Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Battleground behaviour from Graywalls not abating

• Graywalls (talk · contribs)

I first interacted with Graywalls when they AFD'd the Civic Media Center library. I was alerted to the discussion since it was on my watchlist, I frequently edit articles about infoshops, social centres and squatting movements. I noticed Graywalls was exhibiting battleground behaviour, jumping on every response. We then met on Template:Squatting in the United States and ABC No Rio. At the latter Graywalls was deleting a "see also" section which had become sprawling, I offered a compromise and was reverted. We then discussed and I was not impressed with their appeal to an imagined consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proper_use_of_SEE_ALSO. Graywalls used the term BS which I took to mean "bullshit" and I queried why they would use it.

Graywalls then popped up at Squatting, making bold edits such as adding "Original research" and "Unreliable sources" to the top of the article without specifying what needed improving. I reverted and asked for clarification on which of the 130+ sources they were referring to. The talkpage debate became acrimonious since Graywalls would link to a guideline, I would reply with my interpretation, then Graywalls would launch into incomprehensible ranting so the debate would grind to a halt, then the BRD cycle would begin again. They were also throwing around terms such as bullshit, garbage, junk which I do not feel are conducive to a cordial debate.

Overall I found it hard to have a reasonable conversation and started to doubt that Graywalls is here to improve the encylopedia. I certainly lost faith on this edit, where Graywalls reverted me and took out the inbetween edits I had made. I was cross about my edits being carelessly discarded so I said "redo edits trashed by a bad revert, see talk Talk:Squatting#Improving_the_page", Graywalls gave what I thought was a grating apology, then seemed to get angry about my edit summary later. They even came to the brink of 3RR on a talkpage discussion about article rating!? I also started to notice that Graywalls was tracking my edits, for example popping up at Squat Milada.

Which brings us to today. After i have disengaged from Graywalls for five days, I see that Graywalls has now popped up at Squatting in the Netherlands, saying "search on "indymedia.nl" from the WP:RSP Independent Media Center brought me to this" - funny how Graywalls decided to start with that article as opposed to all the others in the list, especially since I have been editing it these last few days as part of a GA nomination. You could say it's a remarkable coincidence.

Graywalls has also reverted my edit on Dutch squatting ban, saying "(removing indymedia per WP:RSP and RS/N Oct. 2020)". This despite the only person to respond to my question about this specific source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Indymedia actually saying "However, being generally unreliable doesn't prevent it from being cited alongside reliable sources when it contains primary source evidence, such as photographs, where editors have determined that this is useful". Meanwhile, Graywalls had contributed to the debate there by saying "I saw a dog do its business inside a Walmart a while back".

To sum up, I feel that Graywalls is hounding my edits and probably editing not sober, as the replies tend to become incoherent as the day goes on. I am happy to collaborate to improve pages but this now becoming difficult. I have followed the dispute resolution steps and disengaged completely with Graywalls since October 4. Unfortunately their battleground behaviour continues to the point that I feel my edits are being hounded. I am disappointed to have to come here instead of spending my time on content creation. I feel I have already tried to engage with Graywalls and work this through on various talkpages and at RSN, but it hasn't worked. I feel the trend to double down on a position instead of debating is all too common on wikipedia. Normally I can simply ignore and move on, but the acrimony is spread across different pages and shows no sign of abating. Mujinga (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls' infoshop AfDs are also worth nothing (see, in particular, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bluestockings (bookstore)). Their nom-only AfD stats do not demonstrate a great correspondence with consensus, which suggests to me that Graywalls may be interested in nominating articles, particularly about left-leaning subjects, for non-notability related reasons. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga:, I understand BS was impolite and you will see I withdrew it, I was just getting quite frustrated in the back and forth. If I come upon articles and problem sources (such as unreliable sources Independent Media Center, blogspot, and similar), I sometimes search them via insource: search. "funny how Graywalls decided to start with that article as opposed to all the others in the list". Why yes I actually do, and you can check that yourself. I don't edit, or not edit because of you. I am making them because they contain anecdotes and personal accounts and share same type sources. I clarified that to you in talk comment you left. In Squatting in the Netherlands, I noticed it was being processed in GA review, so I actually took it to talk instead of removing it directly to minimize disruption. BTW, for those not aware; IMC includes domains such as Indymedia.org, Indymedia.nl, Indybay.org, Phillyimc.org. The variants are listed in the "Independent Media Center" in WP:RSP list. Graywalls (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings:, I do nominate things in a cluster of similar things if they share similar issues. That was not a good nomination and I should have dug better for sources. I try to avoid these situations, and I do actually dig around deeper for sources after that happened. My decision to nom things are not based on left leaning or not. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hell_Shaking_Street_Preachers and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Camilla_Tyldum.

Graywalls (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga:, as I already retracted about an hour after it was originally said once you made me aware that it was offensive to you. I apologize if "BS" used in the context of my frustration with the argument. It's interesting that you keep insist on inserting sources like Squat.net, Indymedia.org even though you seem to be well aware of proper sourcing as can be seen here. It's rather contradictory that you're here using directed slight against me such as the unwarranted and untrue accusation that I am "not editing sober" when you came here partly to express your concerns about my language. In a different, but similar concerns about introducing contents based on questionable sources, you took to making attack on the other editor like calling their edits "vandalism" in your content dispute just as you labeled my edits "trashed" where it seems to be you were suggesting the onus was on them to prove the sources are not reliable source rather than on you to show sources are RS to be included. While you're not using swear words, you're making here directed attack such as accusing them of driving editors away. Graywalls (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the issued raised by OP, there are WP:OR/WP:NPOV concerns about Graywalls's photo uploads. These were uploaded as "own work" and added to articles with the following captions and edit summaries:

• 
  1. Added to Needle and syringe programmes with the caption A mountain of syringes at a NSP operation in the St. Johns neighborhood in Portland, Oregon United States where syringes and other paraphernalia are given out without question. and edit summary add proof that some NSPs are failing to require return of dirty syringes.
• 2. Added to Needle and syringe programmes with the caption Addicts huddled around a needle exchange, Outside In IDU Health Services in Portland, Oregon, United States in 2019
  2. Added to Needle and syringe programmes with the caption Addicts huddled around a needle exchange, Outside In IDU Health Services in Portland, Oregon, United States in 2019
• 3. Added to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program with the caption Lids and shrink wrap from bottled water that was purchased with SNAP for the purpose of trafficking benefits into cash through bottle deposit in Oregon
  3. Added to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program with the caption Lids and shrink wrap from bottled water that was purchased with SNAP for the purpose of trafficking benefits into cash through bottle deposit in Oregon
• 
  4. Added to Welfare fraud with the caption "water dumping" fraud in Oregon. Large quantities of bottle caps and shrink wrap discarded by the redemption area of a grocery store after they were purchased with food stamps for the purpose of dumping them out to claim container redemption value.

  Also added to Oregon Bottle Bill with caption Discarded bottle lids and packaging after cases of water purchased on SNAP was dumped to cash out the deposit value at the bottle return area at a Fred Meyer store in Portland, Oregon
• 
  5. Added to Homelessness in Oregon with the caption An illegal transient encampment by a substation in Lloyd District neighborhood of Portland in 2020.
• 
  6. Added to Union Pacific Railroad with the caption One of the damaged support columns for Going Street overpass in Portland, Oregon damaged by the Union Pacific Railroad Company and edit summary add picture of overpass column that Union Pacific ruined
• 
  7. Added to Mook (graffiti artist) with the caption Marcus Edward Gunther's graffiti tag on a building on NW 3rd avenue in the Oldtown-Chinatown neighborhood of Portland and edit summary add a photo of Gunther's vandalism
• 
  8. Added to Hoffman Construction Company with the caption A number of workers close together in July 2020 at the Hoffman Construction's Lincoln High School site

Is #8 a social distancing criticism? Additionally, (9) I'm scratching my head about adding a picture of an alarm system to Wapato Corrections Facility and (10) this image might be copyvio. Haven't gone through all the uploads or looked at other edits, but in looking through uploads, these ones jump out. Lev!vich 22:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich:, I am not seeing how this relates to anything here. The mural picture was taken by myself and it is of relatively low resolution as part of the view of a park. No concerns about copyright have come up and if you believe that's a concern, I am happy to try to resolve it. And I don't know where you're going with the alarm panel. That seems like a content dispute. No issues have been raised before. #8 is visualizes the observations made by one of the newspapers; with my own picture since I happened to have one. "social distance criticism" where did that come from? Graywalls (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding the images especially problematic, and suggest NOTHERE problems. Behavior aside, there are NOT, OR, and POV problems with these images and their use. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The OP is about your editing in articles related to squatting (homelessness). Photos #1-5 are about homelessness, welfare, and drug addiction. #6-8 are other examples of OR/NPOV problems with photos. #8, "a number of workers close together in July 2020" is not really accurate (three might be a number, but "a number of" implies "many") and overly focuses on "close together", implying the company is ignoring social distancing protocols during the pandemic (July 2020). Otherwise, why would you write "close together" instead of just something like "a Hoffman construction site"? #9: why are we including an alarm system photo in an article about a facility? Seems like ... well, not a great idea to publicize that kind of information. #10: Unless you painted the mural, I believe it's copyvio for us to publish a photograph of it without the author's permission. Lev!vich 23:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't willfully put infringing images, but I took it down until it is figured out. Graywalls (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States (37521073921).jpg

99. Tax cheat living in public housing

Re #9: To be fair, Wapato Corrections Facility isn't a corrections facility. But all those captions are definitely problematic, to say the least. EEng 05:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

True, a more accurate name would be "Wapato Mistakes Facility". Lev!vich 05:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that they want to work for a tabloid rag or internet shaming site rather than an encyclopaedia. Very poor quality photos of zero encyclopaedic value. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Why would anyone think that these photos and captions are suitable for the encyclopedia? Number 4 just blows the mind, really. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@EEng:, it was built as a jail and it was never put into use and this is what the building is notable for. I didn't name the article so that isn't my issue. Graywalls (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

For those who don't know, Wapato Corrections Facility was built as a prison but is now a homeless shelter. (I'm still wondering why we have a picture of the alarm panel of a homeless shelter.) Lev!vich 16:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: - It looked rather interesting and someone who has never seen inside of such a building might find it cool too. Who knows if it's even in use. It's part of the original install back in early 2000s. The pictures weren't taken specifically for Wikipedia. If you take contents issues with that page, why haven't you taken it to the article's talk page? Graywalls (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Because there are ten of them. (Maybe more, I just stopped at ten.) Lev!vich 17:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I just remove a copy and paste of the Belinda Johnson article into their user talk page, without attribution, which also put mainspace categories into their user talkpage. It should be noted that it was not Graywalls that pasted it into the talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Photo update: Looks like all the images and captions above except #7 have been removed from the articles by various editors and they haven't been reinstated except at Union Pacific Railroad but I think it's stable for the moment. #10 was deleted from Commons for copyvio [1]. #3 and #4 are pending deletion at Commons. Lev!vich 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually pulled the mural photo from the article once it was made aware to me it might be infringing and I G7'd it over at Commons HERE and it was offline before it was deleted on buidhe's nomination. What are you trying to accomplish? Oh and I'm also noting that in a response to my question at Commons help desk, it was suggested that while it wouldn't be allowed on commons, it might be ok, as a low resolution picture uploaded only on English Wikipedia under fair use. It was a misunderstanding. Please assume good faith, thanks. Graywalls (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

More hounding

OK so from reading the above, it seems other people also have problems with Graywalls. I had hoped that posting here would stop the battleground behaviour and I am staying disengaged, however they have pinged me back here twice intending to carry on an argument and exhibiting the very behaviour I wanted to highlight originally. The second time they linked to my edits from as far back as March 2019, supplying hard evidence that they are stalking my edits (I first interacted with Graywalls last month). Mujinga (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You started the dispute in this noticeboard to share your concerns about my my word selection "BS" which you felt was unseemly for which I retracted in an hour after posting and apologized, but you made it a personal attack of accusing me of editing "not sober" against no personal attack. It's hardly stalking that I go investigate how you interact with other editors during a content dispute sharing what I found here in light of the very dispute you initiated. Spreading rumors like this in article talk is improper. Article talk pages are not for airing personal allegations. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Mujinga, while I understand that this place can be a frustrating experience at times, ...probably editing not sober is a snide personal attack, intended to weaken Graywall's editorial and personal reputation. Do you routinely include these kinds of inflammatory personal comments when interacting with editors? I agree that the photo captions constitute OR and need to be removed or the content adequately sourced. Other than that I feel that this AN/I is starting to 'pile on', using the opportunity to go shopping for evidence of 'problematic' editing rather than provide straightforward diffs showing obvious violation of policy in line with the original dispute, which was entirely related to behavioral and civility issues. For the evidence of that supplied so far, Graywalls has retracted and apologized. RandomGnome (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed that I ask for admin assistance here and basically all I get in direct answer is more nonsensical arguments from Graywalls, the very thing I wanted to avoid. RandomGnome you have under 200 edits so I'm simply not interested in these sort of wild questions from you. I'm happy to draw a line under this matter for now, but if I have to deal with anything like this crap - Talk:Squatting#Article_assessment - from Graywalls again I'll be back because I don't want to spend my editing time on wikipedia dealing with this time sink. Mujinga (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe WP:BOOMERANG for civility and personal attack is in order for Mujinga who came here express concerns about language choice but has used contentious accusation like ...probably editing not sober and continuing to exhibit uncivil and demeaning attitude right on ANI. Such as that directed at another user RandomGnome you have under 200 edits so I'm simply not interested in these sort of wild questions from you. in the very grievance they've started, in addition to casting aspersion in inappropriate place. It's absurd they're using expression like this crap - Talk:Squatting#Article_assessment when they're riled up over the way I said "BS" in the context I did. I have not since used expressions they've specifically found it offensive. Graywalls (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil Behaviour, Source Deletion, and Article Neutrality (French Revolution)

Hello ANI,

On the following page, French Revolution, a user has been altering very sensitive information in the article, removing references, and rewording statements without any synthesis having been achieved on the talk page. The user – Robinvp11 – makes edits of his own accord despite at least three editors in the discussion being out of agreement with him and no consensus having been reached. He responds to other users with condescension and ad hominem (or simply does not respond at all) and does not seek input from other involved editors.

