad and redundant WikiProject demonstrates their lack of understanding of how things go here (also at one point they said they were contacting the London Police to get their thoughts on an article, which was very odd). I do think I recall seeing in one of their edit summaries that they identify as disabled. Sadly, I think they are actually incompetent per our standards and are too handicapped to constructively contribute here. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is User:Britcouple007's Cam a sockpuppet of User:LED BodyBuilding ? They're writing similar nonsensical articles (e.g. their sandbox) and there's a huge amount of editing overlap, e.g. on Draft:Farm Security and the aforementioned Wikiproject. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to be confirmed and blocked by NinjaRobotPirate along with another account. Pahunkat (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user's contribs are fascinating because they look like - very like - early training of an AI. There's a lot of similarities between the way nonsensical articles are phrased and the way various 'feed in a source, get out an bad article' websites work. This could be what the editor was doing... or it could be the start of AI bots being set up to edit Wikipedia. When that happens, we're all going to be very busy reverting. ◦ Trey Maturin 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent non-MOS editing by User:68.132.99.144

    BLOCKED FOR 60 HOURS
    (non-admin closure)IP blocked for 60 hours by CambridgeBayWeather.LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    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))[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Legal threat from User:Groguyoda

    BLOCKED
    Indefinitely blocked by GorillaWarfare for legal threats. (non-admin closure). Jack Frost (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    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)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely per WP:NLT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Allah der Berater

    Stale incident. Please feel free to re-list if that changes. El_C 13:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User has only created an account (WP:SPA) to troll (vandalise) on the article about Islam in Montenegro. Please intervene to prevent this in future. --Koreanovsky (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-adninstrator comment) @Koreanovsky: When you report someone here, you're required to notify them on their Talk page (per the big yellow box when you edit this page). You didn't, so I've done it for you on this occasion. Also, this report is stale. The editor you're reporting made a handful of (admittedly bad) edits in the space of a few minutes, ten days ago, and hasn't edited since. It's hard to see what action can be taken now. Neiltonks (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Notabality of Khin Thiri Thet Mon

    Does not require administrative intervention at this time. I note that a one-line, one sentence bio with sources whose reliability can't be immediately verified, is an obvious notability issue. Also, as a bit of a cheeky aside, Praxidice (singular) is the Greek goddess responsible for exacting justice. El_C 18:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: looks like the user changed their mind about the redirect, and also about their username (changed). But they have also since announced their retirement. Please feel free to re-open or re-list if further problems arise. El_C 18:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As I'm an experienced editor from Myanmar, I understand Wikipedia's notability guideline as well. I just created a stub article Khin Thiri Thet Mon (businesswomen). She is clearly notable as a major businesswoman of Myanmar. She is CEO and founder of the country's largest entertainment company. Passes WP:GNG by has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Military Chief’s Family Members Spend Big on Blockbuster Movies, Beauty Pageants, Entertainment companies founded by the daughter and daughter-in-law of the commander-in-chief quickly rose to the top, US Embassy Under Fire for Working With Firm Owned by Sanctioned Military Chief’s Daughter. see also WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Notability is not inherited. A daughter of the state head does not make her notable automatically, but she is notable in her own. I don't see how WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. However @CommanderWaterford: moved the article to draft space. I strongly oppose his action. Today I plan to create many articles about political heroes during 2021 Myanmar coup d'état and members of the dictator family. Thanks Phoela14 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I redirected it before seeing this. However ANI isn't the place to hash this out. CUPIDICAE💕 16:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae What you are?? Pls take afd if you disagree. I should not redirect the article during the discussion. Phoela14 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So lets discuss about her notabality. I will accept redirect the article if senior editors give their opinion. Phoela14 (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Again

