Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Wikieditor19920

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

---

There is an AfD that I am a part of; actually I was part of some work this weekend to strike out the names of the suspect from the article in keeping with Wikipedia privacy policies. When it was first posted, the nominator asked why this particular missing persons case was unusual (per WP:NOTNEWS and etc. about not having an article for every crime.) I quickly noticed it and before I had decided one way or another, posted a link to the article Missing white woman syndrome which discusses why some crime victims get more press than others.

Sometime later, after I had made a comment about how I felt the article should go (in opposition to the other editor's thoughts), User:Wikieditor19920 decided to strike through my comment without leaving an edit summary, leaving this note in the article: "Striking as inflammatory and off-topic." They had asked me a few hours earlier to do so, but both the request and the strike was done while I was working. I was a bit shocked, and wasn't even sure if an editor was supposed to do this (as it turns out, it's not, WP:TPO). I double checked to see if they were an admin; surely that's more of an admin thing. Thankfully another editor backed it out. I attempted to talk it over with them with mixed results.

This one incident seems one of many as it turns out - they went to the talk page of editor User:Black Kite who put the article up for AfD asking them why (which is in the AfD), and later accused the editor of ignoring policy and being disruptive - none of which makes much sense, AfDs are procedural and this isn't a case where someone has put the article up for an AfD repeatedly which would be abuse. Or calling the logic of someone who supports deletion "hopelessly flawed" - all this seems to fly in the face of AfD etiquette. I've participated in many AfD discussions, and this is more of a personal attack than a discussion of how to properly apply Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

This apparently is not the first time at the ANI rodeo for this user: see [1], [2], [3], and this edit war that went way out of control. This is getting a bit absurd, and while I don't feel harassed yet, there is definitely a discomfort when wanting to engage with this user. Even bringing this up at ANI was hard because I knew it would likely distract from anti-vandalism work.

But none of this feels right. We are supposed to be civil. This - what has been doing on - isn't civil, and after that many notes at the ANI, I would have think they would have learned their lesson. Apparently not. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This report makes no allegation of a violation other than trying to Poison the well. User:Mr. Vernon suggested at an AfD discussion (Murder of Tessa Majors) on an article about a murder that the victim's race was the only reason that reliable source sources had reported on it. Further, they based their delete vote on this reasoning, which completely disregards AfD guidelines and frankly violates WP:NOTFORUM. I raised an issue with the editor about this, and they have since repeatedly posted on my talk page to challenge me about it, restoring a thread I had deleted violating my right to WP:BLANK.

In addition to beating a WP:DEADHORSE on my talk page, this user is also canvassing [4][5][6][7] "support" for this thread. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not use quotes around something I did not say. I never said the victim's race. I did say that if she were of another race, she wouldn't be getting this kind of press coverage, and the article I linked to has peer-reviewed data to back up that assertion. Second, this isn't WP:CANVASSING; there cannot be an attempt to move the needle on consensus because ANI does not operate based on consensus. These users have had interactions recently with this user and may want to provide input; but that's all they can provide, input. All of these users have had interaction with this user recently about this specific AfD (and only those users.) Notifying them that there is an ongoing discussion seems correct. If it IS canvassing (or otherwise against another policy that I am not aware of), please let me know ASAP and I will remove the notifications and apologize for getting it wrong, and accept whatever punishment I get for breaking the rules. Also, the "vote" (which it isn't, AfDs run based on consensus) had nothing to do with this, but rather my reading of WP:EVENT and determining notability guidelines for crime based on a reading of the material; see here. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

User acknowledges that they said what I said they said (I italicized for emphasis, didn't use quotes) and asks if they can unring a bell re: WP:CANVAS. Over a comment that I agreed to disagree with them on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Odd, I thought Canvassing was more like this attempt to solicit a user's "vote" into the AfD you are involved with. Did I get that wrong? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The above diff shows that I solicited the advice of an uninvolved admin about an article possibly qualifying for WP:SPEEDYKEEP, whose position I had no idea about beforehand. Indeed, the admin disagreed with me. You are going around asking for editors who you believe will be on your side because they either a) agreed with you at the AfD discussion (constituting a small minority), b) have had disagreements with me in the past, or c) both, to "chime in," or rather, gang up on an ANI thread. Apples and oranges. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Followup on canvassing: my mistake, I interpreted the article to apply to matters of consensus only. I've rolled back the changes, and as far as I know those editors have not read it (they have not posted here or tried to contact me.) It's up to the admins how they want to handle it. Of course the edits are still there (Wikieditor19920 has linked to them) so they can be examined and the appropriate action taken. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And for repeatedly restoring a deleted thread (yours) to my talk page? Was that a mistake as well? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, how is that inflammatory comment?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam—is it proper to imply that the article exists because the victim is a white woman? Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop that's not what he/she said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam—why are you saying "that's not what he/she said"? Of course that's "what he/she said". And Mr. Vernon goes on to say "If she were of another race, there wouldn't be this kind of coverage." Also User:LaraGingerbread responds to Mr. Vernon saying "So Tessa's case got attention because she's white?" The whiteness of a victim is not a reason to delete an article. Such comments can be considered extraneous to a deletion discussion. And possibly a violation of WP:FORUM. Mr. Vernon is still writing (4 days ago) "Furthermore Missing white woman syndrome is an input here. She is getting significant coverage because she's a young attractive white woman." I don't think Wikipedia second-guesses sources and looks skeptically on sources based on our belief that we know what motivates sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Question Is it permissible to ping the talk pages of an admin to ask them to Speedy Keep an article going through AfD? I've read WP:SK and it gives very limited reasons for doing so, none of which apply here. WP:SNOW wasn't even applying (not at the time, anyway.) I've always thought that the folks at AfD do a good job of monitoring and applying Speedy Keep/Snow/etc. when they apply without needing to go around asking. It also seems odd that once the admin said no, Wikieditor19920 kept pushing [8] [9]. This is an honest question - is this ok to do? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wikieditor19920 appears to be WP:BLUDGEONING at this AfD. Not only 14 additions to the AfD (one now gone), but editing another user's edit[10] and posting to three user TPs [11] [12] [13]. I suggest a warning to let others !vote without harrassment. O3000 (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And now the canvassing kicks in. I'll note that User:Objective3000 is criticizing me for my number of contributions at an AfD, while exhibiting the same behavior at a move discussion for that same page. Ironically, 03000 took the AfD as another opportunity to attempt to re-litigate the move discussion, which was completely irrelevant.

User:Mr. Vernon purports he didn't know that canvassing was a technical violation, but common sense should hold that seeking out other editors to gang up on someone is not in accordance with WP policy. He actually violated 3 tenets of canvassing with this thread: 1) posting a non-neutral message "chime in... Wikieditor is getting absurd..." 2) to a non-neutral audience (those he believes more likely to agree with him for reasons above) and 3) perhaps spamming (posting the same message rapidly on 4 different user talkpages). It's difficult to believe that this was an unintentional innocent mistake, and you can't unring a bell.

Lastly, this user forced me to delete his thread from my talk page four times [14][15][16][17] to challenge me on something I had already acknowledged, our disagreement about his comment, and which there was nothing further to say about. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am confused about how an editor can force you to remove something from a talk page. Being very proactive about pruning a conversation from a talk page (as in, within a few minutes) seems like a choice. Your comment is still on my talk page; what of it? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You are not entitled to restore comments to my talk page that I have deleted. Removal is an acknowledgment that I have read it, as were my (multiple) responses. WP:BLANK, WP:TPG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

All involved need to stop bickering here and at the AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree, which is why I suggested a warning about bludgeoning with no sanction. O3000 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'd love to. It should be kept at the AfD. And if Wikieditor19920 did that, as is the case for most AfDs, that would be fantastic. But they take it to my talk page. They [edit my comments. They harass the person who nominated the article for AfD on their talk page. They request a speedy keep from an admin and harass them after they say no to the point where the admin says "I must also admit some curiosity as to what you think you'll accomplish, practically speaking. It should be clear by now I'm not going to change my mind." I'm wondering if this user is here to build an encyclopedia or not. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Simply, the user needs to stop bludgeoning debates in which they are invested. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 February 16 is not too impressive, as is the AfD mentioned above. Pretty much all of their last 90 edits are related to those two issues. I don't particularly mind the issue of my talk page; after all, I'm an admin and get pinged for stuff regularly - however this assumed bad faith. Oh, and "If you can find the sources to meet GNG, then it is notable" is nonsense, which seems to be all too often repeated at AfD. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Aggressive bludgeoning is WE19920's main mode of interaction on talk pages; a stern warning from an attentive admin is sorely needed. --JBL (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis—Wikieditor19920 nicely asks Mr. Vernon on their Talk page if they would consider striking their comment. They explain that the comment is "in very poor taste in an AfD discussion like the one above". And Wikieditor19920 nicely asks Cryptic on their Talk page about the same subject. I will point out that Cryptic says that this incident "shouldn't have gotten the disproportionate media coverage it has". No, that is not what Wikipedia is about. We follow sources. Sources clearly enunciate that the Murder of Tessa Majors is interpreted by some to herald a return to high crime rates in New York City.[18] Wikipedia does not get to decide that the incident "shouldn't have gotten the disproportionate media coverage it has". Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop I see that you have learned nothing from your recently expired topic ban. --JBL (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

JBL—there are often two sides to a story, and I feel it is important to support somebody being treated shabbily. I think I am weighing in to this discussion in a measured manner. Thanks for the heads up. I wouldn't want to be blocked again. Bus stop (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite—you say "Simply, the user needs to stop bludgeoning debates". An overly simplistic understanding of the current juncture might find that you should not have initiated the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tessa Majors. It is OK to have such a discussion—why should we have an article on Murder of Tessa Majors? We can discuss this. But it has to be done in a civil manner. That should not include an extraneous comment about Missing white woman syndrome. That comment immediately followed your nomination of the article for deletion. I don't think that is what you had in mind. You made no mention of race in your explanation for why you were nominating this article for deletion. The comment should have been expunged and that is simply what Wikieditor19920 was endeavoring to do. Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Mr. Vernon—your comment about Missing white woman syndrome was illogically placed near the top of that discussion, right after the nomination of the article for deletion. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Bus stop: That's because it was I saw the AfD a few minutes after it went live and replied to it immediately. As far as I know that's the basic order of AfDs, top-level comments are in chronological order, which is why my input (keep or delete) is much further down the page. I'm not sure why I saw the AfD so soon, but I had been watching that page closely due to issues regarding posting the names of the suspects (not by anyone involved here) and of course when I'm looking out for vandalism, watching recent changes/new pages is a must. --Mr. Vernon (talk)

• You don't mention race in your deletion argument therefore in my opinion your comment about Missing white woman syndrome is gratuitous and needlessly inflammatory. Bus stop (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest both the OP and Wikieditor199220 give that AfD some breathing room and leave each other alone. That should resolve everything. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fine, but User:Mr. Vernon has now 1) violated my talkspace by restoring a thread that I intentionally deleted, multiple times, and 2) has filed a frivolous ANI report over an issue that had ended (my striking of a comment he made at an AfD discussion, that wasn't part of his vote, and with an explanation, which he objected to and that I took no further action on) and 3) engaged in blatant canvassing to unduly influence an ANI thread against me. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Further, the fact that this user would try to compensate for the lack of any perceptible reason to have come to ANI in this instance by trying to create prejudice with a full history of any time I've been involved in an ANI thread (which is limited and never resulted in any sanction), in addition to the canvassing, is a complete misuse of what ANI is for. WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: where is the restoring multiple times? The only time they seemed to restore comments you deleted is here [19] [20]. While generally speaking editors should not restore comments that an editor deleted from their talk page, the explanation [21] offers some understanding of why they did so.

I don't see where else they restored comments that you had deleted. They did make that new comments on the issue after you had deleted the thread, but that is not a WP:OWNTALK issue. If we're ignoring psychic nonsense, by definition you cannot have read comments which had not been posted before. And while yes, if they use the same section heading technically they're restoring the section heading that's a fairly pointless semantic debate since the editor could just give a different section heading.

For WP:harassment and other reasons, if an editor wants to drop an issue on their talk page, this generally should be respected, just as if an editor wants to completely ban another from their talk page. But that's a different point. And frankly, I can understand why Mr. Vernon wanted to offer their explanation if you're making such a big deal over what is actually a single restoration of deleted comments.

Further if you want someone to drop an issue, it helps a great deal if you don't respond either other than with a basic message saying you no longer wish to discuss the issue. While editors should generally still respect a request to drop an issue on their talk page even if the other editor has said a lot as unfair as that can be, it's generally a bit lame to expect you should be the one to get in the last word.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, this user is not allowed to restore any comments to my talk page, once, twice, or at all. And repeatedly re-opening a thread title that I deleted with new comments is just as much of a restoration as his restoring a deleted conversation thread.

This has nothing to do with who has the "last word." I could not care less, nor do I owe him a response to every one of a series messages confronting me about something long dropped, to either his satisfaction or yours. I politely raised an issue with User:Mr. Vernon on his talk page about a potentially inflammatory comment he made an an AfD. He took exception with my striking the remark at the page and posted on my talk page about it. When I gave this response, there was nothing more to say about it. I shouldn't have to repeat myself with this post, which was the last response I gave before he came to ANI (and which shows how unnecessary this report was). As for If we're ignoring psychic nonsense, by definition you cannot have read comments which had not been posted before., I have no idea what you are talking about. I removed the thread once he had posted it, in addition to offering written replies. This is a user who seems to have lost his temper and apparently didn't get the response he wanted from me, and that's why where at ANI. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I came across this when looking for something else and since it's still open and has had a reply about a day ago I might as well reply. I think you've misunderstood my point. I already acknowledged that Mr. Vernon should not have restored that comment that one single time they did so. I simply said, I also understood why they did so, given their stated reasons, and the likelihood that they were unaware of our guidelines in this area. If you cannot accepted that editors make mistakes, and are going to make such a big deal over a single mistake, I don't think you are going to last long here.

And I emphasise the single mistake bit. You claimed "restored twice" but this did not happen. The comment was only restored once. And no, making additional comments is not the same thing as restoring. Especially if your comments are different things from what you said earlier. As I indicated, one of the key reason why editors are forbidden from restoring deleted comments is they serve no purpose. If an editor deletes a comment, it's take as a sign it's been read and understood. An editor cannot have read and understood something which has not been stated. Therefore such a reasoning does not apply.

Offering further comments to an editor after they deleted your comments is not behaviour that is explicitly forbidden by WP:UOWN and WP:OWNTALK. It may or may not violate WP:Harassment, but that's a far more complicated issue.As I also indicated, you did not simply remove the comments without responding. You responded and then immediately removed the comments. While you are entitled to do that, any suggestion that the other editor should have stopped responding is far more complicated when you're effectively demanding the right to respond, without the other party being able to respond in the same place. In other words, if you want someone to drop and issue, stop responding. Don't respond and then delete your comments.

I would not support someone commenting on an editor's talk page if an editor has explicitly asked them not to, even in such circumstances. But this isn't what happened here. You never made such a request. You simply deleted the comments, which again you were entitled to do so, but this also makes it far less clear cut whether it was inappropriate for an editor to respond further. As I already said, if you don't want an editor to respond further, your best solution is to simply say so. It's not to respond saying other stuff, then delete all the comments and expect the editor to understand this means you want no further responses, even if an editor feels there is an important point of clarification based on what you said.