The neutrality of the article has now come into question, and a tag displaying such may need to be added. 021120x (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please be aware in the future that users in question must be notified on their talk page as per the policies noted at the top of this page. I have done so for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I am more than happy for the ANI to review the entire thread, which began when the individual above (a new editor) unilaterally changed the Lead of a key article to reflect an extremely contentious minority perspective and the page curator asked for support. I believe you'll find exactly the opposite; my apologies in advance and if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. Robinvp11 (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll also point out that posting in the discussion is normally interpreted as seeking input from others. I also don't see a need for a NPOV tag. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

To correct an above misstatement, the page was not "unilaterally changed", nor did the "page curator" ask for support. The individual who raised the discussion had no connection to the page nor had any knowledge of the topic. User Robinvp11 has reverted the consensus lede as written by user Gwillhickers, without even providing a response to the user's lengthy post on the Talk page. Further, user Robinvp11 has removed information and primary source material that was not even under discussion; only two specific statements were being contested. The page should be reverted back to last edit by Gwillhickers, which is last point at which consensus was reached.

Regarding commenting on user talk page, comments would be no different than what has already been mentioned on article talk page. 021120x (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@021120x: User Robinvp11 has reverted the consensus lede as written by user Gwillhickers. Emphasis in original. Do you have any WP:DIFFs? I can't find Gwillhickers ever editing the article in the past few years. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I ran a search through User Contribution Search and Gwillhickers has never edited the article proper (just the talk page on September 11 and 14), so you'll have to clarify what you mean by "consensus lede". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, Tenryuu 🐲, I was referring to the lede as it existed following the final comment of Gwillhickers, which received no further input. That lede summarization reflected what had been discussed on the page and was a synthesis of the contributions; subsequent edits have been done of the editor's own accord and have entirely changed the meaning of the lede paragraph – along with removing material that was not being contested. 021120x (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the first time in six years I've been involved in one of these, so I'm not sure how this works. Since an ANI escalation is relatively rare, I'd like to make a couple of points.

(1) The edit history for 'French Revolution' is clear; it shows (a) Gwillhickers has never been involved in editing the article. (b) the changes were inserted by User 021120x on 28th May, and (c) I am not the first person to object; they were removed on 24 June, a change later reversed by User 021120x on 25th on the grounds of Vandalism.

(2) On User talk:021120x there is a lengthy explanation by User:Acebulf as to their concerns re the edits made to the Lead, and that "you're stating a conclusion that isn't accepted by modern historiography as a generally accepted fact."

(3) While I'm happy to assume Good Intent, the explanation provided above at 17:07 is not an accurate summary of the discussion on the Talkpage;

(4) If you look at the article on American exceptionalism, User 021120x has reversed edits because they represent "a critique of the US created and propagated by European scholars". The same person who persistently denies the validity of European views on the US is now attempting to insert a perspective on the French Revolution which is a minority view even among American historians, and accusing me of 'lack of neutrality.' Robinvp11 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the lede as it existed following the final comment of Gwillhickers, which received no further input. I assume you're referring to this diff?

He responds to other users with condescension and ad hominem [...] The only places that I could potentially construe as condescension are

• For the third time [...]
• I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same, and
• maybe read them yourself?,

though they seem to be born from frustration of a point that's going nowhere.

As a casual observer, I don't really see any blatant instances of incivility or personal attacks (ad hominem). Is there heated disagreement? Yes, but in my opinion it hasn't escalated to requiring administrator attention. In fact, this problem seems to be a better fit over at the dispute resolution noticeboard, as the majority of the problem appears to be coming from source interpretation and the application of Wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Robinvp11 and 021120x to notify them of the link to a noticeboard that seems more appropriate for the problem. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu 🐲 The original claim was that two specific statements were not suited for the lede and should be removed from the lede, possibly to a different section, on the basis of not being "widely accepted". The editor involved has simply ignored or disregarded sources supporting acceptance, and overemphasized his own preferred sources. He has further adjusted the page far beyond what was in the scope of the discussion. Based solely on what has been discussed, the page ought to have been reverted to its form before the discussion began minus, perhaps, the two sentences in question. What has been done beyond this is unfounded. 021120x (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@021120x: That would make it a content dispute, not a behavioural one. Please provide WP:DIFFs of Robinvp11's comments that you find to be uncivil or making personal attacks, as I'm just shooting in the dark and playing the guessing game as to what was considered behaviourally inappropriate.

He has further adjusted the page far beyond what was in the scope of the discussion. Emphasis in original. Just because something is being discussed doesn't make everything else off-limits. I don't see any discretionary sanctions being imposed on editing this area of Wikipedia (and scouring your talk pages doesn't turn anything up), nor are there page notices that appear when opening the editor window like COVID-19 pandemic. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Just because something is being discussed doesn't make everything else off-limits. The editor's rationale was that the removals and alterations were following the discussion on the talk page, which they largely were not.

Examples of uncivil tone, ad hominem, condescension:

• For the third time...
• I've done you the courtesy of reading the Sources provided

And nearly the entire post as signed on October 9, which begins with, "I've tried to respond to what you've written, rather than ignoring the bits I don't fancy; perhaps you could do the same." is littered with vitriol and ad hominem.

Additionally, the only reason Acebulf has become involved is because he has been stalking my contributions across multiple unrelated topics and pages, going against Wikipedia's policy of Hounding.

There was a further contribution from another editor on October 11, 2020 which now presents a more balanced viewpoint, and it seems that the leading paragraph has been adjusted to reflect this. A discussion will be opened on the dispute resolution noticeboard as suggested. 021120x (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@021120x: As I've said before, please provide diffs if you're going to accuse someone or just provide context in general: it makes it a lot easier to follow when things have happened and who did what. If Robinvp11 wants to explain their rationale for making that edit they're more than welcome to do so, but so far I don't believe anyone mentioned here needs to be sanctioned or blocked. Please take this to the DRN. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment from involved editor. The editor that brought this thread has made controversial edits and refused to address them with anything substantive. As such, the consensus brought forth from the RFC is that they should be removed. Perhaps requesting administrative closure on the RFC would solve this entire situation. Acebulf (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  Acebulf, it appears that the RFC was opened on September 6 and closed on October 6, but looking at what's on the talk page, I'm not sure anyone can assume that the RFC consensus is that they should be removed; rather, it doesn't seem there is a consensus, which is when I believe WP:STATUSQUO would come into effect. In this case, I think that would still have the same result as removing those claims.

  That being said, a formal close would probably help alleviate the situation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, This issue was moved to the DRN as directed. However, the DRN moderator has stated that they will not continue with the review if the issue is still open here. Can the issue be closed here, and are you able to inform the moderator of this once it is done? 021120x (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

021120x, Since you're already here, care to explain why you're telling people to stop discussing the article on the article talk page? You have no authority to control who speaks on talk pages, nor do you have the authority to silence them when the discussion doesn't go your way. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Acebulf:, Please desist from WP:HOUNDING. The DRN moderator will not continue to review the dispute if there is an active discussion. Thus, commenting must be paused.

Why are you accusing me of hounding? You made this ANI, and you made the DRN. Both of which I'm tagged in. Please stop telling users they are not allowed to talk. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As I have become too involved I'll ask someone else to close this if they feel it's appropriate. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As the potential Moderator of the DRN- I just want to be clear- I did not tell 021120x to make people stop discussing this ANI case, I just told them that we could not open a DRN case while this was open. This case takes priority, and does not need to be forced to rush. The DRN will still be there whenever this is resolved Nightenbelle (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: No worries. I think they went a bit bold when trying to get this sorted.

Support close Let's close this and move to DRN. This has gone long enough that we have to seek some kind of resolution, and the dispute seems to have moved away from one focused on actions and more on the content, though in a fairly accusatory tone that would need mediation. I support closure for the time being, and so does 021120x. We can always come back later if this escalates. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to confuse an already confused case more, but I have a few comments as another DRN volunteer. First, the rule at DRN is "Comment on content, not contributors". There is a content dispute about the French Revolution. However, the filing party, User:021120x, came here with multiple conduct allegations against other editors. This is now a conduct dispute until the conduct allegations are resolved or withdrawn. And if this dispute does get reopened at DRN, after resolving or withdrawing all of the conduct allegations, it really will be necessary for all of the editors to be even more careful than usual to avoid commenting on conduct or contributors. Second, this appears to be a dispute with ten editors. DRN has difficulty in moderating disputes with large numbers of editors. The method of dispute resolution that works better than DRN when there are a large number of editors is RFC. I am sure that a DRN volunteer will be willing to help formulate a neutrally worded RFC. (I am sure of that because I am willing to formulate the RFC.) If the filing editor and the other editors really want to have moderated discussion, they can close this case and refile at DRN, and perhaps a volunteer will agree to moderate. However, I think that this is a case for a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert McClenon. It would be ideal to continue with the DRN process, however several editors involved refuse to end character attacks in the discussion. Even when the DRN was opened, some editors posted only editor attacks in the thread, in direct violation of the DRN guidelines. Some editors originally expressed acceptance of the present article changes; however, they have since reversed this position and stated that they will not accept such changes in the article, giving evidence that content is not the concern, only the preserving of certain preconceptions. If the DRN proceeds, it will be without the editors that have thus far been incapable of behaving appropriately, despite reminders. This would additionally reduce the concern related to editor count and aid the moderation of the discussion. 021120x (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:021120x - You say that you want to resume or start the DRN process, possibly with a limited set of editors. It isn't entirely clear whether you are saying that they will determine which of them take part in DRN or that you will determine which of them take part in DRN. If you want to pick and choose who you are discussing with, that is not a way to achieve consensus. I may have misunderstood something, but you seem to be making matters difficult. You originally came to WP:ANI with conduct issues, including that another editor was hounding you. You were asked to provide diffs, and did not provide diffs, and were told that this appears to be a content dispute. Well, it is partly, but there still are your allegations of conduct, and making allegations about conduct can itself be a conduct issue, as is explained in the boomerang essay. You say that several editors refuse to end the character attacks. I haven't seen the character attacks, and so I can't offer an opinion about them other than that I haven't seen the character attacks. You say that some editors posted only editor attacks in the DRN thread. Having just reviewed the DRN thread, I do not see the attacks, so that it may be difficult for a moderator to manage a discussion that satisfies you. I may have misunderstood something, but I have a hard time seeing what will satisfy you, especially since I don't see the attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, a few of the participating editors revised their original posts in the DRN discussion. Wikipedia's policies class the bringing in of accusations regarding perceptions of a Wikipedian's contributions which occurred outside the bounds of the content under discussion, scouring past or historical contributions unrelated to the content, as an example of incivility; yet at least one editor did exactly this. In the talk thread, the posts and tone several editors abound with snide or accusatory remarks, many of which address contributors rather than content. It is impossible to have a productive or objective discussion with such behavior. Further, as above mentioned, certain editors have now undone their acceptance of some changes to the article that were recently brought about under a greater consensus; this is not conducive to a productive discussion in the DRN. Proceeding with the DRN would be best, but it must be held with editors that will behave appropriately. 021120x (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User:021120x writes: "Proceeding with the DRN would be best, but it must be held with editors that will behave appropriately." I have a few questions about that idea. First, what would the purpose of the DRN be? What would be gained by spending the time of a volunteer editor, and the participating editors, and the community, in moderated discussion? Would it establish consensus? If it excluded certain editors, how would that establish consensus? Second, who would decide what editors will and will not behave appropriately? Third, why would you rather have moderated discussion at DRN than an RFC? Maybe these are all versions of the same question, which has to do with how a limited discussion will establish consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I am willing to have this discussion of this dispute closed, but I do not want it closed and sent to DRN unless we agree on what the (possibly unusual) conditions for the DRN would be. Otherwise we can just close this discussion, but only if we agree on how it has been closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