    See [122]. I have translated content from this source [123] with using machine translation. But @CommanderWaterford: is accusing me of COI editing. I'm not !!! Originally the article was created by our respected editor Hintha and put only one Radio Free Asia source. I did do anything to change the source but he tagged {Unreliable sources} and many others tag. Why ?? I feel like he is deliberately causing me trouble. He bites me every time. see also the above case. I can no longer stand it. Don't bully me. Please help me admins. Phoela14 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Phoela14, by policy at the top of this page and when creating reports on here, you must notify the editors in question at their user talk pages. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi I already did it at his talk page. But he removed my notice. Phoela14 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that you've called CommanderWaterford "a stupid editor". Please see WP:NPA. Pahunkat (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I called him "a stupid editor" because I was very angry. Sorry for that. If he continues to do so, I will be left from the en-wiki. Burmese editors are very rare on en-wiki. Phoela14 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not notify him of this discussion. You informed him of the first discussion you opened, and of this one only after you were told to do so. An explanation of the COI concerns can be found here. Phoela14, per your previous username, do you have any connection to Nay Shwe Thway Aung? Grandpallama (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm Nay Shwe Thway Aung, my English skill is better than yours. He attended the International School. Phoela14 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great since it means there's no doubt when you said Add my portrait, a file you uploaded to commons with a similar description [124], you understood you were saying that you are Nay Shwe Thway Aung. It's fine to have a COI, but when you have a COI as you clearly do, you need to ensure your editing follows the recommendations for editing with a COI e.g. not editing articles where you have a strong COI directly. Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's think, Well "I'm going to create an account with a public figure name "Paing Takhon" and then I'm going to edit Paing Takhon article, So I will be auto COI editor?. LoL Phoela14 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw I have only one edit on NSTA article. Phoela14 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was NSTA, I would not be wasting time on the wiki during this military coup. Phoela14 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) That would not be the only article you would have a strong COI with. Other editors have raises concern about your COI editing, and you seem to be ignoring those concerns. The ultimate point is that you were clearly identifying as Nay Shwe Thway Aung at one time. Since you have renamed your account, whether you are or aren't is ultimately not something that concerns us provided you properly handle any COI you have. BTW, if you call yourself Paing Takhon, and edit the article Paing Takhon, there's a good chance you'd be blocked until you verify your identity. As it stands, if you are now claiming you are not Nay Shwe Thway Aung, that raises great concerns about your copyright compliance. (It may be on commons, but it would concern us here to if you're so careless with copyright.) When you uploaded that image with the description "My portrait photo, only use for article" you listed it as your "own work" and the author as "Nay Shwe Thway Aung". So either you are Nay Shwe Thway Aung the author of that portrait photo or you aren't and were misleading when uploading that photo which raises concerns about whether you actually respect copyright or may be violating it. Notably, you've said you are translating stuff with the help of machine translation. That's fine provided you ensure the work you are translating is appropriately licenced generally stuff from other Wikipedias. If you are translating stuff from other places e.g. news articles which is not under a licence suitable for Wikipedia, and including it on Wikipedia directly that's a big problem. (Even if the material is appropriately licenced, you need to ensure you comply with the licence terms e.g. attribution.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now translation and source problem is fixed because creator Hintha has been expanded and copyedited.Phoela14 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The number of unrepentant personal attacks at this point, COI concerns aside (and I see a non-denial, alongside reason for healthy skepticism of any potentially forthcoming denial), are leading me to think we're entering block territory. Grandpallama (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What ? are you bullying me? I already apologize for My PA being of my angry on above. How much do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoela14 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "sincerity" of the apology here is at odds with what you said here, not to mention the odd rudeness about English skills. Added to the questions around your connections to the articles you've been editing, I'm not buying it. Grandpallama (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I marked the article with a COI Tag and Unreliable Resources (the only given resource at this time was an activist radio station) without mentioning the Editor at all 2. He moved today two times articles which were moved for good reasons into draft (not by me btw) with comments fairly offensive back into mainspace directly afterwards. 3. I did not remove not a single notice but the Editor seems to like to ask ANI at every single content dispute so I have two notices of which the closed one was archived. The Editor has obviously some political COI in his edits, see WP:NPOV and WP:NOTFREESPEECH, please have a look at his Contribs with his current and especially previous user account, btw he answered that he is NSTA after being asked for on his talk page in 2018. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    well well, NSTA is the highest rank in my country above the top military leaders. He will not edit in the wiki for his times and doest create articles for his grandfather's junior Min Aung Hlaing's daugter. LOL Phoela14 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw you should proud because you have talking with NSTA. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Phoela14 (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, User:UCLmyanmar is posiblly NSTA. Phoela14 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Really was I'm a lady and Wikipedia's most wanted person. LoL ..Bye Bye time to sleep. Phoela14 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pacific swift - Today's TFA receive high level of IP Vandalism