As for the rest of the stuff, I don't really give a damn. I only responded here because I felt, and still feel, it was wrong for you to imply that comments you deleted from your talk page were restored twice when this isn't what happened. They were only restored once, with a second followup using the same subject heading but without restoring the earlier comments.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

• The main question, in my opinion, concerns the propriety/impropriety of striking through a flippant comment on race. I wanted to do something about the comment "What makes this one unusual?" Please see Missing white woman syndrome—but I did not. It is a response to the Nom (Black Kite) asking What makes this one unusual? There in fact may be a racial component to the Murder of Tessa Majors but it is imperative that any such racial component be addressed in a serious way. The comment was out of place. If I would have done something, I probably would have outright reverted it. In general, I support Wikieditor19920's striking through of what I am terming a flippant statement. The statement is not respectful of anyone—not black people, not white people—and we can know that it was not intended with complete seriousness because there was no followthrough—that line of argument was not continued in Mr. Vernon's actual deletion argument. In fact there is no mention of race in Mr. Vernon's actual deletion argument. Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The comment was perfect.

-EEng

• Except judging by your comment you have not understand what that editor said. It was a perfect comment. The editor asked why that was unusual and that was the right reply, showing why the media is extensively covering the story. It was not inappropriate.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  EEng, LOL, good one. My English is still developing and I listen to Trump all the time. He has some influence on my English.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  I certainly hope you're joking. EEng 15:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Has this thread gone far enough into the Twilight Zone yet? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call ANI.

-EEng

I think of ANI as more like the Towaway Zone. EEng 01:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• SharabSalam—if the idea of Missing white woman syndrome was a part of a cogent argument for the deletion of the article Murder of Tessa Majors, wouldn't we expect that concept to be invoked in the actual deletion argument posted by Mr. Vernon? We do not. Nor do we see any reference to race. If it was such a "perfect comment" then why doesn't Mr. Vernon use that comment or related concepts in their deletion argument? Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop - you're missing the point completely. Whether the AfD I started was correct or not, the editor has been bludgeoning discussions that he doesn't agree with (not to mention heading off to other editor's talk pages to annoy them), and he needs to stop doing it. This was quite clearly pointed out above. This is not about the validity or otherwise of a particular AfD or DRV. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

My comment at your and Vernon's talk page was not to "annoy you" -- it was to ask that you reconsider an off-topic comment about race that has absolutely nothing to do with notability guidelines. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Multiple users cited my arguments as persuasive enough to influence their vote, and frankly, it seems like the discussion is overwhelmingly favoring keep. Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have, though when an editor agreeswith you, it seems it isn't bludgeoning. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Black Kite similar behaviour in Talk:Ilhan Omar in the RfC. The same editor has been bludgeoning almost every vote in that RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• "Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have". Some advice - I'd stop replying when you can't even count. You've made twenty-eight comments at that AfD. Mr.Vernon has made nine. I don't think I need to say anything else, so my point about your bludgeoning stands. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: I have no idea where you are pulling those numbers from. I have about nine comments at that RfC, most of which are very short replies to pings, and Vernon has seven, including an extremely long counter-response to Levivich's analysis. I suggest you double check your work before accusing other editors of "not being able to count." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• You've edited it 28 times, Vernon 9. I dare say some might be typo fixes and so on, but, whatever. You made 25 edits to the DRV as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I made a few typo fixes for each comment - guilty of occasional typographical errors? Sure. Vastly more participation than Vernon? I don't think so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Vernon has participated at that same discussion just as much as I have. Not according to ctrl+F. You have made the double amount of comments made by Mr. Vernon.[22][23]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Your contributions to this discussion have been partisan and sloppy, SharabSalam. I really don't even want to engage with you on this, but note that Ctrl F captures a) pings (including yours) and other editors citing my username when agreeing with my arguments "Per Wikieditor19920..." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, omg, do you think I would search only for "Wikieditor19920"? I searched "Wikieditor19920 (talk)" see the screenshots.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Does that include my responses to yourfour comments you made under my vote demanding some further explanation? Enough. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Bus stop, It was a response to Black kite question. Why this was covered widely in the media.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Black Kite—I pointed out that the reason given for your initiation of the AfD was detoured by the next comment by Mr. Vernon. It was a non sequitur. Mr. Vernon was asked on their Talk page to remove their comment, but they refused to do so. That is an out of place comment. If there was any cogency to that comment then Mr. Vernon or someone else would have told us that the article should have been deleted because the news tends to favor white female victims over black female victims. But we don't see that. An extraneous and inflammatory assertion should be removed from an AfD such as this one, especially appearing at the top of the discussion. They were literally responding to a question you posed, Black Kite. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted that you don't think the comment from Mr. Vernon applies. But, other editors are allowed their own opinions. Hasn't this been discussed enough? O3000 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

O3000—I didn't ask Mr. Vernon to initiate a section on WP:AN/I about Wikieditor19920. If it has been "discussed enough" then maybe Mr. Vernon can request that this thread be closed. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, the issue now seems to be bludgeoning. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Whatever sticks, right? As discussed above, my participation at the AfD under discussion has been essentially equal to the user filing the report and mostly in response to pings. Further, my arguments persuaded - his did not. Another editor might see a problem with the fact that the filing editor a) engaged in improper canvassing for this report and b) this same editor's refusal to allow me to blank my own page per WP:OWNTALK. This has been an enormous waste of time, esp. considering the extremely long report does not name any specific basis for coming to ANI, and the reason that this discussion has become so drawn out is precisely because of the filing editor's canvassing. Note that I did not at any time ping Bus Stop to become involved in this conversation or otherwise notify him about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk)

The filer was incorrect in restoring an edit on your TP, and you were incorrect in striking the filer’s edit on the AfD. Your comment persuaded on your incorrect statement that GNG overrules NOTNEWS when GNG is a guideline and NOTNEWS is a policy. As to canvassing, this is not an example of bringing like-minded folk to an AfD or RfC. This is bringing involved people to an AN/I discussion and seems kosher to me. And, your whatever sticks, right is uncalled for. O3000 (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC).

Black Kite Objective3000, Wikieditor19920 has made more than 50 comments in Talk:Ilhan Omar#RFC: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede? (based on ctrl-F "Wikieditor19920 (talk)"). This is bizarre. However, I don't think it has reached the point that it is sanctionable but I would support a warning for this behaviour.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Just ignore that “RfC”. It is way overdue for closure, there is no way the consensus will change, and requests for closure are heavily backlogged. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with O3000 that that discussion is due for closure, though I think we'll disagree on how it should be closed. I haven't commented on that discussion in almost a month, and I think you'll see pretty extensive involvement in that discussion from several editors. SharabSalam is the type of user who will pester me multiple times at an AFD to expound on my vote [24][25][26][27] and then come to ANI and try to pile on accusations of bludgeoning for my replies at that same page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, because your vote was "Speedy keep, snow" which is something that would require more clarification, and yet even if we removed the comments you made in response to me, the number of comments you made is still more than the number of comments made by -Mr. Vernon. Also, I am not the only one here accusing you of bludgeoning. There is also O3000 and Black Kite. I have seen the same bludgeoning by you in this discussion where you made 53 comments in that RfC including some three to four unindented bullet comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, There is nothing in the sources that suggest that this is any different from any "murder" or "killing" that happens in the U.S. in daily basis. This is why wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.? Your repeated pings and comments under my vote were not about "clarification," you were merely quibbling me over my vote. Which you also did to other editors at that page.[28][29]. When I reply, don't come to ANI and complain that I've "bludgeoned" the discussion by responding to you. This is a perfect illustration of why canvassing at ANI is prohibited. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, In addition to that RfC and that AfD. Here is another recent example of your bludgeoning [30]. Note: I wasn't even in that discussion so you can't say I forced you to reply. An editor there, S Marshall noted your response to every vote and said From the large number of times you've posted in this discussion, I would tend to suspect that you might be very concerned about the outcome. It's up to you, but I do suggest that you consider not replying quite so much. And yet you continued.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam If a user makes a comment about me as the nominator at an AfD or the propriety of the nomination, I'm allowed to address it. As for threads where we've been mutually involved, you, tend pester me and others for responses to inane or pointed questions long after everyone's begun ignoring you, and then you come here to cite my replies to your pings as bludgeoning. This is the pot calling the kettle black. Enough. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

your incorrect statement that GNG overrules NOTNEWS... I'm not going to rehash our positions at the AfD here. Canvassing is equally inappropriate at ANI as at article discussion pages. User Vernon only pinged editors who either a) disagreed with me at the AfD and agreed with him, b) have had disagreements with me in the past, or c) both. You and SharabSalam are included under c). I have not had any prior interactions with Black Kite but he opened the AfD discussion and Vernon has been a strong advocate of deletion. Further, the message that he pinged with was a copy-paste, in rapid succession, on four users pages and completely non-neutral, making it clear that he was expecting your "support." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm asking nicely: please stop.—S Marshall T/C 20:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• Wikieditor19920, I don't believe that we've ever interacted (or if we have, I'm not remembering) and I don't think I've ever interacted non-trivially with any of the other main parties here, so I think I'm fairly uninvolved here and can look at this without any sort of bias. As such, please hear me when I say that while others may not be guiltless, you really aren't doing yourself any favors right now. You keep responding frequently and somewhat aggressively to most of the statements here (hence the repeated references above to WP:BLUDGEON), and it's really not helping your case. It seems like this behavior is what Mr. Vernon was concerned about when filing this, so you're actually proving them right and drawing attention away from any potential misdeeds of theirs. I suggest you take a moment to listen to the concerns of others, even if you disagree with them, then try to see it from their perspective. They're not crazy, just passionate about Wikipedia, too. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Everything's a two-way street, and my striking Vernon's comment was a mistake. I take WP policy seriously, so if something I do is on the line, I'll admit it. WP:TPO does seem to restrict those kind of actions for an off-topic comment. Maybe hatting it would've been the better approach, or just leaving it be (which I did after being reverted). So I do have an end in this. I think I acknowledged this to the filer, but apparently that wasn't enough to dissuade them from repeatedly bringing it up on my talk page and restoring a thread repeatedly after I'd replied, and then filing and canvassing this ANI report. I don't think any of that was necessary, but I've said my piece on it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

At the informal request of the OP Mr. Vernon, I am re-opening this thread, as it seems that, despite the reported party recognizing and acknowledging they made a mistake, there are still loose threads and other general concerns regarding this user. As I'm not familiar with the reported party, I will leave future closures to those who are more familiar; as such, I won't involve myself in this case, other than this courtesy notice that I've re-opened the thread. Amaury • 21:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:JUSTDROPIT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to be confused with WP:JUSTDOIT – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Just close this, then. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Chuckwick 2020 - MOS:NUMERAL + no edit summaries

Chuckwick 2020 (talk · contribs) seems to have a preference for integers written as figures, not as words, and has been going through various articles modifying integers in them to number format (e.g.[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]). MOS:NUMBER, on the other hand, states "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)."
In addition to these entirely unnecessary changes, Chuckwick 2020 does not use edit summaries, nor do they use their Talk: page. Thus a series of notices on their Talk: page have gone unnoticed or unheeded. Is there some way of encouraging them to stop making unnecessary changes, and start using edit summaries? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I was notified that I may be involved, but I only provided one of the six warning templates on Chuckwick 2020's talk page, and it was requesting the use of edit summaries, That was repeated by another editor a few weeks later, and the rest are actual warnings. From what I can see, some of Chuckwick 2020's edits apply MoSs correctly, while others do not. I think that we need to know what the editor is thinking and why the incorrect changes are being made, and engagement with other editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I guess the first step is to get them to respond here. They've continued to edit, but have neither replied on their Talk: page, nor commented here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Aranya:. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, thank you for the ping. The only interaction I've had with Chuckwick 2020 concerned his edits on Tupac Shakur. The edits ([41], [42], [43]) removed some of the clunky inline Unreliable source? tags but also correctly changed the capitalization in a reference name to match its source title. It wasn't really evident to me why he removed the tags given the lack of edit summaries, and I myself didn't see any problems with the tags, so I reverted the edits so that the tags can possibly aid future improvements to the article. I then added a templated notice to his talk page as a courtesy. Although he seems (to me) like a novice editor acting in good faith, despite the lack of communication, I definitely think that competence is required at some point and that he should at least try to communicate his intentions (and help edit more in-line with MOS and the like as necessary). – Aranya (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC) (edited again 03:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC))

They are still editing, and still doing the same: [44][45][46]. They clearly know how to add an edit summary[47]; they just choose not to. Unresponsive users who have never used their Talk: page are typically blocked, to bring their attention to their Talk: page, and to get them to engage. Unless someone objects, I think that's the next step. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Epistle to the Galatians: multiple redlink authors massively changing and adjusting

Within the last hour or so (since around 20.00, 4 March) many new authors with no user pages, and a sampling of their contributions suggests WP:SPA, have started some huge changes at the usually quiet Epistle to the Galatians. This doesn't feel right. Could you advise, please, and possible take action? (My preferred action would be roll-back to before this action accompanied by some sort of page-protection.) Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Feline Hymnic, from a quick look at the history, I'm guessing class project or something similar (see the edit comment in Special:Diff/943949348). Recommend a friendly message on their userpages about sourcing, etc. to start. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits do indeed appear to be in GF, and given the timing It looks like a US class, as suggested. Later edits did start adding citations, though heavily primary as is common with new editors. I've watchlisted and will drop a line if it looks more than a flash in the pan. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page asking the students to have their instructor register the course with Wiki Education, so they'll get training and support from us. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Ownership and competency issues on Silver Ghost

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

@Eddaido: has made a series of reverts on this page, apparently on the assumption that $30 million 2005 dollars of “agreed value” (i.e., a claim of insurance valuation) are unequivocally larger than an actual cash sale for $48 million 2018 dollars. A quick look at the recent history of the article will show the certain questions of competence that spill over from his editing on Concord coach and Stagecoach in the past. Qwirkle (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend a warning on their talk page first and requesting them to self-revert. Not only have they been edit warring, they've surpassed WP:3RR. I count seven reverts. If they don't self-revert, then perhaps a short block may be in order. Amaury • 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have never had reason to question Eddaido's competence, nor often any particular sense of ownership to articles; however their refractory obstinacy is legendary. Their is little likelihood of any success in attempting discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

On the Concord coach article mentioned above, he edit-warred to restore a claim he knew to be wrong, and added multiple cites to the talk page which explicitly contradicted his position. Perhaps this isn’t typical. Qwirkle (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it's typical. EEng 06:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• A 48h block for edit warring and ownership seems appropriate at this point - this does need to stop I think. Guy (help!) 11:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Although if we're to start looking at WP:COMPETENCE issues in car-related articles, the obstinate-but-competent Eddaido certainly isn't our worst problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I’d agree to a point there, certainly, but the drunk-under-the-streetlight research techniques are a competence issue, albeit one that’s pretty widespread. Qwirkle (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: The reader is invited to see the latest edits, by IP:73.148.104.176 AKA Obvious IP Sock Being Obvious. Like taxis, there is never a checkuser handy when you need ‘em. Qwirkle (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice thing about socks, how you can get ‘em in pairs.... Qwirkle (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411

• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thucydides411 is essentially a single-purpose account dedicated to obscuring the fact of Russian interference in the 2016 US election, most recently in respect of the GRU's use of WikiLeaks as a conduit for publishing stolen DNC emails. He was blocked for a week in Fen 2017 for violating AP2 restrictions and TBANned from all edits pertaining to US-Russia relations for three months in November 2017 - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive221 § Thucydides411 - due to disruption and personal attacks at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and its talk page. Rather than continue editing in other areas, he essentially did not edit during that period. He has under 4,000 edits in total but is the third most prolific contributor to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (and first by volume of text added), fifth most prolific to talk:Julian Assange (and second by volume of text added), third to White Privilege and second by volume added, and third to talk:Useful idiot, again first by volume of text added.