New Personal Attack by OP

The Original Poster of this thread, User:021120x, has just made a personal attack in an edit summary at French Revolution. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_Revolution&type=revision&diff=983974974&oldid=983974314&diffmode=source It appears that 021120x is, on the one hand, asking to discuss at DRN with a subset of editors, but on the other hand, is edit-warring the lede of the main article. I will note that User:Robinvp11 is trying to discuss the lede at Talk:French Revolution. That's what the article talk page is for, duh. Even if consensus is with you (and there isn't a consensus as to what the consensus is), it is still better to discuss on an article talk page than to use an edit summary to say that another editor is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Because a DRN moderator would help to establish a binding consensus. One difficult editor that has recently joined the discussion has already altered consensus decisions which occurred before he began to participate and has expressed a desire to only 'stick to his guns'. Moderation would engender greater respect for the outcome of the discussion. 021120x (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Changes as suggested on October 12 were accepted as being sufficient (with the caveat, perhaps, that they may be supplemented by more details further down). A new user has undone them, going against the discussion. The editor has no interest in following agreed-upon changes. Why is breaking the consensus considered acceptable? 021120x (talk)

One Final DRN Offer

Well, I have advised the OP to use an RFC, and User:Nightenbelle has advised an RFC, but I will make one final offer of DRN moderation, if my moderation will be accepted. (If any of the editors think that I have become non-neutral or involved, they can find another moderator, or they can use an RFC.) However, no participant gets to decide which participants are behaving properly. I am willing to make one final offer of DRN moderation. This offer is open for 24 hours, but only if the editors agree, and only if the editors agree that there will be no participant-imposed preconditions or exclusion of participants. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It appears that a moderated discussion might no longer be necessary, as the position held by editors such as Robinvp11 has recently been shown to be 100% baseless and entirely false. One of the primary authors off of which he and others hinged their argument stated (multiple times) exactly the opposite of what they have been arguing, and the author fully supports the opposing argument. Even direct citations have been included. Any continued contradiction will now stem rather transparently from nothing more than prejudice. The only concern at present is how much more information will be added to the article, and ensuring that such content is respected and unchanged. If this is all that remains to be discussed, I am open to holding a DRN review for it. 021120x (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Still On the Table

File:1960's edition of Operation.jpg

Still on the table.

-EEng

I am still willing to try to conduct moderated discussion, until 0300 GMT, 19 Oct 20. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Propose boomerang

While I try to assume good faith, and I abhor confrontation, after the behavior pointed to by Robert McClenon above, I had a closer look at their contribution history. It seems like the behavior of 021120x worse than I had realized at first.

From their contributions history, it seems that 021120x is engaging in widespread POV-pushing with pro-American, anti-British views in an attempt to counter the influence of what they call the "Britclique". (See [2]). Their modus operandi is to inject non-NPOV material directly in the lede, in an attempt to influence the tone of the article.

While the French Revolution incident exemplifies this behavior and has gathered a significant amount of controversy on the injected material, there are at least two additional articles which feature low-intensity edit wars. In these, 021120x injects material in the lede, gets reverted a couple days later and then 021120x adds the content back, often also attacking the user who removed the content.

• They are currently involved in a low-intensity edit war on American exceptionalism to caracterize the entire subject as a "European-born critique". This is removed by many different editors at this point, but 021120x persists in edit warring to keep it in the lede. (See [3] [4] [5], with the last diff also featuring an edit summary that calls another editor disruptive, see below)

caracterize the entire subject as a "European-born critique" A statement of origin has no reason to be removed, particularly when the individual insists on doing it anonymously. 021120x (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Another low-intensity edit war is being held on American Revolution, in which 021120x is trying to include a statement in the lede about the United States being the world's first democracy. (See [6], [7], [8]) The last diff here is also calling an editor (me) disruptive.

trying to include a statement in the lede about the United States being the world's first democracy A possibly deliberate mis-characterization. Being a pioneer of modern democracy does not equate to being 'the first democracy'. 021120x (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Accusing others of impropriety seems to be a key part of this user's interactions with others on Wikipedia. This ANI thread itself features numerous accusations of wrongful behavior on Robinvp11, which were then retargeted to me when I was tagged in discussion. Another editor which came across the dispute and wanted to give a perspective, Mathglot, was also the target of attacks that are described above. To put it bluntly, almost all people who disagreed with 021120x in this dispute have been accused of wrongdoing by 021120x. The pattern is clear; if you disagree with 021120x in a significant way, they will retaliate by making baseless accusations against you.

He has also many, many other problematic edit summaries, as pointed out above.

(None of the following are vandalism, even if the edit summary states such.)

• [9] (Undoing revision by persistent anonymous disruptive editor.[...])
• [10] (Reverting vandalism by "Danloud")
• [11]. (Reverting vandalism by unregistered user. [...], the "unregistered user" in this case being admin Doug Weller. See User talk:021120x for more information on this accusation.)
• [12] (Reverting vandalism)
• [13] (An incontrovertible lie with no reference, no source, no basis in reality or history, no factual support, and intended as a form of denigration.)
• [14] (Mathglot is a disruptive editor who is now arguing that his ignorance of history proves that certain things did not happen.[...])
• [15] (Reverting edit by disruptive editor.)

In short, this user uses Wikipedia as a battleground, and lashes out at anyone who disagrees with them. As much as it pains me to say, I believe that admin intervention might be necessary. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a very disingenuous post by a user that is now attempting retaliation for the outcome of the discussion not following a preferred viewpoint (and rather blatantly showcases stalking and hounding). Acebulf claims that he began this search after McClenon's post, which is false. He posted troves of references to activity in the DRN review that had little or nothing at all to do with the content of the discussion, and has confronted me on other pages to which he previously had no direct connection (additionally, he appears to be making anonymous changes on other pages). Acebulf may also be unaware of the difficulties created by Snagemit (many of which are still present). Regardless, as has already been stated, there is no basis for further claims of contradiction in the discussion. At this point, we are only working on what material will be added to the article, and likely what additional details would be added to the American Revolution page. If Acebulf would like to contribute towards this, the discussion is ending on the French Revolution Talk page. Otherwise, the only reason to leave the ANI open would be for administrators to be made aware of users who refuse to work with the added changes. 021120x (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(And, fyi, 'BritClique' is a jocular phrase that was previously used on the ARW talk page in reference to certain difficult editors that were giving everyone a rough time while we were working on the article. It's an inside joke.) 021120x (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been working with user 021120x with a fair number of other editors and have yet to see anything that warrants him being dragged in here. His "persoanl attacks" amount to nothing more than comments about vandalism and disruption. While a number of editors are currently engaged in a rather heated debate, and at times have made less than friendly comments, including myself, there has been no name calling, threats, etc, made by this user. His comments in edit history are typical among users throughout Wikipedia, especially when there is contentious debate occurring, are not necessarily unfounded, and certainly don't warrant that this user be taken to task here. User 021120x is a relatively new user and has has been ridiculed for being a NewBee with a modest edit-count and has had to deal with his share of not so friendly remarks. (Not by Acebulf)  Imo, this case is highly uncalled for and will only serve to widen the gap between the editors in question and discourage a newcomer from contributing to Wikipedia. If anything, this user only needs to be reminded to be careful about making less than friendly comments in edit history, even if they may be called for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

40,000-foot view

I'm commenting here with fresh eyes, by which I mean that I was pinged, and saw that this discussion is long, and have only scanned it very briefly to see roughly who/what/when, and did not read it. My contribution here now, is to try an offer admins and others a fresh perspective, which I will hope help achieve some context and perspective about what is going on at the article. (I will read this discussion after, and come back if relevant.)

At the top level, this appears to me to be a content dispute about whether the American Revolution can be considered one of the causes of the French Revolution; and if so, to what extent. (At various points in the voluminous TP discussions, the point under dispute has wandered about, and it's been couched differently at times, e.g., "American influence"—e.g., Jefferson or Franklin ⟶ French Revolution; or American documentary influence, e.g., Declaration of Independence/U.S. Constitution ⟶ Declaration of the Rights of Man, but generally it seems to get back to "causes" of the French Revolution, and to what extent American events/people/documents were involved.)

I'm a latecomer to this content dispute at French Revolution; my article contributions involve two reverts of undue material at the article. (Both were undone.) I have contributed more amply at the Talk page. Almost all of my Talk contributions have been in one of two basic roles:

• trying to maintain order in the discussion and promote understanding of the relevant policy issues; in my opinion, the entire content dispute hinges on WP:DUEWEIGHT; it appears strongly to me that either the import of this policy is completely missed by certain editors who either misunderstand due weight, or do not agree with it, and hence, there is essentially a disagreement about policy that blocks any possible progress in the content dispute;
• attempting to help point the way out of a long, circular, unproductive discussion that is going nowhere, by introducing a methodology that could lead to progress towards resolution, where there has been none before: namely, an appeal to tertiary sources to try to reveal what the majority and significant minority views are about the content under dispute. I'm still in the middle of that; it is here (perma) if interested.

My feeling about what's going on at the Talk page is that certain editors are trying to promote discussion, deal with other editors civilly, and reach a proper, policy-based result backed by the preponderance of views by historians; while there are other editors (two to my knowledge; there may be more) who have already made up their minds, and at this point are not interested in working out what the major/minor views of historians are, but rather are interested in seeing that the article matches their views, and that anything else in their view is merely obstruction, censorship, cherry-picking, and bad faith among other editors who disagree.

A key blocking point, in my opinion, is a misunderstanding of the tension between WP:V and WP:DUE. In some other topic area of the encyclopedia where there are, say, 100 sources, it's not impossible for editors knowledgeable about WP:V to read a good percentage of the sources and get a feeling for what is majority, what is minority, and what is FRINGE, without really knowing too much about WP:DUE, and to come up with a reasonable balance in an article on the topic. However, in an article like French Revolution, this is impossible. A knowledge of WP:DUE is central, and an ability to properly determine and assess the variety of historical opinion on it is crucial. The French Revolution is one of the most studied events in World History, possibly *the* most studied; many hundreds of tomes have been written about it for centuries, and countless articles in historical journals. It is not possible for any one editor to read even a small fraction of it, and to get a feel for the breadth of opinion. Conversely, an editor knowledgeable about WP:V could in good faith find 20 sources to support their (possibly fringe) opinion about some point relating to the Revolution, and not realize that it represented only a very tiny minority in the context of the thousands and thousands of articles written about it. In my opinion, frustrated editors at the article armed with whatever their favorite interpretation is, are falling into this trap by executing targeted searches to find sources to support their view, not realizing (or perhaps not caring) about the massive violation of WP:DUE that this might entail.