    On 10:16 UTC, Pacific swift becomes a today's Featured article (TFA) for February 4. But shortly after that, it receive high level of IP vandalism as it has too many vandalism and reverts due to more people watching the article. Please protect it because vandalism become more persistent. 36.68.194.127 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Ymblanter (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent deletion of content at Arabs in Pakistan

    Since there's been some block evasion there, I'd appreciate some eyes on the most recent edits. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI against Magnus Dominus

    Magnus Dominus, been "suddenly" obstructing MMA pages from further changes and try use this ANI to goes his way. Edits from Oct 2020 to Feb 1 2020...looks like random edits. Strangely it something do with this RFC. This is almost like reopening same case over and over again..... Targeting same 3 person over and over again @Squared.Circle.Boxing: @Cassiopeia: @NEDOCHAN:. I want a review of the user behavior please. Kent Bargo (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Taurus Littrow

    Taurus Littrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    This user has quite a history of abusive comments (to show a few: [1], [2]), he's already indeffed in two wikis for such. Now he finally comes up with this at my talk page. The video shows a man who says (in Russain): "I'm drunk and I don't give a f*ck!", and that is supposed to be a reply to my questions. @Ymblanter: you'll see how abusive it is. — Mike Novikoff 23:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no opinion one way or the other about the addition or removal of stress marks on Russian words in the English Wikipedia, but I do have concerns about a brewing feud among editors. Mike Novikoff has the right to express his opinion about this matter in an essay. Taurus Littrow, you have the right to disagree and to explain your reasons why, but you do not have the right to personalize the dispute, dominate Mike Novikoff's user talk page, or come up to the very brink of harassment by posting that link to a stupid and vulgar YouTube video there. That was a really bad idea and you should drop the stick. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I somehow ended up seeing quite a lot of feuding regarding the issue and have been wondering whether to issue a last warning or a block to Taurus Littrow. Their approach was toxic and involved making claims about Mike Novikoff with only hand-waving regarding the underlying issue. The fact that Taurus Littrow is indeffed on two other projects comes as no surprise and I would be happy to make it three. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: you do not have the right to... dominate Mike Novikoff's user talk page — I never did that: his essay was only userfied two days ago; until then, it had been on wiki space (Novikoff personally insisted on that). As to that video, it is just a joke: that guy says "I don't give a f***" 20 or so times, and I don't think any Russian male would ever be offended at this. You can see it from the 816 comments to the video: everyone just makes fun of it ("I often remember and quote this wise man", "this is my stand in life", etc.). One has to be extremely thin-skinned to get offended at that. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Taurus Littrow, Wikipedia is not some social media site and not a place where you get to have fun by sharing this type of video on the userpage of an editor you are in a disagreement with. Since you have doubled down even after the other editor has told you that they consider it abusive, then I am giving you a formal warning: The next time you engage in this kind of behavior on English Wikipedia, you will be blocked for harassment. Please adjust your behavior accordingly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I repeat: there is nothing wrong with that video. It's not harassment. 1,000 comments to the video prove it. Every Russian male considers it a joke. Is it not evidence to you? Oh well, you can block me right now. I have no intention to stay in a place with such abusive and arbitrare attitude from admins. Novikoff is the one who should have been warned and blocked, long time ago. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: I wonder why you are so harsh at me; I have always been very polite with you (as well as with all the other users save M.N.), and always tried to explain things. Oh well, whatever. — Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cullen328: UPDATE. I edited my reply before you answered to it. This is the new text I wrote: 1) Also, Novikoff personally insisted (several times) that I give my reasons for keeping stresses. Until then, I kept saying that those reasons had already been given by another user. The fact is that I didn't want to start long and useless discussions. 2) IMO, what really should worry everyone is Novikoff's behavior. For years, this user has been removing stress marks from dozens, if not hundreds, of articles, even if nobody asked him to do so and there clearly was no consensus to do this. What is worse, he continued doing so even after several people asked him to stop. Furthermore, he wrote an extremely biased essay which he insisted upon putting in common space, and he kept referring to it when he removed stresses (thus, falsely making people believe that it was some sort of wiki rule or guidance). Also, he reverted the edits of those who tried to put the stresses back, and he intimidated and harassed those users by placing warnings of vandalism (!) on their pages. If anything, vandalism was what Novikoff did by removing useful info (stress marks) under the false claim that they were something wrong and outdated (they aren't). Also, he attacked the entire Russian wiki in his essay. So I believe, what should really worry us are Novikoff's actions, not some innocent joke. Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You just don't get it, do you, Taurus Littrow? We are discussing your behavior here, not the Russian word stress mark controversy, which is a legitimate content dispute. And now you are making false accusations of vandalism on top of it? Please stop digging yourself deeper into a hole. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well, just fuck off. What a bunch of complete morons, you, John-something and Novikoff. You can shove your warnings up your ass. Taurus Littrow (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Taurus Littrow for one week for harassment and personal attacks. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn, I was going to try my block message of "Eric Corbett can get away with it, but .... actually, he can't get away with it either. Cheerio." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't get an editor to communicate