So for the four pages he edits most often, despite having a remarkably low total edit count, he dominates discussion. In as much as a POV can be discerned in the absence of a direct statement, his edits clearly show a personal rejection of the established facts of Russian interference in the 2016 US election (e.g. [48], which changes a statement of the Mueller conclusions to frame it as Mueller having "asserted" Russian interference or this in which he quibbles with the fact that Mueller "demonstrated" Assange's knowledge that Seth Rich was not the source of leaked emails by continuing to correspond with GRU operatives after his death, and, based on that asserted quibble with the wording, removes the entire paragraph noting the established fact that Assange did indeed continue to contact Russia after Rich's death). This is a fringe POV, and in my view his continued advancement of this POV through talk page statements that assume its factual correctness is unacceptable.

Basically, I think he's here to Right Great Wrongs. Reversions are a prominent part of his content editing, and lengthy comments on Talk are the norm. This can be fine in someone with wide interest in improving Wikipedia, but here it is narrowly focused on a handful of articles where he consistently dominates debate through stonewalling. Guy (help!) 10:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, but is there any actual indicent being reported here? Is there any actual misbehavior? It looks like Guy is just complaining about me generally, as an editor they dislike.

Guy cites precisely two diffs: one in which I restored long-standing, well-sourced and DUE material (an opinion article by Glenn Greenwald that received secondary coverage in the Columbia Journalism Review, the Washington Post and Salon); and another in which I removed a recent addition that I think was worded in a POV manner and was UNDUE. Neither of these edits is particularly noteworthy.

As for the accusation that I don't have a large enough edit count, I don't see what Guy is getting at. Yes, I don't edit Wikipedia for a living. Is that an offense? I've been editing for over a decade, focusing on different subjects at different times, including American history, astronomy and physics, and American politics.

I'm actually quite proud of some of the contributions Guy complains about. At Useful idiot, I worked to reorient the article around what reliable sources on etymology, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, actually say about the term. Before I began editing the page (November 2017 version), it prominently reported what is apparently an incorrect etymology of the term (attributing it to Lenin). Compare that with the page now: [49]. I think it's clear that the page is much better organized, has better sourcing (including the OED, which I added to the article), and that it gives a clear explanation of the status of the popular attribution to Lenin (i.e., that the attribution is often made, though there's no evidence for it). In other words, I left the page better off than when I arrived. This took a lot of discussion on the talk page (something Guy is faulting me for). Sources had to be evaluated and discussed. References had to be tracked down (for example, I tracked down the origin of a reference that another editor claimed was from the Soviet Union, showing that the book was actually written in France - the question was whether the reference demonstrated usage of the term "useful idiot" in the Soviet Union, which would contradict what the OED claims about the term: see [50]). In any case, this is all to say that Guy is faulting me for using talk pages to discuss sourcing, edits, etc., which is precisely what talk pages are for.

The background to this complaint is a content dispute at Julian Assange, about whether to mention an appeal by 130 of the most prominent figures in German politics, journalism and media calling for Assange's release. I criticized Guy for referring to "Assange cultists" ([51]) and "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more" ([52]). It's still unclear whom Guy meant to describe with these epithets, but I felt they were out of place and said so. The current ANI complaint appears to be the result. I think Guy's complaint is vague (I'm not actually accused of any violations of Wikipedia policy or of any concrete forms of disruption), and should either be speedily closed or boomeranged. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, if it was specific it would be at WP:AE. My issue is more general: you are a single-puropose advocacy account pushing a fringe POV. You are also abusing Wikipedia process to gain advantage in content disputes, notable with respect to SPECIFICO and BullRangifer (and also Calton, who you managed to get blocked for three days). All three of these have massively greater contributions to Wikipedia than you do, yet you seem to think you have greater understanding of our policies based on your <4000 edits to a handful of closely-related articles. Guy (help!) 12:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't rank editor value by the number of their edits. This is a volunteer project, and participation is not required. I interacted with this editor at the Casualties of the Iraq War page, where they made clear improvements. Bringing up Calton is irrelevant - they broke a sanction in place, were given ample time to revert, and were blocked after they ignored it. If you have a problem with that you should seek to have the sanction removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This report alleges no wrongdoing. It is perfectly ok for editors to edit where they want to. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, no, it is not "perfectly OK" for single purpose accounts to dominate articles. Guy (help!) 12:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, but that's not what I said. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy's concerns are not frivolous, but are legitimate and very relevant right now.

A current issue is now at BLP/N, where Thucydides411 is making personal attacks against SPECIFICO and me in an abuse of the BLP/N drama board:

• #Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy.

Thucydides411 has made seemingly false accusations against us but presented no evidence of wrongdoing. Now they refuse to respond to pings to resolve the matter. Accusations without evidence are just personal attacks, and unresolved personal attacks that are escalated, rather than withdrawn, demand sanctions.

What should have been a minor blip of no consequence was made major by Thucydides411 when he made it personal and actively escalated the attacks from Talk:Julian Assange, to User:Drmies's talk page, and then to BLP/N. At each step he was rebuffed by multiple admins who saw no BLP violation. Rather than retract the personal attacks, he escalated and expanded on them, and that is what made it serious.

As near as I can tell, SPECIFICO did not use the word "conspired", as accused. Thucydides411 is the one who did that in his seemingly false straw man accusation against him. And as for his accusation against me, he hasn't yet provided any evidence that I said anything that is not factual about Russian interference or Assange's involvement in the Russian interference. A BLP violation occurs with the statement of negative and/or false information that is unsourced, not the statement of "sky is blue" facts backed up by several whole articles exclusively on the subject that are based on myriad RS. That's where I'm coming from. I believe the narrative in those articles and RS. Thucydides411 has often made it clear he does not like the narrative in those articles or their RS.

Thucydides411's personal attacks seem to be rooted in his well-known denialist and fringe attitude toward the well-documented "sky is blue" facts that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections and that Julian Assange was involved with GRU agents in their criminal dissemination of stolen documents and emails. The Mueller investigation established that Assange=WikiLeaks was a key player in the Russian interference. Twelve of those agents are now under criminal indictment for their crimes. The issue of Assange's culpability has not been addressed (by me in this dispute). He did not have to know he was dealing with GRU agents or know that he was involved in the commission of crimes to have been involved. I have made that plain. Mueller, OTOH, details how Assange and GRU agents planned, coordinated, and lied about their efforts to share and release the stolen documents and emails. They didn't just lie about it, they sought to shift the blame from Russia and the Trump campaign (which welcomed the efforts) to the Clinton campaign, Seth Rich, Democrats, Ukraine, China, and just about anyone other than the ones involved, which were Russia, Assange, and the Trump campaign, with Rohrabacher personally delivering (according to Assange's lawyers) a message to Assange from Trump that Trump would pardon him if he covered up Russian involvement by denying it. Assange obeyed, denied, and shifted the blame, but the pardon....well, that hasn't happened yet, but may well in the future.

I have repeatedly made it clear to Thucydides411 that I will gladly retract/revise any incorrect statements I have made, revise my thinking, and thank him for the enlightenment, if he will just explain what I did wrong, but he refuses to respond to pings or explain. He just made the accusations and left them at the three venues. The last one at BLP/N is a serious enough venue that it must be dealt with.

Do we want editors who still deny these facts editing in the AP2 area, especially after their previous sanctions and warnings? They just make trouble. We want editors who believe what RS say, not those who deny them. Such denialist attitudes strike directly at the RS policy itself and the heart of our required basic skill set, the ability to vet sources for reliability. Any editor who favors misinformation from unreliable sources and denies RS should not edit in the relevant areas, and some would say they lack the skills to edit here at all, at least on controversial topics. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Your description of what happened at WP:BLPN#Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy is inaccurate. I raised concerns about editors using talk pages to imply that Julian Assange is involved in some sort of criminal conspiracy, by referring to GRU agents as his "accomplices". You then posted at length, explicitly stating that Assange committed crimes in 2016, for which he supposedly deserves to be indicted. You stated, "It is not just an 'implication', but a legal fact, that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime. Why Assange hasn't been formally charged, unlike the GRU agents, is a question you'll have to ask Trump and Rohrabacher, who actually made a quid pro quo offer of a pardon, rather than a justified criminal indictment, to Assange, in exchange for a cover-up and denial that it was the Russians who hacked and leaked the emails" ([53]). I responded, "You should not be making these sorts of statements on Wikipedia. They don't serve any purpose related to editing the encyclopedia, and they violate our WP:BLP policy" ([54]). Your response has been to repeatedly ping me and post to my talk page, demanding that I answer your theories about Assange. As I told you at my talk page, I'm not interested in getting into political debates on Wikipedia.

Anyone is free to look at my edits to article space and see that they're almost always sourced to multiple high-quality reliable sources. For example, the content dispute that Guy and I are involved in at Julian Assange began with this addition that I made, which is sourced to three high-quality reliable sources. There is an ongoing RfC about this addition, in which a plurality of editors so far have supported my addition, which suggests that it was a reasonable edit. I take WP:RS very seriously. If you have any problematic diffs, you're free to raise them. So far, I don't see any in your complaint. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Let the battleground come to ANI, and the fighters take their corners. I'll be honest, I think ANI is the wrong venue for this. It really should be brought to ARBCOM. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Funnily enough, I was just writing up a topic ban warning for Thucydides. They have been trying to interest admins in what they call SPECIFICO's "very serious BLP violation" in using the word "accomplices" for GRU agents [55] at Talk:Julian Assange, then User talk:Drmies, then WP:BLPN. They don't seem able to find one that agrees with them. It's time you dropped the stick, Thucydides. Furthermore, while I know Drmies suggested you try WP:BLPN since you wouldn't accept the opinions of three admins (including Newyorkbrad of all people) on his page, it's time you stopped ascribing terms like "criminal conspiracies" to Bull Rangifer and SPECIFICO. You yourself are the only, single, solitary person who has mentioned conspiring/conspiracies in the context. Are you trying to exhaust your opponents by repeating it over and over and consistently ignoring both denials and questions about it? Your discussion style is disruptive, and you are coming close to a topic ban from Russian interference in the 2016 US election. Bishonen | tålk 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC).

Drop what stick? I stopped commenting at WP:BLPN two days ago, despite being pinged several times there (and messaged on my talk page) by BullRangifer. I only mentioned BLPN here because BullRangifer raised it. Given that I "dropped the stick" days ago, should I go further and bury the stick underground? What, exactly, am I supposed to do to avoid this topic ban you're swinging over my head? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about your dedication to denying Russian interference in the US 2016 election, not just about BLPN. I make it 19 hours since you took an opponent to AE for reverting you (on that subject) at Julian Assange. Bishonen | tålk 18:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC).

That AE report was in response to a straightforward violation of discretionary sanctions. I notified the user in question and gave them ample time to self-revert before filing the report. The user got blocked. Are you suggesting topic-banning me for filing a straightforward complaint that the admins at WP:AE decided was valid? Why would you criticize me for that, of all things? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is just a terrible edit and I don't understand why someone would raise this hill to die on, because it is the kind of edit that screams "topic ban"--and so does the edit summary, "Mueller Report could be mentioned with more neutral wording". It is hard to imagine more neutral wording than "This [Russian interference in 2016] was subsequently confirmed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his report on his investigation and summarized in his 2019 testimony before Congress". If the argument that this is part of a pattern is borne out (I know not if't be true), then a topic ban is in order. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"concluded" would be a more neutral wording. I didn't decide to "die on this hill", though you seem anxious to topic ban me for that edit. Part of that edit was restoring long-standing and well-sourced content: Glenn Greenwald's commentary on the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which was covered by Columbia Journalism Review, the Washington Post and Salon. Topic banning someone for restoring long-standing content and suggesting that more neutral wording could be used for another sentence is sort of an overreaction, don't you think? -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't deflect by focusing on what you restored. Drmies is talking about what you removed, which just happens to be something you don't want to accept, that the Russians interfered in the election. There was no justification for you to remove that content. None at all. They were not "POV edits". They were properly-sourced facts you don't like, so you removed them, with the source. That's an egregious NPOV violation. You allowed your personal fringe POV dictate the fate of properly-sourced content. Shame on you. BTW, that content was restored and is still part of the article, as it should be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent my edit. I asked for more neutral wording, and said I was okay with inclusion of the Mueller Report. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, "dropping the stick" isn't exactly the right description of what you've done. You stabbed SPECIFICO and stabbed me, then you escalated the matter (repeatedly restabbed and twisted the knives). By refusing to withdraw your personal attacks, you have just left the knives in place, and only you can remove them.

Please do so by either providing evidence of our wrongdoing (repetitions of your objections above is not evidence) or by publically withdrawing your accusations. Right now you have just made them again, instead of withdrawing them. Do the right thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

"stabbed me", "repeatedly restabbed and twisted the knives": Such violent metaphors! I didn't stab anyone. I suggest you move on. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I find Bishonen's and Drmies' commentary here to be highly partisan, if not dishonest. As admins you might expect them to intervene in defense of this biography of a living person, per our very clear policies at Wikipedia and protections for the subjects of those biographies. BullRangifer has stated plainly that Assange has committed a crime [56]:

It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

SPECIFICO has stated that the GRU were Assange's "accomplices" [57][58]:

The prosecution of his accomplices is entirely suitable for a brief lead mention.

In this context Thucydides411 is of course wholly correct to complain about Assange being described as a criminal, since he was accused in a court of law, and the accusation was dismissed with prejudice [59]:

The ruling terminated the DNC’s claims against... the document disclosure group WikiLeaks and its leader Julian Assange for releasing material stolen by the Russian hackers. [Judge] Koetl said the Constitution’s First Amendment protects those defendants from such a civil legal claim, just as it protects “press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained, so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.” Koetl dismissed the lawsuit, which was filed in April 2018, “with prejudice,” which bars the DNS from bringing the same claims against the defendants in another suit.

Without getting into details about Assange, Drmies has implied that SPECIFICO and Bullrangifer's opinions about Assange are correct [60][61]:

Sorry, but how is that controversial?

They're controversial because the Judge ruled that Assange did not commit a crime. Drmies can be forgiven for not reading the news. However as wallyfromdilbert and PackMecEng point out, it's hypocritical for Bullrangifer and Guy [62] to ask to sanction Thucydides411 for raising the issue at WP:BLPN right after Drmies told Thucydides411 to go there [63]:

you should consider BLPN.

There are strong indications that the very admins commenting here are not acting to enforce legitimate BLP concerns at Talk:Julian Assange and are instead encouraging departures from sources and policies. For instance JzG wrote recently at Talk:Julian Assange that

the Assange cult has promoted this letter of ocncern, but that it is just one letter of concern, a single incident in the news blizzard around Assange that is driven by an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more. There's no actual evidence that Assange was treated any differently form anyone similarly situated.