By coincidence, I was writing this warning (perma)) at a User TP of one of the involved parties, when the ping arrived, and now, here I am. It seems possible that I'll need to come back with diffs after reading through this thread; if I'm not back and they seem needed as part of the discussion, don't hesitate to reping. Thanks. (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot's message has since been removed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is another blatantly disingenuous post to prevent a certain outcome from the discussion. The discussion is ending, Mathglot. We are now working on how much material to add to the article. 021120x (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it? Then I guess that makes two blatantly disingenuous posts by two different editors, right here in this very discussion; what are the chances? But I do agree with you that *this* discussion is ending. Which leaves us back at the article talk page talking about content, where consensus is required and no editor gets to decide things by fiat. If that doesn't work, there are always other methods of dispute resolution. Mathglot (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

As clearly stated in Wikipedia's policies, consensus does not require unanimity. We already established a consensus, long before you arrived. 021120x (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Admin Guidance

Hello, Admins,

The content discussion is concluded, and we are working on the implementation of the changes. I just want to ask for the admins' direction on how to handle adjustments that may happen further down the line. For example, if an editor several months from now alters material in the article that had previously been addressed in this discussion, is that editor to be referred to an archive of the discussion? Is a new discussion to be held? Is there anything that establishes the changes as binding? Or, would an issue of that sort need to be referred to administration? Are matters of this sort covered by some sort of protections? Thanks. 021120x (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Tenryuu Are you able to answer this question? What are the guidelines regarding respecting changes? Is there a process for maintaining them after a discussion is concluded? 021120x (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Nightenbelle Are you able to offer assistance or guidance with this concern? Are discussions used as precedents for an article? For example, if an editor several months from now alters material in the article that had previously been addressed in a discussion, is that editor to be referred to an archive of the discussion? Is there anything that establishes the changes as binding? 021120x (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User:021120x - It does not appear to me, looking at Talk:French Revolution, that there is a consensus on content changes. You may have decided that the discussion is concluded, but I see other editors disagreeing with you. I would suggest that you read the policy on consensus, which discusses establishing consensus and deals with consensus changing. However, you do not appear to have established a consensus. The way that is done, in cases where there is a dispute, and there is a dispute here, is by Request for Comments. You have been advised from time to time to use a Request for Comments. I will advise you of that again. You don't conclude the content discussion simply by saying that it is concluded. That is done by closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I am not deciding anything. The group involved in the discussion already decided on and implemented changes before an individual came along later and first removed, then completely changed them of his own accord, disregarding what we had settled on. I have read those policies, Mr. McClenon, and they clearly state that consensus does not require unanimity. One sole editor is doing nothing but stonewalling and stalling. No one is currently disputing the accuracy of influence having been drawn. 021120x (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the RfC, another user already attempted an RfC (which I have already mentioned to you), and it was not productive. But, we reached an agreement after it concluded. 021120x (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no permanent solution. Any editor at any time may come and revive this discussion with new information, or with a re-examination of the existing information. And if people are still discussing on the talk page- you don't get to decide the conversation is over. Sorry 021120x You are in the wrong here. Go back to the talk page and keep working towards a compramise. I'm not an admin to be clear, just a volunteer. Wikipedia is ever evolving. It would be counter-productive to make permanent decisions about content when the whole point of WP is to create an encyclopedia that can evolve and adjust with new information over time. So I would recomend to go back to the talk page, and keep working with those who are discussing. I also see no consensus currently. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle:, a consensus was agreed upon on the 12th, then was deleted by a passing user a few days later who had no knowledge of the discussion. The original argument is no longer under dispute, and the new user is simply stonewalling. There are no policies that address such behavior? 021120x (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Unpleasant Conclusion

When User:021120x stated that the content discussion had been concluded, they were correct, because they switched from discussing content to engaging in article ownership. I think that the community has been very patient with this editor. Some sort of sanction (which will be a boomerang sanction, because they are the Original Poster here) is necessary. Will a short-term block get their attention so that they can discuss when they come off block, or does one administrator or the community have to decide that they are not here constructively? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Threats and dubious decision by Ymblanter

Although Ymblanter arbitrates articles on Armenia-Azerbaijan topic, he/she has repeatedly made obvious pro-Azerbaijani decisions. The latest dubious one was when he renamed and protected [16] [17] the new name of the village used by president Aliyev in Twitter, three days before it was officially renamed by the Azerbaijani parliament. After I pointed this out to him, he twice tried to threaten me [18] [19], calling me "Dear user with 68 edits" and claiming I'm uncivil. Vaan23 (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• Boomerang for this personal attack, which as far as I can tell, is the only attempt Vaan23 made to discuss this before coming to ANI. Lev!vich 17:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Vaan23, I'm not familiar enough with the topic area to be able to make any meaningful comment on whether or not this is a case of the wrong version or not; it also doesn't really matter. As Ymblanter has pointed out, the venue to litigate that is WP:RM. The point of move protection is to prevent move warring and have people talk it out, not to enforce the protecting sysop's opinion. I do however agree with Lev!vich that your comment did constitute a personal attack; while references to edit counts might not be the nicest thing to say, accusing people of acting in bad faith to promote a dictator's interests is far worse. I recommend you retract that statement. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs, thank you for the explanation and for the third opinion. My problem is that I have an opinion I want to express (sorry, I still think Ymblanter's edits are biased), but off course I want to refrain of personal attacks to anyone here. Should I rewrite my statement to something like "I consider your edit biased and unjustified"? Vaan23 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Vaan23, I don't know which of Ymblanter's edits you consider biased or unjustified; if you want to have a discussion about bias, you'll have to provide diffs supporting your argument. Again: I recommend you retract your statement and apologise. Whether you agree with the actions Ymblanter has taken or not, accusing him of being in the pocket of a dictator is not acceptable – and it is definitely not conducive to actually having a constructive conversation about your grievances. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• I indeed seem to be the administrator who has recently been most involved with arbitration enforcement in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area. As you may know, a few days ago a war resumed over the disputed area of Nagorno-Karabakh, with a lot of disinformation from both sides of the conflict, and this resulted in a lot of partisan editing on Wikipedia. None of the sides likes what I am doing, and I was repeatedly accused in being pro-Armenian, anti-Armenian, pro-Azeri, and anti-Azeri editor. I will be by the way really delighted if some other administrators show any interest in the topic, and I then have more time for other things, which I find, to be honest, more interesting. Anyway, after I semi-protected Suqovuşan, Tartar for 6 months as arbitration enforcement due to the extensive disruption and move-protected it at the WP:Wrong version after I have seen repeated moves of the article, it happened to stay at the Azeri name, which made Armenian users particularly unhappy. As a result, Vaan 23, a relatively new user, accused me and Solavirum, whom I do not know, in "distorting the facts" [20]. Well, I am obviously aware of the fact that as administrator I am subject to a greater number of personal attacks then I would like to, and that my actions are supposed to be scrutinized, and in most cases I just let the accusations go. However, distorting facts is not an aspersion I will let stand on Wikipedia. I suggested that Vaan23 apologized, and Solavirum left a message at their talk page warning about personal attacks. Vaan23 ignored both messages and continued editing. When I realized this, I made clear to them that they need to apologize and strike down the aspersion, otherwise I would take them to ANI. Apparently, they decided that the best strategy is not to apologize, but to go to ANI and to double down repeating the aspersion and portraying me as a pro-Azeri editor. I am afraid at this point we need a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Vaan23:, whereas this is a step in a good direction,. it is not really acceptable since I was responding on your old statement, not on the new one. You should have crossed out the old statement and add the new one. For the record, I obviously do not consider my edits biased.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Vaan23, please be calm and patient during discussions. Anyways, as I've been tagged here, and kinda a part of this issue, why not give my opinion about it. Vaan23 called Ymblanter (and for some reason, me) of being 'ahead of a dictator and distorting facts', which violated WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS, and I left a message informing Vaan23 here. And this application is just WP:BUNGEE. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 19:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• .
• Ymblanter earned himself quite a notoriety by pushing his anti-Ukrainian as well as anti-LGBQT views in his edits and reverts on List of people from Ukraine. See, for instance, just a small sample of his edits and reverts [21] and [22]. In the first of those, Ymblanter deletes the LGBQT section in List of people from Ukraine, while simultaneously claiming that the editor who added this section is blocked from Wikipedia for calling Ymblanter a homophobe. As Ymblanter puts it, "for unfounded accusations in homophoby". No less. In the second edit, Ymblanter likely sets the Wikipedia record for the most succinct justification of a revert, by entering just "wtf?" for an explanation. Should the guy be given some sort of uncivility medal, perhaps, as soon as possible?
• Ymblanter also launched quite a few of personal attacks on distinguished Ukrainian editor User:Mzajac and mass-reverted the edits of this editor on Ukrainian spelling of the name of Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, while threatening the editor with bans - see for instance [[23]] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  @2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C: Asking an editor to stop their disruptive edits is not a personal attack. Neither is threatening to seek consensus for a topic ban. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  User:Mzajac is obsessively trying to rename any mention of the Kievan Rus' to "Kyivan Rus'", despite opposition by other editors in an ongoing discussion. Ymblanter was justified in reverting the article to its previous state. Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  No he was not justified in reverting that spelling change in a non-historical article on a Ukrainian subject, which is not being discussed. It’s another example of editors who refuse to accept the consensus RM of Kyiv, staking out “historical articles” as their fighting retreat, and then counterattacking anywhere and everywhere they think they can. Now they’ve enabled each other to revert, disparage (“obsessively”? Sour grapes, Dimadick!), and claim everything is being discussed to put a chill on progress. If you have specific edits of mine you have a problem with, list them at an ANI, and justify your objection with specific guidelines and facts. In the meantime stop slagging me in public and disrupting my editing. —Michael Z. 15:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• 2601:646:8500:2DD0:F9C2:D21C:1054:692C If you see Ymblanter continue to conduct personal attack among other editors, I suggested you to report the administrator to AIV because vandalism from administrators and see what consensus to be. 36.68.193.87 (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• This looks to be a content dispute, with plenty of edit warring from both sides. I also can't see much evidence of Ymblanter's wrongdoing here; indeed, those who are bringing grievances here are WP:BOOMERANGing themselves.
  • [24]: Addressing a message to someone this way is not a PA. Sure, as mentioned above, not the nicest way to word things, but not a personal attack nevertheless.
  • [25]: Don't see how this is a PA either. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 06:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I had an issue with Ymblanter negatively labelling a recognizable group, and specifically me. It was only in a single comment, but I asked him to remove it, and he did so grudgingly, making it clear that he did not see anything was wrong with it. I blame this on a permissive environment for such offensive remarks in talk:Kyiv and related articles over the previous months and years, despite their being subject to discretionary sanctions in topics related to Eastern Europe.
  • The full comment, with my emphasis: (ec) I have actually taken it to ANI (and this is why we have this discussion at all), a few times, I have taken it once or twice to the arbitration enforcement, and since the community as a whole does not care I do not want to take every single case to ANI. My feeling is that I have already wasted too much time of the community. In this particular case, for historical reasons, there is a group of people who pushed for Kyiv, and there is no users who are consistently pushing to Kyiv (at least have never seen anybody who after the closure of the RfC was replacing Kyiv with Kiev in a modern context). I see daily edits on my watchlist, even though I removed from there almost all Ukraine-related articles. But, indeed, I should just stop. I realized already a long time ago that Wikipedia is not perfect, will never be perfect, and there will always be topic areas where I absolutely should not trust it. I am not going to spend months trying to topic-ban Mzajac or get them desysopped. I do not think it will be a productive use of my time, and I do not think this would be good for my health. My conclusion is just that Wikipedia is too vulnerable against POV pushing of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists. If the community thinks their activity is useful or at least not disruptive, let it be so. I am not going to spend my time on it anymore.-- This was two weeks after the community demonstrated consensus to rename Kyiv.
  • Our discussion on his talk
  • His initial token strike and comment while reinforcing his intent.
  • final strike.

  This is not about edits or article naming, it is about labelling individuals and groups, creating and reinforcing negative national or other stereotypes, and thereby letting others infer the community’s permission to indulge in and escalate such language. I have seen many other negative and indefensible comments by other editors about “Ukrainian governmental interference in the process,” “Ukrainian nationalists,” “Ukrainian trolls,” “the torrent of nationalistic fervor,” “how many Cossacks can be summoned from the steppes,” a “Ukranian 'invasion',” and so on. I don’t see much point in a specific sanction over this. Some others have made worse comments, repeatedly, and shrugged off any criticism. But I have started to recognize a pattern of tacit reinforcement, and decided enough is enough, now. It would be nice to get some expression from the community that this toxic rhetoric is no longer welcome. —Michael Z.