    I'm sorry to even bring this here, but I've been asking this editor repeatedly (once, twice, thrice) to handle a template correctly, and they ignore me and do the same again and again and again. I keep having to clean after them. Maybe administrator intervention will help them understand the need for communication? Thanks in advance. --Muhandes (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    All of their 1600 or so edits have been on mainspace (no talk pages) and none have had an edit summary! DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Muhandes, These sort of editors turn up every now and again. I wish I knew what their problem is with communicating - most of them aren't here to push a POV, they just edit the encyclopedia and don't seem to know there's any way other people are watching them. Either people get fed up, or they blocked, never to return. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dodgy block behaviour

    Obvious trolls were obviously blocked. Nothing needing doing here. GirthSummit (blether) 18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Recently blocking activity by an editor who is blocking user who clearly no edits in their log.

    These are only two examples. A look at the log of blocks show many more entries. Some may be for in improper username, but often the target account has no edits. Either the account is compromised or the person is blocking excessively simply because he can for the fun of it. 12.252.159.10 (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Or, more accurately, they were blocked because of their attempted edits that were blocked by the edit filters. FDW777 (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    True but you can’t assume bad faith. This person might be used to editing to an extent that everyone is supposed to know policies. At leave have the common sense to give a warning or message and block only as a last resort. 12.252.159.10 (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been a massive surge in people responding to TikTok videos to insert non-notable names into location articles. If this is part of that, the agreement is to block on site and ignore. Canterbury Tail talk 13:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    can you post the link here for reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.252.159.10 (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Colinphilip11 was a typical unexciting TikTok vandal who tried multiple times to save their edits despite being denied by the filter. TBNRCoding was, unusually for recent times, a run of the mill copy/paste yolo crap vandal who was also caught by the filter. Neither will be missed. Also, IP, when you saved this report there was a ruddy huge bright orange banner saying you must notify the editor you are discussing on their talkpage; somewhat inexplicably you seem to have missed this. I have done so for you. —Jack Frost (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Apsngh