This kind of incoherent and unsourced language would be considered inappropriate from any editor on a BLP, but JzG is the most active admin on the page, having placed DS sanctions there. The sources editors were discussing in that case (including famous German investigative journalists and politicians, Die Welt, the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) would be surprised to learn that their activities and reporting were being promoted, according to a Wikipedia administrator active at Julian Assange, by "an unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists and more." Moreover, numerous American and international human rights groups have described Assange's treatment as extraordinary, directly contradicting JzG's assertion. For example here is the United Nations special rapporteur's recent description of Assange's treatment in the UK [64]:

[In the UK Assange] was suddenly dragged out and convicted within hours and without any preparation for a bail violation that consisted of him having received diplomatic asylum from another UN member state on the basis of political persecution, just as international law intends and just as countless Chinese, Russian and other dissidents have done in Western embassies. It is obvious that what we are dealing with here is political persecution. In Britain, bail violations seldom lead to prison sentences – they are generally subject only to fines. Assange, by contrast, was sentenced in summary proceedings to 50 weeks in a maximum-security prison – clearly a disproportionate penalty that had only a single purpose: Holding Assange long enough for the U.S. to prepare their espionage case against him.

As for Bishonen, they were quick to block Jtbobwaysf [65] for their 1RR violation at Julian Assange just days ago, and are quick to appear here threatening a topic ban against Thucydides411. However they said they would not block Calton for a similar, DS violation at Julian Assange introducing a long opinion piece quote against him without in-text attribution [66], and apparently believe that calling Assange a criminal or criminal accomplice is not a BLP problem, even if a US federal judge has ruled that Assange's actions and similar actions by news organizations are protected by the first amendment. -Darouet (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, that's the wrong case. That was the DNC's civil case. I have always been referring to Mueller's criminal case against the 12 GRU agents who committed crimes where Mueller found that Assange was an accomplice in the illegal dissemination of their stolen documents and emails. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet (and Thucydides411) object to what Darouet words as "calling Assange a criminal or criminal accomplice". They see that as a BLP violation. Maybe or maybe not, but I have not said that. I have not called Assange a "criminal" or a "criminal accomplice". Words matter. Exact quotes matter. I have mentioned the proven facts that crimes were committed and that Assange was involved with GRU agents in the commission of those crimes. That is not the same as using the words above. I did not use those words.

For some reason, both Darouet and Thucydides411 fail to accept what I have repeatedly stated, and that is that it is possible for a person to not know they are involved in the commission of a crime, but that does not make it any less of a crime. Focus on the crime, not the person. That is my focus. It is not a BLP violation to state proven facts.

So far, neither editor has provided any evidence that what SPECIFICO or I have stated are counterfactual or not supported by the many RS used in our articles on these subjects, or the findings in the Mueller Report. This is "sky is blue" stuff, and there should be no objection to stating the facts that crimes were committed and that Assange was an accomplice with GRU agents in the commission of the crimes of disseminating those stolen documents. Mueller clearly proves that Assange coordinated these acts with those agents and lied about it. He didn't even have to know they were Russians. The crimes still happened, and Mueller has indicted 12 GRU agents for those crimes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, you write I have not called Assange a "criminal" or a "criminal accomplice". What you said is [67]:

It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

I understand you don't want to talk about the fact that the DNC accusations against Assange — which you are asking us here to accept as truth, or be topic banned — were thrown out of court in the United States and declared to be false [68]:

“The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.”

The judge specifically compared Assange and Wikileaks' publication to that of the Pentagon papers:

Citing precedent from the the Pentagon Papers case, Koeltl held that treating WikiLeaks as an accomplice “would render any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a co-conspirator in the theft.”

Perhaps User:Newyorkbrad doesn't think your statements about Assange are a BLP violation. That's fine. But if I agree with John G. Koeltl in his finding that Assange is not guilty of a crime for publishing DNC documents, should I be topic banned on Wikipedia?

Lastly, since you write that "Exact quotes matter," contrary to what you write I have not used the term "BLP violation." I have raised BLP concerns: part of our normal editing task if we are trying to improve a BLP. -Darouet (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, I already told you that you are linking to the wrong case. That is the DNC's civil lawsuit. I am talking about Mueller's criminal case against the 12 GRU agents.

Your statement is also misleading. The civil lawsuit was not dismissed because it was "false", but because "the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act foreclosed him [the judge] from holding it liable for the DNC server hack."

The judge even called the actions illegal: "The primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal enterprise is undoubtably the Russian Federation, the first named defendant in the case and the entity that surreptitiously and illegally hacked into the DNC’s computers and thereafter disseminated the results of its theft."

So you're barking up the wrong tree.

As far as your "BLP concerns", what have I written that is factually wrong? Thucydides won't tell me. Will you? If you have such concerns, then you should be able to elucidate them. As I have repeatedly written, if you can show that my statements are false, I will gladly retract/revise them, revise my thinking, and thank you for the enlightenment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: I'm sure I am not the only one surprised to see your words above ..accusations against Assange — which you are asking us here to accept as truth, or be topic banned Topic ban us? Are you expecting to be TBANned along with Thucydides411 here? Are you now acknowledging the tag-teaming that you've long denied? Yes, your repetitious one-two punch in Russia-related threads has worsened the disruption, but my understanding is that this ANI is just about Thucydides411. SPECIFICO talk 17:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS: I've long been active at Julian Assange, am proud of my work there, and will continue to improve the article. Anyone can similarly pull up editor interaction reports for you and plenty of other editors, e.g. a longer list of your interactions with me (100 articles) [69], or BullRangifer (319 articles) [70], or Bishonen (214 articles) [71].

BullRangifer, I'm not misrepresenting the sources. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act prevented the judge, Koetl, from having jurisdiction over Russia or the GRU's actions. On the other hand the judge found no evidence that Assange or Wikileaks participated in any crime including the theft of DNC documents, and is like other media organizations is protected by the first amendment in publishing them. Koetl further ruled that Wikileaks is protected even if they know the documents are stolen, so long as the documents are in the public interest (he ruled they were), and Wikileaks did not commit a crime by stealing the documents themselves (he ruled they didn't).

I have real life work so I'm going to keep this brief, but my objection to your comments re Assange are straightforward. You have said that

It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

However a US court, without challenging (or at all times necessarily endorsing) the factual basis of the Mueller Report, has unequivocally declared that Assange's receipt and publication of those documents was not a crime and protected by the first amendment.

I don't personally think you should be sanctioned for your statement — and again User:Newyorkbrad is a better expert here than am I — however I do think that your false opinion has an impact on Assange's page. For instance, many editors at Talk:Julian Assange have been arguing that an entire lead paragraph in our biography of Assange, dedicated to the DNC and mentioning the GRU, is undue. If you don't acknowledge the ruling that Assange's publication is protected by the first amendment [72], that will contribute to your desire to give undue and misleading attention to this issue in the lead of his article. -Darouet (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, I have never said or implied that Assange or Wikileaks participated in the theft of DNC documents, or that WikiLeaks committed a crime by stealing the documents themselves. The theft of the documents was a crime committed by the GRU, and Assange was involved in coordinating how to use those documents. Trafficking in stolen documents is generally considered a crime, but courts waffle on that one and won't always convict. Since his coordination with the GRU involved much deception by Assange (read the Mueller Report), he might end up getting indicted and convicted for that. Time will tell. His statements to the public were obviously deceptive, but are likely not actionable.

BTW, I used to be sympathetic to Assange's efforts when he acted like a journalist, and journalists do need protection. When he started acting in a partisan manner by selectively releasing only content that hurt America, DNC, and Clinton, and not releasing the documents he had which could hurt the GOP and Russia, he started to act as a Russian asset who does not deserve protection or respect.

Now please explain what part of what I have said (from before the beginning of this thread at AN/I) that is not factual. Thucydides won't tell me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Wait a second: you're accusing me of not accepting established facts, but here you are trying to argue that Judge Koetl's ruling is incorrect and somehow amounts to "waffl[ing]". Do you understand the law better than the judge? Who's really denying facts here? -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, I did not say that their ruling was incorrect. Courts deal differently with issues that might, in some way or another, touch on First Amendment issues. The case is complicated, and one judge might focus on one aspect of the facts and acquit, and another judge might focus on a different aspect of the same set of facts and convict. That's the way it works. Again, I did not say what you claim I said. Words matter.

This was also a civil case, not the situation I have been referring to the whole time.

Now explain what was so factually wrong with the statements I had made that made you attack me at BLP/N? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: on the 29th of February you directly stated that the GRU helped Assange commit a crime [73]:

It is a fact that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime.

Do you acknowledge that you made this statement at BLPN?

United States federal judge John G. Koeltl clearly ruled that Assange and Wikileaks, per clear precedent established in many cases including those surrounding the Pentagon Papers, did not commit a crime [74][75]:

Koeltl ruled that the U.S. Constitution protected them from liability related to disseminating stolen emails. “The First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place,” the 81-page opinion states. Citing precedent from the the Pentagon Papers case, Koeltl held that treating WikiLeaks as an accomplice “would render any journalist who publishes an article based on stolen information a co-conspirator in the theft.”

Do you acknowledge that Koeltl ruled in this way, and that his ruling directly contradicts your assertion quoted above? Or, do you retract your statement and acknowledge you were incorrect, as you have repeatedly stated you would be willing to do? It's unclear what else you're looking for. -Darouet (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, I want to thank you so much for finally being the one to actually explain this, rather than like Thucydides411, who falsely asserted that SPECIFICO and I claimed "that Assange criminally conspired with GRU agents". That false claim still lingers at BLP/N.

But now, YOU are the one who has done the right thing, stepped up to the plate, and actually explained your exact concern(s), and for that I am very grateful. You have done the honorable thing. Why didn't Thucydides411 do this a long time ago? They were the one making all the accusations and implying that Assange is somehow innocent of any wrongdoing. Assange isn't innocent of wrongdoing. He did many bad things. Mike Pompeo said it well: "It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a nonstate hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia." Assange is not a whistleblower or a journalist. He's a witting or unwitting Russian asset. the end result is the same.

My focus has always been the commission of proven hacking and theft crimes by the GRU (which Mueller has charged them with), and since Assange was then involved in the planning, coordination, receipt, and distribution of those stolen documents, and lied about it, that Assange's actions were (tangentially) involved in that crime, with the distribution being HIS crime, even if he did not commit the hacking crime itself. It was always in that sense my statements should be interpreted. The statement above is indeed my statement, and I can now, in the light of the judge's reasoning for throwing out the case, see what you mean. It does look like an overstep on my part, and I apologize for that. I see what you mean about how this civil ruling can relate to that, as the judge has applied the First Amendment to Assange's distribution of the stolen documents. A different judge might have ruled differently, but we do have this case, which was tossed, rather than tried. I wonder what would have happened if there had been an actual trial, a criminal one, rather than civil one?

I'd like to go back and look at my statements to see which ones should be stricken/altered. Will you help me by pointing to exact statements (with diffs)? I'd really appreciate that. I need your perspective to see it. I'm too close to the subject! Help me fix this. We should probably do this on my talk page, and then I'll go to BLP/N and fix whatever needs fixing. Fair enough? Thanks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Please topic ban Thucydides411 from subjects related to Russia. I completely agree with the assessment by Guy. Thucydides411 does POV-pushing on pages like Useful idiot, Assange and some other pages related to Russia. He usually removes well-sourced information and edit-war in a "team" with user Darouet, who just commented above. For example,

1. removal of sourced info by T.,
2. removal by D.,
3. removal by another user (who is a Russian SPI [76], possibly a sockpuppet account, and again), then
4. removal by D.,
5. removal by IP (who was blocked), and
6. removal by well known user Altenmann.

Since then, I never edit this page, and I also stay away of page Assange after massive reverts of well sourced info by Darouet (he removes large section "Timeline of Julian Assange involvement in the United States elections"). Needless to say, discussing anything with Thucydides411 is nearly impossible. In my opinion, he should not edit anything related to Russia (like Assange). My very best wishes (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

MVBW, When you tried to add a massive timeline to the Assange article, four editors commented on talk [77]: JFG and Jack Upland and myself all opposed your addition. Your comment here suggests I was POV-pushing, when consensus roundly rejected your addition.

Similarly, at Useful idiot, dozens of editors have commented there over time, per the NYT [78] and Oxford U press [79] supporting the view that attribution to Lenin is false.

So having lost both content disputes, now you'd like to ban Thucydides411 for having both sources and consensus on their side? -Darouet (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions this seems like a content dispute. I did some check to these diffs and I think Thucydides411 didn't do something sanctionable.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think this is strange. I was watching the Useful idiots page since 2005. Suddenly in 2017, a massive debate erupted, ostensibly about etymology, with editors like SPECIFICO arguing that the Oxford English Dictionary was not a RS. There were hints that the real issue was the Trump-Putin nexus, but I could never see the relevant. When Assange was dragged out of the embassy I started watching his page, and found the same groups of editors fighting each other: Thucydides411 and Darouet vs SPECIFICO and BullRangifer and My very best wishes. I think Assange has had a diverse life, and I don't think the 2016 election is the most important issue. I don't think JzG's intervention is helpful. I can see no sign of men's rights activists editing the page. Incidentally, Guy recently used the phrase "useful idiots" on the Assange page. However, it does seem that editors are using various articles as battlegrounds to fight over issues I don't understand.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Jack that's a pretty shoddy misrepresentation of the discussion at Useful Idiot. You started an RfC relating to whether a particular bit of article text should be cited to Oxford English Dictionary. Your misrepresentation of my view that I claimed OED is not a RS is just false, and in fact the RfC was closed as no consensus to cite fact to OED without attribution, as it related to the proposed article text. Don't misrepresent other editors' views, particularly in an ANI thread. Do better, especially when you refer to an article in which you participated so heavily. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  I think editors can look at the "useful idiot" discussion and judge for themselves. It is clear that on 12 December 2017 you said "No", the OED was not a RS. No one was arguing we should cite the OED without attribution. I do think there is a WP:BATTLE going on here, where improving the articles is unimportant, where factions are warring over multiple articles only tangentially related to their cause, and where editors espouse completely irrational opinions, such as that the OED is not an RS, merely because they believe it supports their cause. Are these warriors are here to build an encyclopedia? However, my previous post was misleading, as I implied that this battle was raging at the Assange page in April last year. In fact, it has developed over time, and BullRangifer has only joined in recently.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Formal proposal