  • Based on what I saw in the last couple of days on Talk:Kyiv - many editors indeed are routinely labelling a recognizable group of editors, who edit anything tangentially related to Ukraine, with derogatory language described above by Mzajac to belittle them and/or silence them. Recent case in point - editor felt it was okay to say that "English Wikipedia allowing "certain" editors to make Kiev->Kyiv changes on Wikipedia" is akin to "European powers allowing Germany annexing of Czechoslovakia" - I do not have a problem with an editor who wrote this and I even suspect maybe that they did not realize the gravity of the words they wrote (I even told them myself that, frankly, it is probably best to take this whole "Ukrainian nationalists editors invasion" thing as humorous hoax)), but regardless of someone's possible good intentions when writing such things, these repeated inflammatory comments from a large number of editors against a recognizable group of editors who make edits on Ukrainian topics do not make this group feel welcome on English Wikipedia. In terms of how to respond to this: again based the discussion from the last couple of days on Talk:Kyiv, it seems that the majory of the community does not care about this, with only two admins taking an active approach on this in that discussion: Mzajac made comments on Talk:Kyiv that he thinks such anti-Ukrainian rhetoric being used routinely and nonchalantly is toxic to English Wikipedia, while Ymblanter actively reinforces this kind of anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. I do not know what can the community do about this (and if it is even possible to find a workable solution to this), but this is probably not good for the community if this continues any longer.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

    For the context, RogueRickC137 is a user indefinitely blocked here and currently evading their block. (This is based on a behavioral evidence).--Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Ymblanter: You sure about that one? Which user would you think Rogue is, then? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

    Yes, this is Piznajko who was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry and disruption in Kyiv/Kiev topic. Note that after I have left the above message I became aware of the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piznajko. The IP above is likely a different user, who has as far as I know never registered.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Break

Well, now in the above topic we got aspersions cast against me by three users: One user is relatively new, one is an LTA, and one is an administrator. I do not consider any of the accusations valid and any of the aspersions justified (though I am sure diffs can be found and carefully presented showing that in some episodes I could demonstrate a better behavior). I am not quite sure what the community expects of me now. Ideally, I would do nothing, but last time I have chosen to do nothing in a similar situation the consequence was that a significant fraction of the users believed the aspersions. I would welcome advise from users in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I didn’t think I was casting any “aspersions.” I accused you point blank of insulting me and any editors from a national group you decided to associate with me as the next best thing to nazis and fascists, in a public forum, and refused to admit anything wrong with that. Sorry if I was too polite for this to be clear. —Michael Z. 23:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mzajac: May I ask for the diff where Ymblanter wrote the supposed "next best thing to nazis and fascists"? I didn't see it in any above diff. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 00:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. May I ask if you’re saying I should happily accept the label “Ukrainian ultra-nationalist” without looking up what that means? I apologize for that to everyone that I’ve wronged by it.

Now may I ask which national group and extremist political ideology you’d like other editors to tie your name to when they don’t agree with your edits? —Michael Z. 02:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Now that's uncalled for. I'm WP:UNINVOLVED, as well as not living there. And nowhere in that reply did I ever claim that you should accept it, only that I can't see any evidence for the above insult. Sorry, but you also did not answer the question. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 02:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @TheDragonFire300: this is the diff that you are looking for, which Mzajac already provided above (and I think it is implied above that when Ymlanter used the term "ultra-nationalists", that term can be perceived by some as the "next best thing to nazis and fascists")? . Apologies for the somewhat emotional response from Mzajac above - the whole "Ukrainian nationalists conspiracy " thing has made many editors emotional, as they take personal offense in such name calling.--RogueRickC137 (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, @RogueRickC137:. Personally I'm reading it as a "borderline personal attack". My conclusion is just that Wikipedia is too vulnerable against POV pushing of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists could be a reference to past disruption by said ultra-nationalists. Or a personal attack against those in the dispute. Then again, this is an uninvolved editor's opinion, so it could be read differently by those in the dispute. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear the first time. I read your comment as a sarcastic challenge.

Ymblanter’s comment labelled me and an unspecific group of editors POV-pushing Ukrainian ultranationalists. Apparently the “POV” is that the consensus name Kyiv is used in articles where it is not challenged. The comment was part of a long exchange that Ymblanter entered with this comment, referring to an edit that I had made, they reverted, and we discussed.

When I look up ultranationalism, which I linked above, I see that this is a political view. Having not discussed either my nationality nor my politics with Ymblanter, I assume Ymblanter is applying the label to me and to Ukrainian editors strictly for its negative associations, and using a negative stereotype that is found in hateful anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. That article’s second and third sentences say “When combined with the notion of national rebirth, ultranationalism is a key foundation of fascism. Some ultranationalist organisations have been designated as terrorist movements by certain nation states.” Since Ymblanter brought editors’ politics and nationality into it, I would suggest that they have actually revealed something about their own views on politics and nationality in the offending comment, and offer them the opportunity to clarify those views. —Michael Z. 14:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry but may be you should assume less and actually read and listen more.

I have explained my views at least several times, but you just dis not listen.

Let me try again and let me be very clear.

We had a RM which was concluded as move Kiev to Kyiv. I did not participate in this discussion and in fact had the page unwatched.

You have understood the conclusion that it meant that (almost) every instance of Kiev must be replaced with Kyiv, with the possible exception of Chicken Kiev. You indeed started to move everything. In particular, you started to replace Kiev and Kievan Rus' in historical contexts, i.e. applied to the entities at the time the term "Kyiv" does not exist. Other users disagreed with you. I reverted on a couple of occasions (and I am sure there are hundreds of more occasions I have not reverted).

I opened the topic at ANI. You never reverted me back, but continued to make changes to other similar instances.

We also had influx of editors whose only contribution was to massively replace Kiev with Kyiv. One of them moved Chicken Kiev to Chicken Kyiv, another one was doing replacements in the articles on Kiev Governorate.

JzG has opened an RfC at Talk:Kyiv concerning the historic usage, You actively participated in that RfC and badgered every single support, bringing all kind of arguments, to the point that people got tired and stopped replying to you because they thought it is useless.

Now, during this RfC you continued to replace Kiev with Kyiv in historical contexts, even though you were perfectly aware of the RfC ongoing and that it does not have a clear cut consensus for this replacement. I suggested one that you stop, I suggested another time that you stop. Other users suggested that you stop. You have not stopped.

You have seen the argument that the overwhelming majority of sources currently use Kievan Rus' (or Rus) but ignored it, continuing to insist that Kyivan Rus' is the only proper form since Kiev was moved to Kyiv.

As a result, we have I do not know how many - hundreds? thousands? instances of Kyiv in the articles which are doubtful, and even before the RfC has been concluded. This is exactly what Ukrainian ultranationalists would like to see on Wikipedia. I have written this. Now, you have thoroughly ignored everything I was saying before that, and instead said something that there is a group of people who is not ready to accept that Kiev is now Kyiv and so on. Now, you suddenly assumed that I wanted to say you are a Nazi.

But I said what I wanted to say, and not even necessarily anything about you. I apologize if you have understood in this way, this was not my intention.

You came to my talk page and proposed me a deal - I strike this reply, and you stop replacing Kiev with Kyiv for a month. This did not make sens to me - either replacing Kiev with Kyiv is correct, and then you should not stop it, or it is not correct, and then you should stop it forever, or at least until the consensus changes. I first said no. Then I had another thought and removed my comment.

Shortly before this, another user told me that I looked like an active promoter of Kiev. That was a clear sign to me that I should stop. I still think that what is going on is massive disruption, but I decided that if I am the only person who cares, I will let it go. If many users share this feeling, they will find some way to stop the disruption. I probably should have stopped earlier.

And I did. And I have not written anything about Kiev/Kyiv for more than a week, except for one message at AN, which was merely to support another user.

And now you came to the ANI topic which was not even about Kiev and hijacked it. I tried to make a subsection, and you hijacked it again. I am not sure what I should do. Last time I had such a pressure was from Fram, and we all know what the final result was.

And, to finish this wall of text, my motivation is not to impose pro-Russian views, not to label you a Nazi, and not even to keep Kievan Rus'. My motivation was to try to enforce WP:CONSENSUS. I failed miserably, and nothing good came out of it. I am sick of all this bullshit to be honest. However, I maintain that you do not have a slightest idea about my political views, and you will never be able to derive my political views just looking on my edits. It is very convenient to label everyone who disagrees with you (and dozens of users disagreed with you) but this is not how Wikipedia works.

I do not intend to resume this Kiev/Kyiv debate in any context, but unfortunately per WP:ADMINACCT I had to write this explanation - which I have provided to you at previous occasions, at no avail.

Now could we finally stop this please? I am not editing in the topic area and I do not intend to edit in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

See, for example, in Mzajac's comment above: Now may I ask which national group and extremist political ideology you’d like other editors to tie your name to when they don’t agree with your edits?. For having the audacity to ask for evidence, I must have some extremist political ideology? Now that's a personal attack IMO, but we'll see what others think. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 20:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you have a bit of nerve dropping your complaints here, with ample assumptions on motivation, assumptions of bad faith, and aspersions of your own (“You have understood . . . ,” started to move “everything”, “I am sure there are hundreds of more occasions”), to continue to try to justify your inexcusable remark. You and I disagree on facts and interpretations, but I took every revert by you and a minority of others to discussion, respected their disagreement regardless of the merit of their arguments, adjusted my work based on feedback, and I am continuing it without further complaints. I suppose I might have eaten breakfast “exactly what Ukrainian ultranationalists would like” in your opinion, but that doesn’t give you the right to label and smear me and “a group of people,” either for eating breakfast or using a consensus spelling where it seems appropriate. Even if your interpretation of the facts and consensus were a hundred percent correct and those you have name-called are all completely in the wrong regarding this question of writing style. And okay, I fully accept your explanation that you didn’t mean “Nazi,” and appreciate the apology for that. But you still labelled me and other editors as POV-pushing Ukrainian ultranationalists, over spelling. You continue defending it, right in front of everyone here at ANI, but it remains unacceptable. —Michael Z. 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid I said all what I had to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mzajac: I'm sorry, but could you please stop assuming that I'm leaving comments in bad faith? I'm simply trying to make sense of the dispute. Personally, if this is what your replies are going to be to every editor who leaves a comment on this thread (that personal attack above was already unacceptable IMO), then I can see this ending in a WP:BOOMERANG sanction. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 19:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter : please immediately cease and desist any homophobic censorship attempts on the LGBQT-related entries in in the List of Ukrainians ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8500:2DD0:DD57:B9E9:23C4:8821 (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

He has already stopped long before your comment. And what homophobic censorship attempts have been written? Please provide diffs. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Addendum to above reply: If you are talking about this, then it really is what it says on the tin; unsourced. Also, the name changes in the reverted edit are against consensus while an RFC is ongoing. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The harrassment of @Ymblanter: should just be stopped, as well reiterating issues that have been discussed or settled, as I have partially taking part of the discussions. He followed the other admins ask, striked the comment, removed even parts, and voluntarily retreated already from the topic for now. He has the right to have an opinion despite, as others as well, even there are disagreements. It is a fact there are have/been a group of editors who were acting to quickly in the Kiev/Kyiv issue, a little bit misinterpreting the resolution and without waiting the complete outcome of the discussions. Overheated Ukrainian-Russian issues should not be imported here, not even at admin-admin level, all of us here are Wikipedians. Factually and professionally, his concerns on the issues were legitimate, also shared by non-Ukrainian or non-Russian (related) editors, btw. Again, as he retreated from the issue, any rally on him about after this is just not elegant. The worst thing is when editors precious editing time is wasted for a bit unserious soap operas, which could be better used on useful editing. I am disappointed to see an Armenian-Azerbaijani issue ended up a different nationalityX-nationalityY issue. This issue should be closed and only root cause shout be artbitrated, which outcome seems clear (no problem with admin conduct). Anyway, I would restrict administator related complaints strictly to WP:AN, since administrator issues should be separated from average community issues. Have a nice day everyone!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC))

Sports seasons and bulk deletions / nuisance nominations

Hi, this may be an unusual case, but I wasn't sure what else to do.

Several deletions are currently being disputed by users, seemingly correctly, about soccer team season articles (of which Wikipedia has many; thousands, I presume).

At least a dozen season articles were recently deleted, including for some national top-level clubs, which would have a good chance of passing notability guidelines.

The "debates" started by User:Spiderone have been poor ones, or nonexistent. Discussions all involve variations on WP:GNG, which requires that a topic can be referenced by sufficient independent sources – but, of course, lack of citations is not the same as lack of notability. Page Tagging would clearly be a less contentious method. The 7-day topic deletion process is something that well-informed users can and do miss – and when the deletion is mistaken or biased, the work done on the article disappears for no reason.