    Blocked indefinitely for egregious harassment (after warning). Revdeletions, too. El_C 14:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This new account was provided feedback related to WP:DE and WP:3RR. In response they posted an uncivil comment which was ignored. After reverting another edit, I provided feedback again here which resulted in this nasty response. Some action please. Thanks Vikram Vincent 13:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned. IPA alert also attached. El_C 14:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Post ANI notice, the user wants one on one combat. Vikram Vincent 14:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's combative alright (just removed independently of this), but not sure about it intimating actual combat... El_C 14:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No no that was in humour. Missed the emoji :D Thanks Vikram Vincent 14:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    CheckersBoard disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior

    India's Khalistan movement is a contentious topic. The page requires extended confirmed access to edit. Most major changes have required extensive discussion. Recently the user CheckersBoard (talk · contribs) has taken a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, using WP:POV labels like "fundamentalist" [125] and "supremacist" [126] and using non-encyclopedic explanations (such as the group that was "crushed" [127]). I've attempted to ask CheckersBoard to discuss their proposed changes on the article talk as opposed to engaging in an edit war [128], after which CheckersBoard simply steamrolled along with their largest changeset yet [129], and responded that editors need to "research my activity" [130]

    Some problematic behavior during this encounter beyond potential content issues:

    • Personal attack in edit summary, right off the bat [131]
    • Practically blanking lede after I asked the user to discuss proposed changes [132]

    CheckersBoard has a history of generally unhelpful edits and exhibits continuous disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior:

    • Blocked by NeilN (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing [133]
    • Topic-banned after multiple complaints were lodged against them [134] (Many of NeilN's concerns with CheckersBoard's account continue to apply)
    • Took a hiatus, then gloated on NeilN's user page and misgendered NeilN [135]

    Considering the lede blanking, personal attacks, and user history, I feel like this user doesn't have any business editing an article like Khalistan movement, or possibly on Wikipedia itself. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned. IPA alert also attached (déjà vu!). El_C 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dhananjay Munde Wikipedia Page

    Hello,

    My name is Mahesh Karve and I recently joined Wikipedia. I read all the guidelines of Wikipedia to enter information in articles. It has come to my notice while checking the 'Dhananjay Munde' page that some editors are being spiteful to the new editor and using Wikipedia's warnings to threaten them from editing this page. This is a highly sensitive matter as it may be concerned with politics. I would like you to interfere and stop these edit wars. It is my personal request as I find talking to them on their talk page results in them being unreasonably insulting. This has become an unending cycle. They are deleting and having their way. I do not wish to stay on Wikipedia if this is how you people work. Where anyone can bully and delete anything with their helping editors to spew warnings on newcomers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahesh Karve (talk • contribs) 09:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC) (moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts: Editor is now autoconfirmed. -- BlackcurrantTea (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

    Mahesh Karve Thanks for your contributions to thr article. I have posted a welcome message on your talk page. Please do.spend some time reading through it. I'll be happy to help you out if you need any help. Best! Vikram Vincent 17:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mahesh Karve, is your account in any way related to VedikaThorat? I ask because you have both made identical edits. 109.155.148.247 (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request IP range block

    2001:14bb:440:9e16::/64 blocked for 1 week. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Most recently, 2001:14BB:440:9E16:D0A9:2B2C:4379:F7D0 (talk · contribs). Only disruptive. Edit warring, article blanking, redirecting to vandalism draft, legal threat [136], abuse of warning template [137] and copycat revenge report [138]. So very WP:NOTHERE. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll

    I have posted many sources but the users C.J. Griffin and Rklahn have both removed my edits. I posted only peer reviewed scholarly sources after they said my first sources werent reliable. Now they are simply disagreeing with my edit because they dont agree (because of their opinion). They are showing they accept a single source for the controversial contested subject of european colonization but they dont accept mine because they simply dont like it.

    The discussions took place here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes Danielbr11 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    boys as pearls sucks

    lol rangeblocks r not working Wikimedianism is by far the most evil and disgusting ideology. (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1005063249"