For being a single purpose POV account intent on obscuring the well-established fact that Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential Election of the United States, and thereby making Wikipedia less factual and informative, Thucydides411 is indefinitely topic-banned from all subjects related to any Russian involvement in American politics, very broadly construed, including anything remotely related to Julian Assange. This topic ban can be appealed at WP:AN after a period of six months from its imposition has elapsed.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• BMK, please consider changing the proposed wording per the comments of Creffpublic and Jayron32 below or changing to an AP2 TBAN, which is unambiguous and with much precedent. Editors can then revise their !votes if they wish, or by default just let them stand as currently posted. @Jayron32 and Beyond My Ken: SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Nothing personal in this -- I don't know the editor from a hole in the ground. It simply seems to me to be a well-focused solution to the problem presented. If others have alternate proposals, they are free to suggest them in separate sections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• What is this proposal based on? You can't propose topic banning someone without any diffs showing any misbehavior. This proposal is transparently politically motivated. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• The proposal is based on the evidence presented above. The politically-motivated behavior here is clearly yours, and we don't need it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose POV-pushing ≠ disagreeing with my point of view. Examining the diffs, none of them proves that the editor is POV pushing.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There's a lot of editors here who only focus on political topics and have a particular POV. If they follow the policies they are perfectly entitled to edit where they want. This proposal does not document any diffs to back up what the proposer says. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a rediculous proposal. The account in question was opened in 2006. Are we to assume they were a Russian sleeper account? A lot of the back and forth here looks like a case of editors using ANI to try to deal with content disputes. If there is a real issue here it needs to be made in a clear and concise way else this topic should be closed. Springee (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support I interacted with Thucydides411 on several occasions, and it was impossible to agree with him about anything. Hence I decided not to edit any pages that he edited. Please also see my comment with supporting diffs above. His behavior has nothing to do with using good sources or consensus building. Quite the opposite. He removes well sourced and relevant information and does not work towards building consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. We have enough trouble in this area without single-purpose accounts. Oppose opinions above frame this as a difference of opinion. It's not. The facts are well-established. It would be equally bad if he were advancing any other conspiracy theory beloved of the left, such as the idea that GMOs cause cancer. Guy (help!) 20:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What facts am I denying? There's an ongoing RfC about our current content dispute at Julian Assange - the one that motivated you to come here and try to get me banned. The plurality of editors currently agree with my proposed content in that RfC. Only a minority agree with your vote there. But if you're losing the content dispute because uninvolved editors find your arguments less persuasive than mine, I guess you can run to ANI and try to get me banned. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Request rewording - we don't need a thesis statement in the topic ban or the emphatic "very broadly construed" bits. Suggest cutting it down to "Thucydides411 is indefinitely topic-banned from Russian involvement in American politics and Julian Assange, both broadly construed. This topic ban can be appealed at WP:AN after a period of six months from its imposition has elapsed." That shouldn't change the meaning and is more neutrally phrased. Alternatively, could change this to a standard AP2 topic ban, since everything here seems to be a subset of AP2. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. As a note of order, user Thucydides411 has been previously banned on AE from all edits and pages related to US-Russia relations for three months. Please note his response: "@GoldenRing: What do I care?..." and so on. He was also previously discussed on ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not seeing anything much worse than the people pushing for sanctions. MVBW gives diffs from a content dispute two years ago where several people disagreed is reason for a sanction? No. Heck JzG is pretty much forbidden from acting in American politics because of their bias so maybe not the best choice on dealing with bias in American politics. BullRangifer is basically a SPA at this point with anything to do with Russia. This is all just getting a little out of hand and silly. PackMecEng (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this sanction as written. It seems personal and vindictive as written. Please propose something simpler and less attacky. Creffpublic has a better idea, IMHO. --Jayron32 20:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is a bitter, baseless, politically-driven proposal. - DoubleCross (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support First off, remember that Thucydides411 was already TBANned for this Russia-related disruption as an Arbcom Enforcement action. So it's all the worse that he still appears to be incapable of constructive interaction and discussion on articles or talk pages. He puts up walls of text, mostly devoid of meaning but full of insistence. He introduces personal disparagement and attacks, e.g. at @MrX: here or various Admins on the recent BLPN thread. Instead of responding to the views of other editors he repeats his own personal opinions over and over. And over. See e.g. that BLPN thread or the related thread earlier on Drmies' talk page. Typical of POV pushers, he often insists on cherrypicked, fringe, WP:RECENT or primary sources. A few editors have said they do not see any single diff that warrants a ban, but the problem is the hundreds of repetitions, disparagements, and WP:IDHT disruption on every article he edits, e.g. when he was promoting denial of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (see his nearly 100 posts in Talk Archive 8). I think it's actually broader than the Russia-related content. Please, see this thread. 76 repetitive, adversarial, and dismissive posts in a 9 day period. (Scroll down} apparently related to Marxist sensitivity over Critical Race Theory - the Russia thing again, maybe. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to see you voting here, given that you've been stalking me for years now on Wikipedia. By that, I mean periodically looking through my contributions and reverting my edits. How else can you explain that you showed up at Near-Earth Object Camera, an article completely outside your normal editing area, to revert my contribution there? You've also followed me to Casualties of the Iraq War, Useful idiot and Alliance for Securing Democracy.

Despite how you describe my contributions, the consensus often ends up supporting my proposals, as opposed to yours. This is what happened at Useful Idiot, where you attempted to remove the Oxford English Dictionary as an etymological source; at Casualties of the Iraq War, where you attempted to downplay the most rigorous peer-reviewed research (the Lancet papers) on the subject; and is now occurring at Julian Assange, where you are arguing to exclude well-sourced material that I introduced, against what appears to be a forming consensus in favor of inclusion. If I'm such a fringe POV-pusher who uses weak sourcing, why do uninvolved editors so often back my views against yours? -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this so-called "stalking" supports my point about WP:BATTLE. These people are warring over multiple article, and I think that is a concern.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support a TBAN from AP2, as his influence everywhere has consistently tended toward denial of Russian interference, which is contrary to the facts. The Russians did interfere, and Assange was a key player:

"The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process."

He's basically an Assange SPA who blocks progress on that topic, guarding the Assange article with extreme zeal so that it's hard to make any improvements if they show Assange in a negative light. (He deleted the quote above, and it still needs to be restored.) His deletions of such content are often later restored and become part of the article, showing that he was on the wrong side of RS, consensus, and history. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as Thucydides411 (with Darouet's help) actually deserves commendation for staying polite and sticking to facts while being pounded like this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, here is what had happened just a couple of days ago. In this edit, Thucydides411 removes the following info:

The report by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III released this past Friday amply documents that Assange, with the support of Russian intelligence, played a critical role in the 2016 presidential election. He is a potential missing link in the chain of understanding the extent to which foreign intervention affected the American electoral process.

This is correct, very important and well sourced view. However, Thucydides411 goes to AE to block a contributor who included this information. I do not think WP community should endorse such behavior. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

May as well notify that contributor, @Calton:, now that you've mentioned that matter here. SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)'

• Oppose This looks like nothing more than a content disagreement about politics. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

  Jauerback, it's not. It's a WP:SPA who is WP:OWNing articles to push a WP:FRINGE view. Guy (help!) 07:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. But it matters what view, exactly. He cries "BLP violation" on pages like Assange and Maria Butina [80], and makes misleading comments in the process. For example, no one removed the fact that Butina founded "Right to Bear Arms.", etc. Same misleading claims about editing of "Useful idiot" where he just removed content of the subject sourced to highest quality sources like books by Yale University Press, etc. [81]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the book published by Yale University Press was that it didn't mention the phrase "Useful idiot". The paragraph you added to Useful idiot that cited this source was synthesis: [82]. You used two unrelated quotes that the book discusses to make your own argument about the phrase "useful idiot", which the book does not mention.

Sloppy use of or disregard for sources was a recurring problem at Useful idiot. SPECIFICO created a talk page section titled, "Screw Saffire", in which they called William Safire a "NYTimes token Nixonite" and argued for disregarding Safire's article on the origins of the phrase "useful idiot". Just so that editors here understand, William Safire wrote the most in-depth article on the etymology of the phrase "useful idiot" that any of us editors was able to locate. The reason SPECIFICO wanted to "Screw Saffire" was that Safire came to the conclusion that there is no evidence linking the phrase to Lenin.

For anyone who finds all this back-and-forth bickering difficult to parse (I wouldn't blame you), I strongly recommend just taking a read through the talk archive of Useful idiot. Uninvolved editors can then form their own opinions on who reads sources carefully, who conducts themselves within the rules of Wikipedia, who tries to remain civil and reasonable and who doesn't. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No, this and all other sources you removed were very clearly on the subject of the page [83]. But it is meaningless to discuss anything here because any such disagreement will be regarded as a "content dispute". The only thing I can do is to stop editing any pages frequented by contributors like you (there are also a couple of others), and that is what I generally do. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per DoubleCross – bitter, baseless, politically-driven proposal. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I havent seen anything out of the normal for this. I think unfair to call him a SPA. Assuming arugendo that he is a SPA I dont think a TBAN is acceptable unless TE or disruptive editing is shown, and I haven't seen either. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Well, have you looked at the threads at Assange, Drmies talk, and BLPN? Do you think that the purported BLP violation, personal disparagement, etc. were all about to be validated up to the last of those dozens of accusations, repetitions, and equivocations? If no, that is what's called disruptive and actionable, as JzG has explained. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Further, I happened to see a link to a similar thread of Thucydides411 abusing BLPN at this link.

And this thread, in which an RfC was posted to resolve Thucydides411's denials of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. As soon as a few editors rejected his view, Thucydides launches personal aspersions against several other editors.

Here he is scolding @MelanieN:, again over Russian interference. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Whatever the rights and wrongs of his actions this proposal reads way to personal and politically motivated for me to support.Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - the more cases I see about content disputes, the more convinced I am that an AP3 is needed. Perhaps it is time for a fresh start in that topic area - wipe the slate clean, and hopefully get ArbCom to more closely review the issues that DS have created, not to mention unilateral actions and the imposition of tailor-made sanctions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The claimed 'facts' are not facts as such, but a disputed narrative. It'll be interesting in the long run to see, in retrospect, which editors turn out to be the heroes and villains.     ←   ZScarpia   16:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Of course Thucydides should be TBANNED for being a disinformation SPA, and I wonder what facts ZScarpia thinks are up for debate? The reality of Russian meddling in US elections? Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here? The sourcing leaves no doubt about this reality, anyone that would try to debate that here is being disruptive. I don't care if your "politics," which I take to mean, your personal politics, are different, here we follow sourcing. Going against that is sanctionable. Geogene (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The reality of Russian meddling in US elections? Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here?

This comment above shows that the issue is not Thucydides but content disputes with editors who are trying to silence other editors who they dispute with through ANI reports.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Thucydides411 pushes WP:FRINGE POVs with filibusters and disparagement of other editors. Those are behavioral disruptions, not content disputes, and when necessary, we block and ban editors to allow the community to get on with its work. Please read the links to evidence that have been provided in this matter. Yes, it's a huge amount to read, but that only reflects the monumental and longstanding extent of Thucydides411's misconduct. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The U.S meddling is only confirmed by the U.S. government, not by the Russian government. The U.S. government is not a source of "undisputed facts", in fact, every time we mention their allegations we should attribute, like we shouldn't say it in Wikivoice but in attribution to the U.S. Meuller report. The fact that we have editors calling for Tban for those who they dispute with is astonishing and disruptive. The editor in the comment above has admittedly said that he thinks all editors should be Tbanned because of content disagreements, "[t]he reality of Russian meddling in US elections? Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here?"--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's your fringe personal opinion. Reliable sources accept that the meddling took place, and editors that try to argue otherwise are POV-pushers. That's sanctionable. Geogene (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not my personal view. That's the other side view, Russia and other countries who don't trust the U.S. investigation. Also, your view is the U.S. view, it's one sided. This has nothing to with fringe views. The only confirmation for the Russia meddling comes from one side, the U.S. side. The issue here is your comment calling for a Tban for other editors who disagree with your government point of view/allegations against Russia (assuming that you are American). You said "[t]he reality of Russian meddling in US elections? Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here?" This sounds like something that should raise concern here.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course Russia disputes that they meddled in the election. Reliable sources don't care about that, so neither do we. By the way, why are you indefinitely blocked in Arabic Wikipedia? 22:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogene (talk • contribs)

Reliable sources do say that the Russian government denies the U.S. allegations. Reliable sources say that this is the U.S. allegation. You have called for a Tban to all editors who present any dispute to the U.S. allegations, you said, Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here?. Also my Arabic account isn't related to this discussion, don't try to change the subject here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware that Russia denies meddling. What is your point? Reliable sources say that the meddling took place. Also, there's a chance your indefinite ban from Arabic might just be relevant to your advocacy of POV-pushing here. Geogene (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You have literally called for a Tban to all editors who disagree with your point of view, who is POV-pushing here? Your words speak for themselves "Can we just TBAN all the accounts that would dispute that here?". Also, RSs say that this is what the U.S. own investigation says. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

RS's say that Russia meddled, you are POV pushing, and I look forward to the day that that TBAN comes down on you. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

RSs say that this is what the U.S. own investigation says, the Mueller report is the result of the U.S. investigation. The U.S. is not a neutral actor here. Russia says that it's investigation says it didn't meddle in the U.S. election and said that they are welcome to evidences. There is no investigation by a neutral actor. Think of it the other way around, if in the Russian election, Russia said that the U.S. meddled in its election and that the Russian version of the Mueller report concluded that the U.S. was meddling in their election, should we Tban those who disagree with Russia as fringe POV-pushers? This is how you sound to me. Your comment, "I look forward to the day that that TBAN comes down on you." shows exactly what this ANI report is for. Content dispute/disagreements.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You're just full of IDHT, aren't you? Geogene (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm going to lay this little egg right here as it demonstrates the ambiguities and uncertainties we're dealing with regarding this content. Read it carefully. The criticism against this editor is clearly centered on what content should/should not be included. We have 2 equal forces, "push & resist", debating each other and neither belong here. RfCs determine consensus, not ANI. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Atsme for the good source. User:SharabSalam, both sides cannot be right. I think you'll agree that one has to be lying. The controversy isn't just some "misunderstanding". I suggest you read Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, the sources in it, and the articles listed in its "See also" section. The conflict described above isn't about personal POV, but about one's attitude toward RS, but, of course, the sources we use form our personal POV, so indirectly our personal POV can end up becoming disruptive if it constantly wars with what RS say.

On the Russian Wikipedia, their evaluation of RS is likely quite different than here, and your views might be in line with their policies and not disruptive there. By contrast, at the English Wikipedia, your views are directly against our RS policy and the content and RS in myriad articles here, so please study the subject at the English Wikipedia and bring your thinking, or at least your public statements, into line with the sources we use and the articles we write. It is entirely possible for an editor to privately/secretly disagree with the content in our articles without it causing them any problems here, but if they publicly and persistently advocate fringe POV (=POV against RS and consensus) in their discussions, that becomes problematic. I know this is a huge and complex subject, so I wish you well in your research of the subject. Feel free to come to my talk page if you have questions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Boomerang Question

I think there are WP:BOOMERANG issues that need to be looked at here. It appears me that Guy JzG (talk · contribs) is too close to this Assange issue (or maybe AP2?). Is he using admin privileges to frame an already battleground ridden article, or simply acting as an impartial admin? He warned me on my talk page with this warning which I felt was unusual. I felt it would be normal for an uninvolved editor or admin, but for an involved admin, I felt it was a bit much. Thoughts? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think JzG (talk · contribs) is subject to WP:BOOMERANG? 207.38.146.86 (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• What actions has Guy taken in this issue as an admin? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

All of them, possibly. An admin’s status affects the wikiteurs around them, with a very few honorable exceptions. The recent debacle with Kudpung underlines this. Persons in authority are often quite clueless about the power imbalance spilling over to unrelated things. Qwirkle (talk)

But that's not Guy; that's other people. As long as admin—any admin—doesn't misuse their tools, it's up to other people how they react. ——SN54129 19:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this, I think. Any case of power imbalance leaves the person on the lower side more conscious of it than the one on top, and that’s a common problem here.