Four current examples, including some vehement arguments:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996–97 FK Vardar season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Békéscsaba 1912 Előre season
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

These all involve WP:GNG and/or WP:NSEASONS, a slightly odd (and brief) U.S.-centric guideline on sports seasons – it was never designed to be an exclusionary device to delete as many articles as possible. The user in question also seems to say that the latter guideline has an anti-amateur stance, which it doesn't have; it simply says professional leagues should be included in Wikipedia. This is obvious.

These recent deletions happened with little or no discussion, always the same minimal arguments ("GNG/NSEASONS"), and sometimes as few as three votes.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 FC Banants season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Bohemian F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 FC Ajka season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Balmazújvárosi FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Szolnoki MÁV FC season

Essentially, the recent nominations have been a waste of everyone's time, and I'm afraid Wikipedia is the poorer for it. - Demokra (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

In all examples, excluding the Melbourne Victory and Doncaster Belles ones, no evidence of WP:GNG being met were actually brought forward by any of the keep voters. If there is decent potential for reliable secondary sources, then alternatives to deletion can be considered, including moving the article to draft space until such a time when it is in a decent enough state to be returned to the mainspace. A lot of the keep votes seem to centre on ridiculous accusations of 'sexism' and 'bias' rather than actually addressing the notability of the articles in question. Also, I tend to see a lot of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments over and over again. Information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and notable. At no point, has the project ever been about posting excessive listings of statistics and match results for as many teams as possible. Spiderone 12:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 I brought forward WP:3SOURCES to support WP:GNG. Unfortunately certain editors have studiously ignored them. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

And I changed my vote as a result as you can see. Reliably sourced and SIGCOV so clearly the content was worth keeping, either as being merged to the main club article or being kept in its own right. I maintained my delete vote for the other two seasons only but, of course, that's not what this ANI is about is it? Spiderone 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Another issue is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season where people are treating the AfD as a 'vote' rather than a discussion. Three keep votes registered but no actual evidence to GNG being provided; only very vague assertions that it 'must' be notable. Also, as @Jay eyem: points out, some very bad faith comments by @Bring back Daz Sampson: against me and User:Fenix down which surely should be examined too. And canvassing and more bad faith against Fenix down Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 Spiderone 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• edit conflict There are a large number of sports club season articles on Wikipedia, many of which on their face violate WP:NOTSTATS because they're poorly written, but would pass WP:GNG if anyone would be bothered to update them. Unfortunately the football community has decided that WP:NSEASONS is an exclusionary standard and will delete these sorts of articles regardless of whether WP:GNG is met if the team isn't in the "correct league," the clearly stupidest of which IMO was the Leyton Orient season which clearly passed GNG for the year they played in the Conference, just because the Conference didn't pass the WP:NSEASONS test, meaning that we won't have a complete list of season articles for that particular club. (It's clearly stupid since I can go down to the newsagents and pick up several publications which cover that league in depth.) That being said, I'm not sure this belongs at ANI - I think this conduct is a bit disruptive, and I would politely ask Spiderone stop nominating these sorts of articles for deletion for a little while, but I'm not sure there's anything here that's sanctionable. This would be a better topic for an RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 12:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Hjk1106 makes some good suggestions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season as to how we can move forward with regard to women's football league articles. With ones like the Hungarian second division and other non-Anglophone leagues, I would strongly suggest that people utilise the draft space and Articles for Creation options really. I see no value in keeping articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season in the main space. I also agree that there are many low quality season articles that clearly don't show GNG but get a 'free pass' because of NSEASONS. This Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017–18 Veria F.C. season is the only example I can find of one that actually got deleted but it was a very small discussion. Spiderone 13:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

These are all content issues. In other sports, articles which clearly fail WP:NOTSTATS on their face are still kept if they would pass WP:GNG. In Kazincbarcikai SC's case, that's a current season that is receiving [26] ongoing coverage (as an example, I haven't translated that article) so I'm less concerned about that, but these are all content problems (especially for non-English speaking countries) and not ANI issues. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with both @Demokra: and @SportingFlyer: I covered much the same ground at the DRV. I didn't raise an ANI myself because there is still time for Spiderone - he's only had sustained pushback from multiple editors over the past two weeks or so. Perhaps he hasn't realised the extent of the disruption? If he slows down it might help to show the community whether the issues outlined above are actually arising out of his lack of understanding or simple carelessness from bulk editing. Having said that, if he continues down the road of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND I suspect he will end up with a short enforced 'holiday' from making any further deletion nominations. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If I am nominating too many articles for deletion, please can someone clarify what an acceptable number is? A WP:BEFORE search is always conducted and major contributors are always notified upon placing of a PROD or AfD. Please can someone quote the exact rule that I am breaking from Wikipedia's policy? People might dislike and take offence to some of the discussions I have started but that's all I have done. Start and contribute to discussions on an open forum. I haven't been abusive. I haven't flamed anyone. I haven't removed any posts from others. I've admitted to mistakes and changed my vote when appropriate evidence has been brought to me. If I am close to a ban then I at least need to be given clear guidance on how to avoid a ban, surely? Spiderone 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. Can you outline please exactly what steps you take on these alleged WP:BEFORE undertakings? Do you for example have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive, or its foreign equivalents? Are you seriously claiming to have carried out this rigorous process with each of the hundreds (thousands?) of articles you've recently nominated/proposed for deletion? Because the fact that you would nominate articles for deletion and then frequently find yourself voting keep, merge etc. in the discussion rather suggests you haven't done WP:BEFORE. Instead it suggests (to me) that you are relying on snap judgements - arising out of a dogmatic, black-white interpretation of some deeply flawed project-specific notability essays. Other editors have taken the time to patiently explain their concerns and you responded with a flippant "take it to DRV then". What are people supposed to think? I don't think anyone wants any bans we are just asking you to slow down and excercise a bit more discretion, to "dial it down a notch" in layman's terms. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually I've read a bit further down and essentially you've already agreed to do that, which is to your great credit. I apologise again if you felt I overstepped the mark with the use of words like 'crusade'. From my perspective I watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Article alerts and there was a massive sudden uptick in deletions there, attributable mainly to you, which - not gonna lie - I found annoying. Hopefully we can all learn from this and work together fairly to ensure that notable articles are kept and non-notable ones flushed. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This is completely absurd. These have all been regular deletion nominations, albeit sparse in their reasoning, with perfectly legitimate reasons for deletion. A WP:GNG failure IS a reason for deletion, no matter how many are nominated nor how frequently. Not only has a lack of citations satisfying WP:SIGCOV been demonstrated for many of these arguments, but no actual notability was shown. There is a process for appealing deletions, so the work is NOT gone forever. WP:FOOTY has maintained a list of leagues for which club seasons have presumed notability at WP:FPL for a long period of time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these nominations other than the sparse justifications, and this is a completely absurd thing to be bringing up at ANI. Jay eyem (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment, FPL has nothing to do with seasons, it is for players. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

My understanding was that it was for both players to meet NFOOTY and for team seasons to meet NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes NSEASONS is for seasons, so there is no need of mentioning FPL here. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I also tried to tell Jay eyem that WP:FPL has no bearing on NSEASONS. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Good news! SportingFlyer and Spiderone have been working towards a resolution, which I thank them for.

Quoting from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season:

We should probably get rid of WP:NSEASONS as it's been fundamentally unhelpful in allowing us to figure out which seasons are notable, i.e. pass WP:GNG, and which seasons don't. [...]. SportingFlyer T·C 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm in support of ditching NSEASONS and using GNG alone Spiderone 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Even if we don't have the power to change that guideline, there are probably other ways of interpreting it regarding pro/amateur. It involves some lateral thinking – I mentioned in my first post, the U.S.-centric nature of the wording doesn't transfer well to other countries – but, the college sports section could be a workable equivalent for top-level amateur or semi-professional teams in other countries, perhaps.
(from WP:NSEASONS)
For college sports teams, weigh both the season itself and the sport (for example, if a US college or university's football and fencing teams enjoy the same level of success, the football team is likely to receive a significantly greater amount of coverage)
Cheers, Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This doesn't really make sense to me. Guidelines exist for a reason: they exist to help guide our thinking about policy, and in this case whether or not a subject is notable. To that end, NSEASONS is useful because it gives presumed notability for a range of seasons. Where there is a larger disconnect as I see it is between WP:FPL and WP:NSEASONS, whereas the former is an essay about what the project considers "fully-professional", the latter is a guideline that simply uses the word "top professional leagues". There is definitely some room for ambiguity there, so I don't see a major issue here. And there is a pretty extensive consensus on what sort of team seasons merit inclusion when it comes to amateur and semi-pro for soccer: for college seasons, team seasons have presumed notability when they make the NCAA tournament (for Division I at least); semi-pro teams have no presumed notability. Jay eyem (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have stated this before and I state it again, NFOOTY and NSEASONS are basically OP-ED pieces. They are ESSAYS and GUIDES but NOT POLICY. You can use then as a reference but NOT as a sole source reason to include or preclude an article from the encyclopedia. Take Spiderone's lead with regards to these articles and make a change in your own approach. If there is a legit notability surrounding these teams, leagues, athletes and seasons it should be our position to include them where we can. If they do not pass the primary notability policy then they should be out. The only place I leave room for doubt is in women's sports/topics and aboriginal/indigenous people/topics prior to 1970 and with just cause but that's subject of another debate and discussion we can have. If you are a nominator or !voter in an AfD and you do a search and find that the subject meets notability, whether that is included in the article or not, yet choose to move forward with a deletion then your discussion and !vote is disingenuous, without speculation as to why. The same can be said going the other way so I am not picking on those with deletionist tendencies but also inclusionist as well. There are editors who will add to an article, if given the chance, to bolster notability within the encyclopedia article. The key is that they are not notable because they have an article or it even proves notability in the article. They have to be notable without an article and regardless of what information is in the article. Again, articles can be improved. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Bad news!

Oh wait, there are more.

Note the distinct lack of rigour in the deletion process, and the near-identical patterns of posts by a few interested users.

These do not include deleted articles about other football subjects, or ones from before Sep 12.

This is from the PAST MONTH:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004–05 Carlisle United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 Darlington F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Sligo Rovers F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Derry City F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Bray Wanderers F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Shamrock Rovers F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Hereford United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Stockport County F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Lokomotiv Tashkent season <- 2 votes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 FC Istiklol season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Galway United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Ajka season <- 2 votes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Drogheda United F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Recreativo de Huelva season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Shelbourne F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018–19 Orapa United F.C. season
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019%E2%80%9320_HNK_%C5%A0ibenik_season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 BFC Daugavpils season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Aberystwyth Town F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 FC Ajka season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Deportivo de La Coruña season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Budafoki MTE season* <- Nom. still open

... and there were more before that.

These were all articles that existed and were removed, often at the drop of a hat. Deletion is not a trivial matter. The reason, notability, has been widely disputed and misunderstood. Maybe it's fine to be pro-deletion in all cases, but this set of examples were not achieved by consensus, but by attrition.

Not commenting on a particular team (and not wanting to single out a user; I just think the deletionists should change their behaviour to be more constructive, as Spiderone has), but all of these articles need to be undeleted and reconsidered. Following from what Spiderone said today (below), I think a "GNG" tag would suffice, and then a discussion on an article Talk page. It needn't and shouldn't be a 7-day process, which heavily favours one outcome.

Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Demokra: the only one, in my opinion, that should be restored straight to the mainspace is the Doncaster Belles one. Ones like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Ajka season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 BFC Siófok season had almost zero content; even the squad lists, transfers and results were empty; they are potentially fine if someone works on them in the draft space although I have not yet spoken to anyone who has good sources that cover the Hungarian second division. I don't believe having articles with no sources or content/prose would be appropriate. I would have no prejudice against any of the above articles eventually returning to the mainspace but draft space might be the best place for some of them as, if users are happy to work on them, then they should be able to demonstrate GNG. 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, 2018–19 Melbourne Victory W-League season and 2015–16 FC Alashkert season are good examples of articles that were in an extremely poor state but have been improved to a state where it would be hard to argue anything other than a GNG pass. Because of WP:NOTSTATS, I think it's important for season articles to have some sourced prose and context. I've spoken to User:Klio654, who created a lot of the above articles, on their talk page. Spiderone 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, I kind of fail to see the issue here. Just on a glance, I recognize a lot of these teams as being from the Irish League, which is not considered "fully-professional" under WP:FPL. There has been virtually no dispute about these standards of notability in the past. There are always tons of deletion nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football and it's usually just players with one or two appearances total or who haven't even played their first game. It's not always super active and most discussions usually only involve a few users. This really isn't anything out of the ordinary, I fail to see how this constitutes nuisance deletion nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, FPL is irrelevant for NSEASONS. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

And again no, it isn't. FPL is an essay used to determine assumed notability. It's not as strict as policy obviously, but it is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability for both players making professional debut and for team season articles. I can't see all of these old articles obviously, but I imagine most of the coverage was pretty routine and that there was a lack of significant coverage. That's pretty common for these sorts of deletion nominations, there is nothing about them that makes them nuisance nominations. Jay eyem (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

And again no, FPL is what WP:FOOTY uses to determine notability only for players, here we talk about league seasons!!!