While i’d disagree strenuously that there is something worth a boomerang here, that has nothing to do with actual use of admin tools. Qwirkle (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I heartilly agree with you about power imablance, and I'm certainly not saying it does not exist—far from it. But a lot of the time editors perceive (operative word) admins as more "powerful" than they actually are. Anyway. Happy Saturday! ——SN54129 20:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, 2 of the last 3 arb desysop cases demonstrated no misuse of tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We're talking about how people react to admins, not arbcom judgmenets which are (thankfully) two very different things. ——SN54129 20:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Basically, the argument appears to be that JzG is respected as an admin and therefore his editing of articles should be limited because respected editors hold too much sway. So, we should limit admin editing (and perhaps any editor that is respected) and make admin recruitment more difficult. O3000 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No, that argument would be your strawman. Mine differs on three points. First, this isn’t about this particular admin, but a generalization about them, or a perception of them, as a group.

Next, it has nothing to do with respect, but with power.

Finally, it says nothing about restricting scope of writing, but that those in power should be taking care not only to not abuse one’s powers, but to be seen as not doing so. Qwirkle (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Admins don't use their tools on articles in which they are involved. O3000 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Admins aren’t supposed to use their tools on articles in which they are involved, a substantial difference. Qwirkle (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I have had very few limited interaction with this admin but he makes inflammatory comments and he does that with the intention to be provocative.

• My first interaction with this admin was in this deletion discussion the admin made many comments saying "oranges" instead of origins just to mock Trump, here is some examples, an editor says it is POV fork, Guy response with POV fork of what, exactly? I mean, I know the "oranges" theory is a POV fork of reality, but of which Wikipedia article is this a POV fork?
• My second interaction with this admin was in this ANI thread here he calls other editors OK, so the RT fanclub is out for Philip Cross' blood again. Cool, cool. [84] totally provocative comment only just to provoke.
• My third interaction was yesterday, the editor made a totally uneutral invitation to an RfC in WP:FTN, you can see the discussion, I have explained there how it is uneutral invitation while the admin didnt respond and ignored what I am saying.

Note, this is just with the limited interaction, imagine if I was an editor who has to deal with this provocation all the time. Recently many admins were reported in AE and their adminship was removed and I feel that what they did was nothing comparing to this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Ironic to see all this Wiki-identity politics chat -- what might be called "Admin privilege". As cited, one of Thucydides411's many disruptions is on the White privilege article, in which he has bludgeoned the talk page with 76 posts on the current version, including Marxist and other denials of the phenomenon. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe its time for special DS for all material related to Assange. No edits with out consensus, 1 edit per day period, Zero PA's (even of the mildest kind, in fact no commenting on users period), and a zero tolerance approach, one infraction and its a TBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, seems like a sensible idea. Guy (help!) 23:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

All the, ahem, productive discussion above Slater's comment should be hatted, and a new section opened to discuss instituting GS for Assange along the the lines Slater suggests. We can get that done here and now. Separately, someone should launch an RFC about whether we do or do not say in Wikivoice that Russia meddled in elections (if that RFC hasn't been run already). That way, editors not editing in compliance with the RFC could be sanctioned under GS. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, that RfC is an excellent suggestion. Whenever it happens, a notification should be placed at the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article (and the myriad related articles).

BTW, do you mean DS where you write GS, or am I forgetting something? -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I thought WP:AC/DS can only be instituted by Arbcom, but WP:GS can be instituted by the community. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative links. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A better idea would just be to move this complaint to AE, where we have a more orderly process and Admins do their best to decide based on policies and guidelines. Guy, I think you could make that move as OP. I don't think we want to have as many sets of page restrictions as there are topics. It's too complicated, and we already have plenty of policies against TE, FRINGE, PA, and other relevant behaviors. 1 edit a day? I've never seen that. Sounds like it would lead to thousand word posts on the talk page. SPECIFICO talk 01:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is enforcement. There are already several Arbcom motions and site policies that require a block or TBAN for Thucydides and possibly others. Additional complex or unusual restrictions are not going to make enforcement more likely. The current case needs to be resolved conclusively one way or the other. AE will provide a resolution. Nobody's going to be able to read this ANI thread, discount the POV and unsupported !votes, and arrive at a resolution all editors recognize as correct. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Weird attack

I don't know what this editor is doing or what they are on about, but it seems like it might be intended as an unhinged and pointless personal attack on myself and another editor from Doncram: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Warrowen_massacre#Nyah Perhaps they are having a mental health issue? Or someone has hijacked their account? Either way it's wierd, especially from an experienced editor. I don't really know what to make of it. Bacondrum (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It is weird but I don't think I'd call it an attack. It seems more like what I call "editing Wikipedia when one should be sleeping". It is sometimes revealing to consider what time zone the editor is working in...it could be the middle of the night. That's my polite interpretation from years of interacting with editors from all over the globe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I recently contacted Doncram about other problematic AfD edits they made, including attacking other editors[85]. They disagreed, but if they now start mocking people because an AfD ended with his prefered keep instead of delete, then it seems that the problems continue. Looking at e.g. this from today, containing gems like " If others support a good resolution of this AFD, please join into the edit war on the side of keeping some definition there! ", it seems like there really is a continuing problem with Doncram's comments at AfD and AfD talk. Fram (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• To Bacondrum's suggestion, I am not seeing any indication that this matter needs to be handled with reference to Doncram's mental health, let along as a mental health emergency. Should I have missed something, I would ask users to immediately contact the Arbitration Committee which is a better vehicle for intervention than ANI. AGK ■ 08:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• If I had a dollar for every time some keep !voter was gloaty and obnoxious I'd be able to host my own encyclopedia on my own servers. The higher your keep percentage at AfD, the more exempt you are from WP:CIVIL. This is a double standards issue, not a mental health one. Reyk _YO! 09:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that I don't think this should be considered in the purview of mental health issue. But I would say that this is not a preferable or even necessarily acceptable level of decorum between editors. It's a mild WP:CIVIL breach but not a sanctionable one. Just something to make a note of and keep for later if another issue ever arises with this editor. WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• I will note, regardless of whether or not we do anything about it, that this is not a new nor unexpected behavior for this user. A check of the blocklog going back almost a decade shows a clear pattern of tendentious, disruptive, incivil, and combative behavior. Whether or not we, as a community, want to keep encouraging such behavior is perhaps up for discussion, but this is NOT out of character, and fits in exactly in with the kind of behavior this user has exhibited continuously and without remit for pretty much their entire history here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 14:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• What Jayron32 said. Doncram's obsession with the idea that he's infallible, and consequently if other people disagree with him it's evidence that they're disruptive and consequently deserve to be punished, has gone on literally for years. (His current talkpage from this point onwards is a decent example of his typical "throw a tantrum until everyone else gives in just to shut him up" approach.) This is definitely not a compromised account or out of character; what would raise eyebrows would be if he wasn't being disruptive. ‑ Iridescent 14:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Sounds like Doncram should be blocked. Those 24 and 48 hour jobs don't seem to have worked though. ——SN54129 14:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Even a six-month block didn't have any effect; because he genuinely believes that he's perfect and all the rest of us are engaged in a conspiracy to bully him into submission, he just interprets any block or any other sanction as proof of the bullying. Since blocks don't have any effect (other than giving the rest of us a brief respite) and "civility parole" never works since civility is such a nebulous concept, only an indefinite block would have any effect, and although it could be reasonably justified given that Doncram is basically a one-man chilling effect, it would be extremely controversial and almost certainly end up at Arbcom. ‑ Iridescent 14:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  I hate to think that a Super Wario effect exists for repeat offenders, in that an offense has to rise to the grievous threshold indicative of an indef, before they can be blocked. But you're right, that's where we are; this seems to be something where the community simply cannot resolve the issue and this has to go to Arbcom. Blech. That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.--WaltCip (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  On the contrary (and I've argued this for years!) because the cornerstone of the blocking policy is "blocks are preventative, not punitive", all blocks should be indefinite and contingent upon the blocked user giving proper recognition of the problem that got them blocked, and proper assurances to change their behavior. A time-limited block on a registered account is, at its core and without any distinction from, a pure punishment. Since it self-expires, there is no motivation for the blocked user to self-correct or to learn how to be better, instead it is just putting someone in Wikijail for a short while. That serves no preventative measure beyond punishing the user and hoping the punishment makes them learn their lesson. Time-limited blocks should be reserved for IP addresses which may change after a time. If a registered account does something worthy of being blocked, they should have to establish that they intend to fix the problems that led to the block, that would emphasize the preventative nature of the block. --Jayron32 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  I disagree; there are plenty of occasions where "have an enforced few hours off to calm down/sober up/avoid saying something that would get you in more trouble" is a perfectly sensible move. The trouble with indefinite-until-appeal is that it then leads to a back and forth between supporters and opposers of the block, which ends up making what began as a straightforward dispute turn into a full-scale multi-party flareup. ‑ Iridescent 19:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Doncram is one of the hardest working, most experienced, and active editors on the project. In my opinion, it would be very problematic to indefinitely block him solely because he is sometimes intemperate and often long winded. I understand that many people find interacting with him to be annoying but no one can question his commitment to the project and the sheer breadth and depth of his contributions, including his yeoman's work at AFD, DYK, and other areas that are critical to the project. None of that makes him immune to rules, of course, but he should not be hounded off the project either. Michepman (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

So, instead we should allow him to hound everyone else off the project? How many good editors have to wander off not wanting to deal with his crap before his "good contributions" become a net negative? I'm not saying we should block him, but the "cut him some slack, he's produced a lot of good content" argument is a non-starter. Other editors produce good content too, and they should not be bullied out of the project by this kind of intractable rudeness. --Jayron32 18:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand where you are coming from. To be clear, I am not saying that nothing should be done to address the issues you laid out, I am just encouraging caution before going to the extreme step of an indefinite block. While I agree with you that the block policy should be reformed, from what i have seen indefinite blocks are not really better than time blocks; they just appear to. Before taking that heavy step I think more effort should be made to resolve the issue using less restrictive means than either time limited or indefinite blocks. Michepman (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

What exactly did you have in mind that hasn't been tried before? To reiterate, we're not talking about a generally-good editor who's having a bad day; we're talking about a straightforward long term abuse case who intersperses his disruption with the occasional period of adequate editing (although in my experience, even his non-abusive edits tend to be a mess that end up needing to be cleaned up by someone else). If you think you can persuade him that "rules are only for the little people and don't apply to me" isn't actually true, feel free to give it a go, but this is the adminstrators' noticeboard not a general chatroom, and since the administrators are the ones who've spent the past decade+ trying to clean up after Doncram you'll I hope forgive us for not sharing your optimism. ‑ Iridescent 19:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Given his last PA block was in 2011 IMHO a stern warning should given although others above know his behaviour better than I do, I'm lost on the dickish reply on the AFD considering it was closed in his favour..... –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) He's had 5 blocks since 2011. His last block was two months ago for disruptive editing. (post EC comment). Since you've clarified, how is a warning useful? Are we presuming he was never informed of the civility policy? That he somehow had no way of knowing that he shouldn't behave this way?--Jayron32 20:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  • As he's not been blocked for anything PA related for 9 years I feel blocking would be overkill ..... if this was a repeated issue over and over again then I'd agree with blocking but I can't support blocking someone for a dickish comment or 2 when no blocks have been issued for 9 years, (When I say over and over again I mean on a weekly/montly/yearly basis). –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

    • @Davey2010, you may want to have a read of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#Doncram and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Doncram before you go any further. It may technically be true that he hasn't been blocked for PAs for nine years, but that's because he was hauled off to Arbcom instead and restricted from editing in any of the areas in which he'd been attacking people, not because he'd turned over a new leaf and stopped launching random attacks on anyone who happened to disagree with him. ‑ Iridescent 07:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks Iridescent for that, Interesting read, Given those I have to agree blocking would indeed be appropriate here. –Davey2010^Talk 16:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• • • • @Iridescent: thanks for the reply above also. So it seems that Arbcom is the way forward for Doncram; it seesm to have helped them in the past. ——SN54129 13:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
        • I'd just like to point out that from the long winded comment below, Domcram clearly doesn't see how this behavior is uncongenial (and obnoxious). Bacondrum (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Hey, this is a surprise and seems to me unwarranted as an ANI issue. This is about my making a silly comment at a Talk page, after a couple editors had completely dismissed me in an AFD. In my silly comment, i even self-identified it as being silly. In this AFD, it happens I was the first in the AFD to argue for "Keep", based at first on my instinct and sense of the matter as developed in the AFD, informed by my particular life experience. In many other AFDs that way, I have gone on to do heavy work and find sources and otherwise make a convincing argument that carried the day. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Bagh (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of caves of Maryland are two that I find in my history. In this AFD, it was others who did the work, but it happened my sense of the matter arguably was borne out, and the article was Kept. In many other AFDs my early or late arguments for Keep or otherwise have carried the day, and in many others they have not. Many times I have been convinced by others arguments and eventually reversed my !vote. I don't see anything wrong with any of this so far. I could confess that I don't like to be completely dismissed, either, whether in AFDs or in an ANI proceeding. In this AFD i was written off as having "bad reasoning" in a series of comments by the two editors; it wasn't especially insulting, either, but a bit randomly I happened to choose to say "nyah" this time, pushing back a wee bit that maybe my reasoning/judgment was not so bad. It is not usual for me to do anything like this; I don't recall ever commenting at an AFD talk page this way before. But I think most people probably don't like to be dismissed completely, or criticized as has gone on here.

Here in this ANI there are a lot of personal attacks ("Unhinged", "mental health", assertions that I was attacking other editors, "Doncram's obsession with the idea that he's infallible, and consequently if other people disagree with him it's evidence that they're disruptive and consequently deserve to be punished", and more) which I rather completely disagree with. It is absolutely not true that I think I am infallible; I often have made mistakes and I do not deny that, and I often make apologies. I do things like setting up notes sheets at wp:NRHPHELP and other places explicitly to help me and others remember how to do various things purely because I know that I am fallible, that I often don't remember how to do lots of things. I don't see how others who actually know me could think that I think that I am superior, or anything like that. There are perhaps a few technical things that I do know about, but I certainly did not and do not assert that I actually know more about 1800s Australian history (the subject of this AFD) than others.

I don't read my own recent comment as representing a personal attack (it would be a stretch to call it even a mild rebuke, certainly not containing anything amounting to a personal attack, certainly not on the level of comments against me here). Certainly it didn't count as an insult, or abusive, or in any way a legal threat, or derogatory, or comparing anyone to terrorists, or using "someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their view", or any of the other kinds of things listed as types of personal attacks at wp:NPA. The bottom line at wp:NPA is saying that even if something is not included in the list of examples there, that if it is nonetheless "insulting or disparaging an editor" it is a personal attack. I don't see how my comment was either insulting or disparaging, do you? About my mental health or 'hingedness', well, thank you for your concern? I don't know where the policy statement is, but aren't suggestions/accusations about mental health specifically regarded as horrible personal attacks or otherwise verboten?

Overall, what is the point here, do Bacondrum and Drovers' Wife seriously feel injured, or unable to personally handle a mild silly comment, which could hardly be construed as a serious rebuke or even a criticism at all? It was just a silly statement "Nyah nyah", which in expanded form would be a comment that "Gee, it turns out that my early sense of the merits of this AFD happened to be borne out", which I think would be a fair comment to make. It was on an obscure Talk page. If the two editors feel seriously injured by what was said there, surely they and others are making it far worse for themselves by raising this to a very public level. To those editors, if you do feel seriously hurt by me, or insulted or disparaged, please do let me know, perhaps by private emails, and if I can come to understand how or why you feel injured I surely would want to apologize or make amends privately or publicly (though I don't currently think that is happening, I rather do not believe they are feeling hurt at all). And sure, if others can explain better, perhaps privately, what I might have done that has rubbed some people the wrong way, I think I would like hear/learn about that. But this forum is probably not the right place for that, and I probably will not want to reply further here. If there is some big policy reason why the Talk page of an AFD cannot be used after the AFD is closed, or anything similar, please do let me know. --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with sanctions that will go toward better collaborative behavior from Doncram. I ran into my own issues with Doncram and their walls of texts and constant redirects of legitimate articles. A small sample would be the Bachelor Lake AfD and Doncram's subsequent redirects of every lake in Brown County Minnesota. The above wall of text is an example of how they respond to every entry from !voters at AfDs. I found their behavior maddening and tendentious. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

IP editor using multiple IPs for vandalism

IP from Hungary keeps removing "present" from people's current relationships on the infobox in several articles without any explanation. They get reverted, warned and come back with a new IP the next day. I've found 15 IPs so far. They're also removing sourced portions of the article[86] and adding past boyfriends to the infobox, which is not allowed.[87][88][89]

In December, another editor warned one of the IPs (2A02:2F07:D60D:7300:8CE7:8E3C:4941:8907) to not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia,[90] and they got blocked for 72 hours for persistent vandalism on December 22, 2019,[91] so they may be using more IPs than these 15 listed below.

IPs:

• 178.164.217.248 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A02:2F07:D60D:7300:8CE7:8E3C:4941:8907 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:E38:6D79:9025:D012:AA04 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:8820:A155:D4A0:E784:B075 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2A38:B1C6:F75B:95AF:5C4C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:49B:191F:BAA6:3238:D772 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:879D:B485:7AC5:8221:73D4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 37.76.111.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 37.76.45.94 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2A38:4CDA:3856:AB7E:6422 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2031:95CB:93E4:73F2:9D69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2031:B1A6:A3ED:9764:438E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2037:640C:AA56:98CB:2C45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:2037:3C97:EDD:4ABD:FD2E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:36D:119:E38:F84D:FD37:F670:DE7E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=929455705&oldid=928175499
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=prev&oldid=932010888
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=932010888&oldid=931865085
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=937336919&oldid=937335261
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=943580145&oldid=943505147
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=943325968&oldid=943311890
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=943215660&oldid=943171533
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=943071472&oldid=942916154
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=940010164&oldid=939814044
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=939703062&oldid=939050102
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=938712049&oldid=937688254
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Cotillard&diff=937529614&oldid=937365853
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renée_Zellweger&diff=prev&oldid=929505294
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9e_Zellweger&diff=941676039&oldid=941633009
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9e_Zellweger&diff=943579994&oldid=943405760
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ren%C3%A9e_Zellweger&diff=943859906&oldid=943679071
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jenna_Dewan&diff=prev&oldid=943860086
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_McAdams&diff=prev&oldid=943864112
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enrique_Iglesias&diff=prev&oldid=943863306
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brenda_Song&diff=prev&oldid=943859448
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_McAdams&diff=943864112&oldid=943313527
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_McAdams&diff=943071320&oldid=942732838
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Kruger&diff=943580491&oldid=943313377
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Kruger&diff=941145528&oldid=940496640
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Kruger&diff=940496433&oldid=940341136
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diane_Kruger&diff=prev&oldid=940010530
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eva_Mendes&diff=943580608&oldid=943313234
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eva_Mendes&diff=941674552&oldid=941298959
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eva_Mendes&diff=prev&oldid=940010643
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goldie_Hawn&diff=prev&oldid=932010571
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Russell&diff=prev&oldid=932010669
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_Reedus&diff=prev&oldid=940010399
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guillaume_Canet&diff=943580403&oldid=943313477
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guillaume_Canet&diff=941145898&oldid=940948248
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Courteney_Cox&diff=prev&oldid=940497389

Zoolver (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I have looked through the diffs and the links in your statement. I am not seeing vandalism. I am seeing a formatting issue. Regarding removing sourced material, you link to one instance - that is a content issue which should be discussed on the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Zoolver: If you want any action taken here, you're going to have to present this in a simpler way. First, create ranges of IPs, not singles, and make sure that those ranges are all doing similar activity, meaning no collateral damage if the range is blocked. Second, at least some of the IPs in a range must have edited recently. I don't care about edits that occurred last month, let alone last year, but I'm willing to consider blocking a range for longer if the activity is recent and has been going on for some period of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• What else is necessary for you people to consider something as vandalism and block several IPs from the same editor doing the same thing for months after being warned several times by different editors and refusing to stop? First I reported it for sockpuppetry but you guys said that there was no sockpuppetry and suggested that I should take it here, now there's no vandalism, so what should I try next? @Bbb23: Did you even check the damn diffs and 15 IPs listed here? there are diffs from this week on that list. If that wasn't clear, the first diffs showed how it started last year and were followed by the most recent edits from this week showing the same pattern. No wonder Wikipedia is this mess when the admins aren't willing to resolve such an obvious vandalism and expect regular editors to be experts and do their job for them. @Lightburst: nobody is checking those talk pages, let alone the IP editor who started it all and got warned to stop it several times. They won't stop, that's why I took it straight to ANI instead of taking it to 50 talk pages and wait for an admin to check it someday when they feel like it, but now I see that it was useless anyway. Zoolver (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• Hey EEng, I can't find what MOS says about the desirability of "2007–present" vs. "2007–" (diff). Wasn't that talked about recently ... somewhere? Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  MOS:TOPRESENT. I don't recall any recent discussion on this and a lazy look at MOS and MOSNUM archives didn't find anything either. EEng 02:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, that confirms that the IP is wrong and style is "2007–present" while omitting "present" is wrong. Persistently unhelpful edits waste good editor's time. I'll try to have a look later. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 contributions of the IPs listed above are covered by Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:119:0:0:0:0:0/48 and it looks like it's one person. Their last edit was 08:23, 5 March 2020 which is a bit long ago for a block. @Zoolver: Please monitor the /48 link and let me know if it continues. An attempt should be made to engage them on their talk (not a warning but a friendly 'please stop removing "present" from infoboxes because the manual of style (MOS:TOPRESENT) requires "present"') but there's no point doing that unless using the talk page of a recently active IP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: They came back today.[92] [93][94] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoolver (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Zoolver: I left a message at User talk:2A01:36D:119:879D:893E:2073:9FA:3B43 in the hope that they will discuss the issue or at least stop removing "present". Please notify me again if you see more. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

User:210.6.209.89

Blocked user (second block, first for edit warring and now disruptive editing) is now attacking editors on their talk page, specifically this. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Also this though more incivility than a personal attack. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mr. Vernon: please notify the IP of this discussion – even though they are currently blocked, they have to be notified. --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Bonadea, yikes, I thought I had done that. Thanks, notice given. Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, my advice is to not argue with blocked editors. I've never seen anything good come of it. But I've revoked the IP editor's talk page access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Afdafadsfas - New user engaging in bot-like edits with no edit summary.

Afdafadsfas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Normally I'd take this to WP:AIV, but I want to get some extra eyes on this user's diffs after they appeared on my watchlist today. The acccount seems to have been creating today,a nd their only edits (160-ish so far) are adding or changing the {{Vital article}} template. No other edits, no user page, and no edit summaries have me a little intrigued.

I've not dug into whether these are valid contributions yet - Edits like these suggest to me the user is running some kind of bot script, but I'm not familiar with the behaviour. Someone more familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles may be able to provide more useful commentary than I can. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 13:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:OBVIOUSSOCK. ——SN54129 13:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Catdogkid -- Not quite sure what the hell's going on here

There seems to be some... very schizophrenic editing going on by Catdogkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I was going through my watchlist and caught the two edits in this diff, and reverted as blatant vandalism. I then checked their contribs, and found a weird mixture of genuinely helpful edits and more blatant vandalism (just a few samples of each). I'm... not entirely sure what to do about this, so I thought I'd throw it to you guys. It's almost as if either they think that productive edits "make up for" vandalistic edits, or we have two separate people logged into the same account at one time. Advice? rdfox 76 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It's an LTA vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Long-term promotional editing by multiple accounts

Moved to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Long-term promotional editing by multiple accounts

ANI Report for Graeme Bartlett and Ncmvocalist

• Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I did nothing wrong here. There were no consensus passed for these changes which lead me reverting the change back to original. 1

Ncmvocalist

Ncmvocalist did not review issue before pressing the final button to warn me for edit war. Basically jumped the gun. 1 Action i seek here is clearing of that specific warning and review Ncmvoclist actions. Regice2020 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The warning Ncmvocalist issued looks to be entirely justified because at the time Regice2020 had reverted the reversion of his change three times. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I actually reviewed the "issue" before I warned you, Regice2020; you did the wrong thing by edit-warring - particularly when you (nearly) broke the 3 revert rule with repeated reversions at 04:19, 8 March 2020, 05:52, 8 March 2020, 06:52, 8 March 2020 and 08:05, 8 March 2020. Instead of taking a step back and reviewing the policies in the warning against your edits, you "jumped the gun" by demanding that the warning be retracted and submitting this report. Your behaviour and the way in which you are editing needs to change as it is not constructive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett

Graeme Bartlett claimed a edit change was passed on talk page, but it was not. Despite WP:CON was never passed. I cant find any history of it. The user went on being disruptive to move forward with unapproved changes. Telling me i going be in violation in 3RR? 1 Regice2020 (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 has been edit warring introducing his change several times. However it was a mistake, as he was changing the title for the Diamond Princess to International conveyance. However the row with that only included the statistics for Diamond Princess. See ([95] [96] [97] [98]) for Regice2020 getting up to 3 reverts of the change he put in. All the warnings on his talk page are justified. My plan was to report to the edit warring notice board for a block if there were any more reverts from Regice2020. There is discussion on Template talk:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data‎ about how to deal with the Grand Princess statistics and other ships. instead of WP:BRD, Regice2020 has been involved in a BRRRRRRR. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing that violates the assumption of good faith in warning you about edit warring when you have been edit warring. That is wrong even when your edit is correct, but is especially wrong when the edit introduces factual errors, as in this case. I would suggest that you withdraw this report before the inevitable WP:BOOMERANG comes your way. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Phil Bridger; the disruptive editing by Regice2020 as OP. There is no merit to the complaint against Graeme Bartlett. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Regice2020 had violated 3RR on Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data.

• 15:56, 7 March 2020‎ Dying talk contribs‎ 26,134 bytes -9‎ edit link for diamond princess

1. 04:19, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 26,598 bytes -4‎ Does not make sense to say Diamond Princess count as Grand Princess on the table of cases/deaths/recovered.
2. 05:52, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 27,016 bytes -5‎ Diamond Princess does not represent all others - No question askes undothank
3. 06:52, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ m 27,515 bytes +9‎ Reverting a minor change due to no WP:CON
4. 08:05, 8 March 2020‎ Regice2020 talk contribs‎ 22,985 bytes +9‎ Reverting a minor change due to no WP:CON

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Pure WP:IDHT behaviour at their talk-page and at this thread (in combination with edit-warring). Further behaviour along these lines will result in much longer sanctions, I'm afraid. --qedk (t 心 c) 18:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Winniepediaa

Hello, I didn't know where to put this but was suggested to write here. A user has the password of the account in the userpage. Anyone can log in the account. User: User:Winniepediaa. J3133 (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a compromised account. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think his user page should be deleted.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This might have been overkill, but I've also requested a global lock. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the user page should be deleted, for reasons that I won't state, per WP:BEANS. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've done so. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert warring at Lee Ka-eun

The article about a pop singer was redirected to the band last year following AfD discussion, based on assessment of insufficient individual notability. Coolbruh123 has since continuously tried to reinstate it against consensus because notability is "obvious", and has been reverted by half a dozen editors who disagree [99]. They apparently don't intend to stop despite the discussion not going their way, talk page warnings,[100], and Rosguill laying out the situation for them quite clearly.[101] Would someone please consider putting a stop to this, be it by way of a more strongly worded warning, a short block, or similar. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No LOL.

Terry Christian

Please lock this and rev/delete the defamatory crap. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The article has been protected. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Terrific. Now, short of me copying the link or quoting the offensive content, perhaps we can have the defamation expunged. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually the problem goes back at least to February 1, if not longer ago. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Make that at least 20 June 2017. Narky Blert (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not still in the article. Most articles get vandalised I assumed this was about long standing inaccuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It is part of the edit history. Defamatory and libelous content may--must--be permanently reverted and deleted from articles and edit summaries. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

In UK. call a stranger by the names in my diff, and brace yourself for a punch in the face followed by a good kicking. They aren't banter, and IMO have no place in edit history. Narky Blert (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's my point, Narky Blert. It wasn't clear to me that Slatersteven understood that whether the offending material is in article space, talk page or edit summary, it has to be removed permanently from public view. It's sometimes difficult to get administrative attention on the matter. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It's completely bizarre that, while we're sitting around discussing it, the material is still in the blooming article. Wot gives? ——SN54129 18:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Amen, Serial Number 54129. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

CD63, exactly. What is jocular abuse, or even innocuous, in some circumstances or in some places can be wholly unacceptable elsewhere. It should be revdeled. Narky Blert (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert (et al), before my own RfA I had quite a few conversations with different admins about the threshold for what could fairly be described as grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material, and the impression I built up was that it depends. I wouldn't hesitate to revdel unsourced sex abuse allegations, or edit summaries with racist abuse in them or similar - but, going only on the diff presented above, I don't think it's routine to do it for the addition of insults such as 'twat' to an article. Happy to be corrected by me learnèd colleagues if they feel differently. I haven't been through the article history though, so if there's something more serious in there, you can fire diffs over to the admin's IRC channel. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: There is actually no point at all in even joining a converation about BLP violations in an article history if in your own words you haven't been through the article history. ——SN54129 18:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I didn't have time to read through three years of article history (since NB said it went back all the way to June 2017). I understand why CD63 didn't want to present diffs here, so I was suggesting an alternative channel (I don't know whether or not they were aware of that option already). That's perhaps not the most helpful thing I could have done, but I thought it was better than just ignoring the request entirely. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll let someone close this before I have to point out that the most egregious was less than 24-hours old. Oops. Close, please. ——SN54129 19:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, brilliant. If I'd known that, I'd have looked. I saw NB's comment, thought I don't have time to sit sorting through years of vandalism working out which revisions needed revdel, and suggested another channel they could use to report the relevant diffs. Sorry for misreading the situation. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Zzuuzz. ——SN54129 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. People complaining about lack of admin action need to consider we are a limited number of volunteers on a Sunday looking at a huge noticeboard among many other problems. About the revisions, I've removed what I've spotted of some clear BLP violations. When it comes to other edits, like the word 'twat', I am not so persuaded. I will have to have a think about it and revisit, so the response, if it comes at all, may be slower. I won't get into the technicalities of whether it's libellous or grossly offensive, but I quite like the definition mentioned by Narky Blert above - whether it would normally get you a swift punch in the face. Can we write that into policy? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, joking aside, I'd like policy to be a bit clearer on what ought/ought not to be revdelled - it seems very subjective. I remember being embarrassed a few times when I reported stuff that I thought was grossly offensive (certainly a lot worse than 'twat') on IRC only to be told that it didn't meet the threshold. Some sort of community discussion to arrive at a more helpful set of guidelines would be a good thing, in my view. The punch in the face test might be a good place to start... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think, now, that you've both been very reasonable about it, and from my earlier run through the history what's been caught was the most important. Many thanks. On a lighter note, I'm not sure I'd run with "what gets you a punch on the nose" being a good starting point—in my local that sometimes doesn't have to be much more than a raise of the eyebrow in the wrong direction  ;) Happy Sunday all. ——SN54129 20:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. And I do understand that there are times when fewer volunteers are at the keyboard. Sometimes that results in issues sitting for so long that they're overtaken by newer threads. As for whether or not 'twat' merits the rev/deletion treatment, I'd venture that it does. Not from any sense of priggishness, but because it's reasonable to make a case that any aspersion that likens a subject to genitalia doesn't have much place in the edit history. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, Terry Christian's entire recent career largely consistes of calling himself "a twat" (e.g. here, in which not only does he self-describe as "a twat" but a sympathetic profile nonetheless describes him as "the most hated man in television"; this is a reasonable reflection of his current reputation. By all means remove actual libel like the most recent diff, but if his biography isn't mentioning how widely disliked he is, something is wrong somewhere. We manage to handle it for other famous-for-being-disliked figures like Piers Morgan without too much difficulty. ‑ Iridescent 20:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

My "punch in the face test" was a rhetorical point made in argument, but it could be the basis for a rule-of-thumb guideline. Girth Summit: in which city would you feel it safer calling a stranger in a pub "a jessie"? (a) New York (b) York (c) Glasgow.