Feel free to take this up at WT:FOOTY and WT:FPL. And please sign your posts so I know who I am addressing. Jay eyem (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not have to take anything anywhere, everything is clear, you should read the policies and essays again, FPL has nothing to do with NSEASONS, it is for players, so stop refering to it! Ludost Mlačani (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Use of an essay to pass off as policy is dangerous territory. If it passes WP:GNG, which is policy, then all the essays in the world mean nothing. The guidelines are for reference only, not to use as the sole-source of a decision or argument. The essays determine nothing, in fact, they themselves are riddled with phrases like "used as an aid" and "it is strongly recommended". Even the lists at WP:FPL specifically says it is incomplete. How can you use an incomplete list to justify the inclusion or exclusion of a league, team or season? That's why an element of common sense is required rather than a strict observance of policy and/or opinion.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

This really is just restating my points. Guidelines and essays are NOT policy, but they guide policy-decisions. They help determine how a policy might be understood and applied, but they are not the justification for deletion themselves. It's worth noting that these nominations are mostly used alongside a WP:GNG failure, which IS policy. So while the reasoning is usually more sparse than it could be, these nominations are perfectly legitimate. I don't see a common sense issue here. If nothing else, a lot of these could be redirected, which is perfectly in line with WP:NSEASONS. Jay eyem (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Want to clarify here real quick: WP:GNG itself is not policy, but nominating an article for deletion for failing WP:GNG IS policy. Jay eyem (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that many of the deleted articles were unsourced stats-only 'template' articles like 2020–21 Kazincbarcikai SC season. It almost looks as if someone accidentally posted it to the mainspace prematurely from draft. If people have an issue with deletion of these articles then maybe it's worth proposing that they redirect to the main club article or be sent to the draft space until such time that someone can prove that they meet GNG? People are having an issue with the use of NSEASONS but almost all of those articles (apart from the Doncaster Belles) had no evidence of GNG. Spiderone 09:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

NSEASONS clearly states that that "these articles almost always meet the notability requirements". You do not seem to respect that with all that nominations. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil and bad faith behavior of User:Bring back Daz Sampson

The past week or so there has been consistent bad faith accusations and uncivil behavior at this user who has been consistently accusing others across multiple nominations. These have frequently involved @Spiderone: making a variety of deletion nomination for football articles, including some articles about women's football. Some of the examples include:

From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9

• Describing the deletions as a "purge", suggesting underlying motives of nominator (diff)
• Describing an editor as embarking on "a large scale campaign to delete women's football articles" (diff)
• Dismissively ignoring the argument made by a user related to team seasons vs. league seasons (diff)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 London City Lionesses F.C. season

• Consistently describing dissenting votes as "footy lads", "WP:FOOTBALL lads", etc. (diff)
• Canvassing a vote for a deletion review (diff)
• Describing deletion nominations as a "sad and pathetic crusade to purge women's soccer articles" (diff)
• Stating, without basis, that a user "clearly vehemently hates women's football" (diff)
• Complete lack of faith in other editors, demonstrated most clearly here (diff)
• Describing a regularly maintained (albeit, fairly, not well documented) essay describing fully-professional leagues as a "bullshit essay" (diff)

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

• Continuing to describe those participating deletion nominations as the "usual suspects" rather than addressing the argument (diff)

From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

• Continuing to describe editors citing WP:FPL as members of a "tiny cabal of 'football lads'" (diff)
• Describing deletion nominations as a "very sinister purge of women's football articles" (diff)
• Describing a closing admin as a "card-carrying memeber of the stuffy boy's club at WP:FOOTY" (diff)
• Additional canvassing (diff)

This is completely inexcusable behavior. The individual usually on the receiving end of these comments, Spiderone, appears to be making regular, albeit quite frequent and sparse, deletion nominations, which have not been solely dedicated to women's football. Describing these as a "purge" is not only inaccurate, but completely absurd and inflammatory. Describing regular editors at WP:FOOTY as a cabal, a group of "football lads", and a "stuffy boy's club" are. completely unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Canvassing individual editors to make comments at a deletion review is highly inappropriate. And simply stating, without basis, that a user "vehemently hates women's football"? Inexcusable behavior and clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Jay eyem (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

NOTE I was initially unaware that I needed to post on the user's talk page (despite it being bolded in red at the top, this is my first time really using ANI). The mistake has been rectified. Jay eyem (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Personally I think a topic ban from deletion-related discussions is in order. BBDS has shown over the course of many years (including her previous incarnation as Clavdia chauchat – see this previous ANI discussion that ended in her being blocked for incivility and subseuqently inoking her right to vanish) that she is incapable of engaging in discussions without resorting to casting aspersions, insulting other editors or making misleading and intellectually dishonest statements. Number 57 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from deletion discussions as proposed by N57. GiantSnowman 16:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as proposed by Number57. These accusations and personal attacks are the same behaviour as in the previous account. Clearly nothing has been learnt. Reyk _YO! 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - too much incivility surrounding AFDs. Lev!vich 16:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I remember in January 2019, when Daz made personal attacks in an arbcom case and was called on it, Daz replied "Just calling it as I see it - as is my right as a neutral editor in good standing" [27]. I remember asking Daz to cool it with personal attacks at AFDs in May 2019 [28] and June 2019 [29]. The personal attacks in the October 2020 DRV shows no improvement over the last almost-two-years. Daz's comment below shows that even after this thread, they have no intention to change their approach. Upgrading my support to strong support of a TBAN. We have to clean up AFDs, we have to start removing problematic editors from that area. Lev!vich 16:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't agree with this - the football project has long struggled with women's football, and I don't think it's uncivil to call this out or be frustrated by it. A topic ban would only further serve to wall the garden. A warning is sufficient. SportingFlyer T·C 17:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Just from the original AFD discussion, there is a string or casting aspersions and personal attacks - this is not behaviour that is compatible with working in a collaborative environment. I would at least think a topic ban from AFDs is required, and possibly something wider ranging.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• I haven't looked into everything about this editor's behaviour, but must point out that any discussion of football topics, whether for players or seasons, seems to be based on whether a league is "fully professional" or not rather than the notability of the player or season in question. I realise that there are many sunken costs here, as many people have spent a lot of time on checking whether a league is fully professional, but can't we start looking at the notability of article subjects rather than an irrelevant issue about leagues? We currently have the absurd situation where, in the men's game here in England, we accept articles about players and seasons in 92 clubs as automatically notable, but in the women's game none before 2018, and in the rest of the world outside England and the United States none at all. We also have small countries such as Georgia, where there is a very big club, Dynamo Tbilisi, where players and seasons are far more notable than in any club in League Two, but are excluded from notability because some other teams in the league are not fully professional, which is nothing to do with those topics or that club. Surely it has been obvious for many years that this criterion is both Anglo-centric and sexist, and is not fit for purpose? It seems that anyone who asks this question is labelled as disruptive, as I'm sure I will be for making this comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is not disruptive at all, but it does show a fundamental ignorance about how NFOOTBALL etc. actually work. It's all based on a presumption of notability. If women's articles meet GNG, then they will be (and indeed are) notable and therefore kept at AFDs. GiantSnowman 19:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not a fundamental ignorance of anything. Nearly all deletion discussions of articles about footballers or seasons concentrate on whether the league is fully professional or not, rather than sources actually about the article subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment

This is at risk of becoming a proxy "delete vs keep" debate, but maybe that's no bad thing. It should probably be seen in that context. This issue was brought here 3 hours after the deletions were (in the section above). All of the first 6 commenters here, from Jay down to SportingFlyer, have also taken one side or the other at least once in those unresolved Deletion discussions we invoked earlier – I've done so as well. I certainly don't feel I would really be neutral on this.

Hopefully some 'disinterested' admins can come up with an answer or mediation (I've called a few but they haven't shown up yet). I can't condone Daz's uncivil tone, but they evidently felt that the women's team articles were being attacked and valid arguments ignored. As mentioned by Phil, the site generally has some history of selective sexism about sports articles; both Doncaster and Melbourne have been significant clubs in the women's game, and I think most of us now realise deletion wasn't the best first step.

There are some new suggestions from both SportingFlyer and Spiderone, re: WP:NSPORTS, which I think are very promising. (Mentioned in section above.)
Demokra (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been disappointed by some of the callous accusations but I agree that we need to move forward. Whilst I'm not planning to abstain from participating in AfDs, I have changed my approach. Rather than going straight to PROD/AfD, I'm choosing to put a GNG tag on some of the other articles that I felt didn't meet our notability requirements and will leave them with just that for the next few months. Hopefully, this gives the editors keen on keeping those articles a chance to prove they meet GNG as User:Hack did with 2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season, a discussion that will end with me having egg on my face! I hope that we can agree that there are certainly some occasions, still, with both men's and women's articles, when deletion was the only valid option (see here and here). Moving forward, I will try to focus more on GNG, especially when it comes to the women's football articles where NSEASONS and NFOOTY are practically moot. Spiderone 07:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Civility is important. I never condone incivility but civility itself is also a relative term depending on who it is that is using it. President Andrew Jackson believed the Indian Removal Act was civility. He believed he was "saving" entire cultures from destruction by moving them to territory where he believed they would be able to grow and sustain themselves without colonial/American intervention. Some question his motives. The results are mixed at best. I certainly would have a few questions myself had I been given the chance. My questions and opinions would have been largely ignored and definitely suppressed because I am a woman and that was the way of it during that time. The point is that American Indians didn't view it that way. When one is fighting for what they believe in they tend to view their own position as "the moral high ground". I will address the complaints and give my perspective. Take it for what it is.

• Name calling/"bad faith" comments: I will go out on a limb here. I also repeated the position and even took the same as Daz at times. Whether it was intended to be that way, they aren't necessarily wrong about a purge. And they aren't wrong that it seems those engaged in WP:NFOOTY use fraternity like tactics in AfD's by following each other around and nominating and !voting together. I digress, some say they aren't, some say they are. In the end it doesn't matter and it isn't helpful to the encyclopedia at large to continue to refer to them as that. I am, however, very concerned about the practice of deletionist in Wikipedia. How many admins and editors have the number of AfD's they have made/won on their user page as something like a trophy? I saw one editor who actually keeps track of deletions versus creations and laments when the number of deletions doesn't outpace creations. I have had one self describe as a champion for keeping the encyclopedia pure in regards to a vote to delete an article concerning women. Name calling is never right, even though I have done it too. I admit it. Neither is this approach by editors/admins to infer that the encyclopedia is more pure because an article that many found useful and worthy enough to fight for has been deleted. When it comes to the two main genders, male and female, not to exclude others, I have no doubt more articles on men are probably deleted every year. I don't have figures here in front of me but I would be willing to bet there are a considerable amount more men's articles than women's articles. The deletion of women's articles hits our community harder because of the disparity between the two figures. If you are going to censor Daz then you probably need to look at quite a few others comments but I caution you, if your house is made of glass you probably shouldn't be throwing stones. Might be better to move forward with lessons learned.

• Canvassing: I don't view Daz as canvassing anything by trying to get the word out about such deletion nominations. I appreciate them posting it on the projects talk page. There are a lot of issues here on Wikipedia, especially in regards to topics on women and specifically in regards to indigenous/aboriginal people. What constitutes a purge? Five articles? Ten? Twenty? The issue I have seen most on here is when an editor uses their subjective opinion of an essay to pass off as policy. There is enough subjective use of the general notability policy without us deleting articles because of our interpretation/application of an essay. Asking for others to weigh in and giving your opinion is not canvassing. Daz has never written me and asked me to vote a certain way and any discussion has been left to talk pages where it is in the open and dissenting views can be expressed.