If someone self-describes, or is RS described, using a slur, either they (a) have a sense of humour or (b) deserve whatever's coming to them. Narky Blert (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, sorry if I'm being dim, but I don't understand the point you're making - where do the word jessie, or these different cities, come into this? I know what the word means in Glasgow, and while I might use it to a friend in jest, I wouldn't use it to a stranger; I haven't heard anyone use it in York or New York, so don't know it there is a difference in meaning that I should be picking up on? GirthSummit _(blether) 21:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: My point was only that offensive terms can be regional or national. "Queer" now seems to be acceptable in North America; IMO, it remains barely acceptable or unacceptable in UK. Narky Blert (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Girth Summit, I assume it's an elliptical way of saying (correctly) that slang doesn't travel and the word "twat" has different meanings in different places. I remember a very confused David Cameron having to apologise for saying it in an interview back when he was PM; in the South of England it's pretty much exclusively used in its a term of abuse: a contemptible or obnoxious person; a person who behaves stupidly; a fool, an idiot&nbsp… implying that a persons's behaviour, appearance, etc., is stupid or idiotic, with little or no greater force than 'twit' (OED) sense. ‑ Iridescent 21:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, Narky Blert OK, understood. Yes, I agree that levels of offensiveness aren't universal - which I think brings us back to a case by case analysis. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's case-by-case. In at least parts of the Midlands, "twat" is only slightly less offensive than the c-word. Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a history of promotional edits to the article as well. By all means add something about his public reception, so long as it isn't undue or rely on blogs or sources like 'The Poke.' But his being referred to by anatomical pejoratives in public discourse does not mean we accept it here. If someone drops an edit into Donald Trump's bio calling him a cunt, we revert it. Given the likelihood that it reflects the thoughts of millions, do we then leave it in the edit history? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to check the history of that specific article, but I expect that yes, we probably do. Revdel is uncontroversially used for libel and hate speech; generic rude words and insults, not so much. Worth considering that a general policy of revdelling words like twat would probably double the overall admin workload. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Many new accounts replacing articles with redirects

I've noticed many accounts that were created very recently are replacing various articles with redirects, with claims that they are "non-notable" or similar. I'm not sure whether the articles actually are non-notable or not, but I feel something is off with so many new accounts doing the same kind of thing, and if I remember correctly, there should generally be discussion before replacing an article with a redirect. Examples below. Diamond Blizzard talk 18:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

[102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120]

• I've looked at the first five of these and they're all completely reasonable redirects - non-notable people / albums in their own right, some unsourced BLPs, but for who a redirect to their "parent" article (usually a band or a relative) is perfectly OK. Black Kite (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay then. I was just wondering why there were so many new accounts doing the same thing, but I guess if the redirects are fine, it's okay. Diamond Blizzard talk 19:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's a bit weird, but I've been through them all now and can't really see any issues. Indeed, I've PRODded a couple because they didn't even have reasonable redirect targets. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• I looked at six accounts in Diamond Blizzard's diffs. They were all created today, within minutes of each other, and the redirects were their first edits. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

List of accounts with similar redirects:

• ‎Spanishgirlswantmypesos (talk · contribs)
• ‎Pullupwith50 (talk · contribs)
• ‎Thesefeelingsofpower (talk · contribs)
• ‎QuarterCoster (talk · contribs)
• ‎Neednomorelove (talk · contribs)
• ‎Exhaledepression (talk · contribs)
• ‎Leftwithnothingbutasoul (talk · contribs)
• ‎Onetouchandiwasabeliever (talk · contribs)
• ASkyFullOfDreams (talk · contribs)
• ‎VillageAgreement (talk · contribs)
• ‎Freezinginagony (talk · contribs)
• ‎Burntinvasion (talk · contribs)
• ‎Glockwiththelick (talk · contribs)
• ‎Hesaidtheskywasblue (talk · contribs)
• ‎BreathEmbracement (talk · contribs)
• ‎Pollowinthewoods (talk · contribs)
• ‎Bigbulletfeels (talk · contribs)
• ‎Justlivelikenotomorrow (talk · contribs)
• ‎PaintingofthePatek (talk · contribs)
• ‎Love ain't meant for demons (talk · contribs)
• ProfoundExploration (talk · contribs)
• ‎CabbageCounting (talk · contribs)
• ‎Bottleseverywhere (talk · contribs)
• ‎RecklessReputation (talk · contribs)
• ColdLikeWinter (talk · contribs)
• ‎SmokelessWater (talk · contribs)
• ‎GallantlyWaiting (talk · contribs)
• ‎Greyandproud (talk · contribs)
• ‎FlipaYapple (talk · contribs)
• ‎MumblingJumbler (talk · contribs)
• ‎FederickManeuvering (talk · contribs)
• ‎Loveofogg (talk · contribs)
• ‎SunsetsAreOverrated (talk · contribs)
• ‎SoullessAim (talk · contribs)
• ‎Slippingawaycarelessly (talk · contribs)
• ‎ChasinandLasin (talk · contribs)
• ‎MajesticTimber (talk · contribs)
• ‎Bleeted (talk · contribs)
• ‎Monstove (talk · contribs)
• ‎HumbleOctopus (talk · contribs)
• ‎Negotiatednegotiation (talk · contribs)
• ‎Evendingle (talk · contribs)
• ‎The pangea pimp (talk · contribs)
• ‎SlimeJuice (talk · contribs)
• Don'tTrustThesePopes (talk · contribs)
• GangTies (talk · contribs)
• HumbleOctopus (talk · contribs)
• HeavenlyBeing (talk · contribs)

Some of the accounts have been locked. I also noticed two, not mentioned here, that haven't redirected but have removed content, so I don't know if these are related. Peter James (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Not all. There's definitely a pattern, accounts with two edits (including redirecting the talk page...) --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Nselaa Ward AFD

Nselaa Ward was AFDd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nselaa Ward and an IP nearly immediately closed the AFD as speedy keep with no rationale. That in itself wasn't that concerning, but then they took the notice off the page and put the past AFD template on the talk page suggesting a level of experience I don't expect in a new IP editor. See contributions Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:1C22:1001:28FA:DC35:A47:4D68 Jahaza (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that the deletion discussion has been reopened. I can't think of any better way to prejudice a discussion against the position supported by the editor. If I hadn't seen so many cases of gross stupidity on Wikipedia I would suspect that this was actually done by someone who wants the article deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

user warning needed

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

---

Sorry If it is wrong place. I noticed User:Dilip2002 translating article from bnwiki without giving proper attribution. Also he is also translating articles using google translate (i'm 100% sure, i found 100% match). I'm not familiar with enwiki's warning/notice system. Could someone send him a warning/notice regarding this two issue please. Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

আফতাবুজ্জামান, you are right. Dilip2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating largely unedited machine translations. I have issued a 24 h block to get them to stop, and will explain the issue. Sandstein 22:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I am also WP:PRODding the machine translations. Sandstein 22:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

The Charlie Bondhus article and User:Mbondhus

Charlie Bondhus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mbondhus (talk · contribs)

Can we get some assistance on this? Mbondhus says he's Charlie Bondhus, and he keeps changing the text of the article to a different name. Says he wants the title of the article changed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have provided links on the Talk page and have offered to supply the newspaper article announcing the name change. I tried to upload the latter to Wikimedia Commons but it won't let me because I don't own the rights to it. I'm not a Wikipedia editor and I don't really know what to do. I'd just like my page to be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbondhus (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that Bondhus' website reflects the name change, as does https://www.raritanval.edu/node/2421. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the article to "Michael McKeown Bondhus"— Diannaa (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Repeated bogus OR accusations

IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs)

This editor has accused me of "original research" on multiple occasions, most recently here, but also here, here, here, here, here and here. I actually warned him that if he kept it up I would request he be blocked back in November, and had forgotten about it before he picked it up again last week -- after an admin had explicitly said (twice) that what he was talking about was not original research. (Indeed, I think I pointed it out to him, but can't seem to find where I did, that the first paragraph of WP:NOR actually explicitly clarifies the point.) I issued a second "final warning" before scrolling up on the page and noticing that it was the second time -- he responded by claiming that it was his "opinion" to which he is "entitled" that I was violating our NOR policy and claiming obstinately that Wugapodes hadn't explicitly said he was wrong, so here I am.

I'm not sure what there is to do at this point; he seems to be ignoring all attempts to explain the policy to him, either because he is incapable of understanding the difference between WP:EDITDISC and WP:OR, or because he already understands the difference but is pretending not to in order to have an excuse to keep needling me. Either one probably merits a block of some kind so that he is forced to get the message, but a further investigation of his activities elsewhere on the project might be warranted to see if he has done the same elsewhere.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Mottainai page ban

In addition to IvoryTower123, four other editors have also argued that many of Hijiri88's edits in the article of mottainai are original research.[121][122][123][124] The fact that five editors have expressed the same concern means that it's obviously a legitimate content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page, not at ANI.

The above thread needs to be seen in the context of the intimidation tactics Hijiri88 is using to force through his edits. This is indicative of a battleground mentality, such as in this post where Hijiri88 argues that ALL six people who disagreed with him in the last RFC should be banned.[125] Just look at a few of the threats he has made against those who disagreed with him.

• Myself – "I could ask for you to be blocked for the blatant trolling", "I will be requesting that you be blocked"
• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) - "I will be requesting that your previous one-year block be reinstated, this time indefinitely", "this affair will not end well for you"
• Krow750 (talk · contribs) - "I will have to request that you be blocked", "Doubling down could potentially subject you to other editors monitoring your behaviour"
• IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs) - "I will ask you to take this last chance to demonstrate your good faith by retracting your !vote", "I will ask that you be blocked"

Hijiri88 also canvassed for support with a non-neutral message on the reliable sources noticeboard.[126] He has made personal attacks on talk pages[127][128][129][130] and in edit summaries.[131][132]

Hijiri88 has also been bludgeoning the talk page. The edit history of the mottainai talk page shows that Hijiri88 has edited it 221 times in the last 4 months, far more than anyone else.

Much of this recent bludgeoning is just more personal attacks and threats. In the latest RFC, Hijiri88 has made these comments to 5 different editors: "The above is a bad-faith comment", "more likely, you came here because of the on-wiki agenda", "You have a history of showing poor judgement" "I will request that those making them be blocked", "you need to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia"

Therefore, I propose that Hijiri88 be page-banned from the article mottainai.

• Support as proposer.Martinthewriter (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Shashank5988

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

---

Shashank5988 (talk · contribs), who is editing for over 6 years with a clean block log, has been blocked by Doug Weller over what appears to be a single edit to revert a serial ban evading sock.

Shashank5988 restored an earlier version per this edit with the summary "revert socks and unexplained removals". The edit summary seems accurate because all of the content (discounting refilling, bot edits), was added by ban evading sock puppets such as "Vijay bramhane"[133], "Mahendramisal"[134], and his IP socks[135][136][137] geolocating to Maharashtra.

Now I am not seeing why Doug Weller, who is himself an involved party, had to make this block with a clearly misleading block summary "Major blanking despite warnings" in the clear absence of any recent warning or absence of edit done in bad faith. This came after Newslinger made a misleading revert by wrongly claiming that Shashank5988 made "unexplained removal"[138] on the article and himself restoring excessive puffery and excessive catalogs added by the banned sock. The edit was correctly explained and didn't required Newslinger to revert, let alone dropping a frivolous warning on talk page of Shashank5988.[139]

To wrap it up, the user in question should be unblocked because there are no valid basis behind this block. Azuredivay (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) who is editing for over 6 years with a clean block log is an extremely misleading description of this edit history. Someone who registers an account and hardly ever uses it for four years, then over the course of two years makes about as many edits as I used to make in a month, cannot be described that way in good faith. Was it written with the specific intent of misleading the reader, or is it just a lack of due diligence before filing an ANI report? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I see a lot of warnings on their page, going back several years, for making the kind of edits for which they received a block. Their edit summary says "reverted socks and unexplained removals" but in fact in this edit removed well more than half the article. Newslinger is correct, that is a misleading edit summary. I endorse the block. It is for 31 hours, not forever. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Were there any recent warnings, say, in last 6 months? I found none, and the block is a clear violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK over reverting a sock puppet. Do you have any evidence that the "more than half the article" wasn't written by the ban evading socks contrary to the evidence substantiated by OP? I support speedy unblock in this case.Pectore^talk 04:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

My revert of Shashank5988 at Special:Diff/944597629 used the edit summary 'Revert unexplained removal of content. The edit summary of Special:Diff/944594667 is not consistent with the changes made. Please explain on the talk page who the alleged "socks" are'. Shashank5988's edit used the edit summary "revert socks and unexplained removals", yet removed 19,257 characters of content from the article. That's what I intended to highlight with the phrase "not consistent": Shashank5988 claimed to revert "unexplained removals", while removing a large quantity of content from the article. As outlined in WP:EDITCONSENSUS, an edit that departs from the current consensus can be reverted if an editor does not believe that it improves the article. Shashank5988's reversion of the last years' worth of article improvements was bold, and I restored the longstanding version of the article.

User talk:Shashank5988 shows a long history of warnings and complaints from other editors about inappropriate reverts and other disruptive actions performed by Shashank5988. In light of this, Doug Weller's 31-hour block is well-justified. I do not see any indication that Doug Weller is involved, as they have only behaved in an administrative capacity in regard to Shashank5988's past disputes.

Finally, please be sure to notify all involved editors with {{subst:ANI-notice}}, as required by the notice at the top of this page. — Newslinger talk 04:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

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