In the end, I would like to assume good faith on the part of every editor. But not every editor makes their decisions in good faith. Unfortunately, a lot of editors and even some admins counter the good faith argument by giving us reason not to trust their judgement. Time will tell and I can't be everywhere but I will challenge most deletions on articles about women and indigenous people when I find that they are notable subjects and regardless of what is specifically mentioned in the article. If I run across sources in the process then I will either add them or notify others. I will not apologize for defending an article even when others don't like what I have said. We aren't here to be friends and sing Kumbaya around a camp fire. If you can't stand your view point and subjective opinions being challenged then maybe being here isn't all that good for your psyche. Civility is a noble cause and we should be civil but some of us view any number of rapid deletions of subjects we may be passionate about as incivility in and of itself. That's a topic of debate I am willing to discuss. Ultimately, Spiderzone says they will try a different approach. I am good with that. I am also good with Daz challenging said approach when there is just cause. I may even side with Spiderzone as I have in the past. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note I did not bring up the discussion about fully vs any other type of professional because it is simply incorrect in every application of the sense. The reasons have already been supplied in my comments prior to this.--Tsistunagiska (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note

From my list in the section above, these are some more women's articles that were nominated and/or deleted, apart from Millwall London City Lionesses.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2012 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
- Also including 2011 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Sheffield United W.F.C. season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019–20 Huddersfield Town Women FC season
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2019–20 Durham W.F.C. season
- Also including 2018–19 Durham W.F.C. season

I've made my feelings clear about the shoddiness of this process (in the previous section). The wave of deletions wasn't specifically anti-women's soccer, but it could be seen as such if you weren't following all the men's team deletions, which I personally was unaware of until yesterday - had to look it up and was shocked by how many were deleted.
Thanks, Demokra (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• These season articles are created by the hundreds using scripts. They're deleted by the dozen, which doesn't make a dent. It's all a giant waste of time, but it's some people's harmless hobby. I wouldn't get too worried about the deletion of a sports season article. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference whatsoever to anyone. (Except for the dozen or so people creating and deleting these articles.) Lev!vich 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The use of the word "harmless" and "grand scheme' and "makes no difference" sounds a lot like "let's make a treaty". It doesn't matter to you. We understand that. That's ok. Everyone has their preference. It matters to some of us though. It's emblematic of the encyclopedia as a whole. We should not take delight in deleting articles for anyone, much less women, and where we can we should fight against the exclusion of them, with justification for doing it and the use of common sense. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - It seems that Daz is refusing to take advice to stick to PAGs and instead will continue to personlize deletion disputes. This diff shows that he is still going after spiderone and intends to keep attacking supposed members of a footy cabal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Footy project has some serious issues with discrimination and inequality. This is not the right way to handle the justified objections. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, @Ludost Mlačani: It sometimes seems that WP:FOOTY is to gender balance what the 1997–98 Kent Football League is to notability! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (as the target of this section). There seems to be a bit of "tit for tat" here and a transparent attempt to derail the actual discussion. I've seen plenty of trumped-up finger pointing at ANI over the years. Usually editors trying to cause needless drama to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. And I can only think that's the motive for this palpable nonsense. Yes I commented in a few nominations; so did you, Einstein. If using the informal mode of address "lad" is to be considered a personal attack or "ad hominem" I think we can all pack up and go home. That's stretching the definition of WP:NPA to be so elastic as to be completely meaningless. Two editors discussing whether to start a DRV and then doing it is not "canvassing", it is good practice. Perhaps if Spiderone had sought advice before his scattergun approach to deletion nominations none of us would be here wasting our time on this. Your characterisation of my interaction with Number57 is bizarre. Note that I pointed out an apparent contradiction in his position, he flamed me (with the diatribe about "intellectual dishonesty") then my reply to him was a model of restraint. I won't comment on the rest of the tenuous guff you've cobbled together but it seems to continue in much the same vein. Look, the last time I checked it is still allowed to disagree with Project-specific notability essays, especially ones as outdated, misused and perennially contentious as this one. Plenty of us do. I can't really help it if half a dozen editors identify with it so strongly that they take all criticism personally and become wildly offended. More likely I think they pretend to be offended to try and put a chilling effect on any dissent towards their local consensus. Nothing I'm supposed to have done is worthy of comment, let alone sanction. I'm confident that any fair reviewer will recognise that. But it's interesting you present yourself as a neutral onlooker here. Even before I turned up you were offered guidance on the matter by a veteran editor, which you thumbed your nose at. If anything your one-sided approach has been belligerent and bordering on hysterical, culminating in this vexatious drivel, which I wasn't notified of until several days afterwards. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I was willing to give the individual the benefit of the doubt to defend themselves before !voting, and now that they have responded I believe my initial post has been confirmed. More ad hominem attacks ("Einstein", defending "football lads"), ignoring the definition of canvassing (vote-stacking, as defined on the page), continuing to ignore their rude behavior towards other editors (e.g. the Number 57 interaction), suggesting that I "thumbed my nose up" at an individual whom I actually engaged on my talk page, and describing my presenting this at ANI as "hysterical... vexatious drivel". I apologize for not notifying the editor immediately (again, my first time using ANI), but this just confirms the inexcusable uncivil behavior by this editor and continued lack of good faith shown. Jay eyem (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

User: 76.85.70.60

This user has harassed me and another user, vandalized and broke 3RR. Needs a block of at least 72 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. bibliomaniac15 23:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

In case you losers didn't realize, I have virtually unlimited IPs where that one came from. Check the history of Quarantine and Freedom of movement. Losers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.134.62 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! We'll be on the lookout. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Would that all socks were so obliging! Nosebagbear (talk)

Quarantine and Freedom of movement are currently semiprotected, but only for a couple of days. If the "losers" IP continues to vandalize them after those protections expire, it'll be time for longer semis. I'll try to keep an eye out. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC).

I am sure they will make an effort to let everybody know they are vandalizing articles. After I have semiprotected Quarantine yesterday, they twice posted at my user talk page saying that I am a loser because I do not let them to continue vandalize.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

He posted to my talk page saying that I was a loser. So I brought it here. Blocks should be at least 48 hours. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The guy definitely loves the word "loser" and has since revealed he uses "IPSharkk.com" using another Ip. He's also vandalized housing alot. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 15:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

the guy definitely loves the word "loser" – Could be Trump. EEng 07:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If that's true, it would be absolutely YUGE news! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

All IPSharkk.com 's IPs should be blocked for being the same as open proxies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: at some point we need to file a WP: LTA for him. Singing off for the night. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I oppose per WP:DENY. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I know about WP: DENY, but this clearly needs tracking. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It's on prison now. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 13:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Clearly sounds like a LTA but who is the LTA using the IP address Dq209 (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Block 108.32.50.49 ASAP -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

We could always make a new LTA, the loser vandal. This does seem like an LTA. The question is who? Or we could make a new LTA. This clearly is gonna be a problem for a while. Anyone making an LTA should link to this. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest a filter for this behaviour, with DatBot reporting filter triggers to AIV. Might be one of our older IP vandals, but identifying one specifically is a pointless fishing expedition in my opinion, and the time which would otherwise be used for this can be put to some other use. JavaHurricane 06:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I will put up a repository of his common edit summaries and phrases when I have time, but for a start perhaps let the filter detect the word loser from ips and report it to aiv. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 10:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

What am I even doing at this point? Is what I have in my sandbox usable or salvageable? -GoatLordServant (Talk) 11:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It is now on Health Department -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If anything, IP addresses, linked by their contributions, are the most useful thing to collate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

We need to see how this goes. The vandal might have stopped. In that case, we can archive this section. I reported the abuse to IPSharkk. 67.85.37.186 (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

LTA?

I strongly think this might be an LTA. It might be an IPSharkk vandal, we can always report abuse to IPSharkk or whatever it's called. I don't say we file for LTA, but we make a note of IP's used. They are likely open proxies. I suggest we convert current blocks/make new blocks that are hardblocks for 6 months. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of these blocks could be extended, but they're mostly fairly dynamic so protection is going to be more useful. I think IPSharkk might actually have a response department, if you do wish to contact them. Personally I haven't come across evidence that IPSharkk is actually being used. However I do think it's no coincidence that 99.247.195.218 and 24.85.226.201 were previously used by Blue Barette Bam. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: I believe it might be an open proxy. If that's the case, then they need to be blocked for months. And this could easily be a proxy. Try geolocating. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I've no doubt they're open proxies. I'm just commenting on the appropriate length. Most will be entirely gone within a few days. Others not of course.. those are the interesting ones.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Could the LTA be Blue Barette Bam? or is it a different LTA 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: how about maybe we block them for 1 week hardblock? He seems to not use the IPs after block, rather cycle through them. 12 hours might be enough. Then again....we definitely need to get IPSharkk involved. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(merging section named "Range block of IP-hopping vandal" as it's about the same IP) Isabelle ^🔔 20:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone - over the past half hour or so I've been constantly having to revert an IP-hopping vandal on an assortment of different disease-related articles and I was wondering if there was a common range between the IPs, and if so, if it could be temporarily blocked. Here are the IPs they've used so far: User:73.85.202.178, User:66.158.213.197, User:108.215.70.164, User:71.238.143.181, User:72.76.174.204, User:24.130.9.49, User:24.128.106.154, User:187.152.120.49, and User:24.128.106.154. Cheers! — Chevvin 18:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Add User:75.83.182.59 to the list too... — Chevvin 18:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Could someone do a REVDEL on the edits too?Citing (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

And another User:68.251.96.213. Vandal claims that he's bored during quarantine. Look out for his "Loser" statement. Transcendental (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Having dealt with Blue Barrette Bam IP socks earlier this year, I believe that the behaviour of these socks is consistent with that of the older socks of Blue Barrette Bam. JavaHurricane 03:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the same old behaviour from April-May - using IP socks to post attacks on the TFA. It's Blue Barrette Bam. JavaHurricane 03:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparent COI and potential legal threat

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

---

With this diff, Jroccolv (talk · contribs) appears to be explicitly indicating that they have a COI with regards to Milli Vanilli, have no intention of following COI protocols, and are prepared to pursue legal action. DonIago (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I am leaving them an ultimatum on the issue, and will be keeping my eye on it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• I've blocked indef. Without intending to disrespect CaptainEek's approach, we don't and have never wasted time negotiating the retraction of explicit legal threats, we block by default until the legal threat has been unequivocally retracted. I see no reason to give this user special treatment when they are explicitly issuing threats. This is the community's position, and an environment in which editors need to be afraid or intimidated by legal threats and admins will decline or hesitate to enforce NLT is not a safe environment for an independent academic project. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both! DonIago (talk) 04:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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

TomStar81

I've reopened this (after a NAC). I'm concerned at the response to the unblock request (by User:TomStar81) that reads, in part: "...for the record, the threshold for inclusion is and always has been verifiability, not truth, so all this bullshit about false information is just that: Bullshit. Deal with it. Or don't. We don't care." (in which "verifiability, not truth" is linked to WP:V). This is not Wikipedias position and is no way to address an article subject who has valid BLP concerns about how we have written about them, even if they have expressed themselves badly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Might investigating the sources be worth it? Though I see no reason for the user's added unsourced content to be reinstated. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 09:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The reference to WP:V is fine, as is the legal threat block, but the rest is a shockingly bad way to reply to a user who appears to have genuine concerns and is simply annoyed at what they see as a misleading article, TomStar81, what were you thinking about? Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Truth be told, the last few years I feel like I've gotten just generally angrier. At everything. And I'm not sure why. Maybe I sensed OWN issues and objected. Maybe I feel like he had it coming. Maybe I'm just tired of getting the short end of the stick on this board. Whatever the reason, it is a rather harsh reply, if it needs to be scaled back or if I need a trout I'll understand. I really need to remember to think before I act, especially on matter like this. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, TheDragonFire300, and Black Kite: I've gone ahead and re-closed the above section while opening this subsection here since strictly speaking the above issues is resolved with the block, what I wrote is a separate car on the train so it should be addressed her but as its not per se related to the legal threat thread above it just makes more sense to split the two up as it were. I hope that's ok, if not then feel free to revert. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not troubled by such gnoming; I'd be more interested in seeing what you're going to do to fix the issue on the user in question's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. It would be behavior befitting of an admin to make amends on what was honestly an unusually brusque response to a block request.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If you find yourself unable to perform your function as an admin adequately because you've "gotten just generally angrier. At everything." then I suggest voluntarily giving up your sysop rights until you're in a better mental state. It's unacceptable for an administrator to randomly lash out at a regular user who's just going about his/her business. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Just need to remind myself to type, then stop and read it and think about before hitting save. As for the reply, i'll apologize and rephrase to something more diplomatic. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• How's this? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In my non-admin opinion? It's...not great... I think you're letting too much of your personal frustration shine through. If they're being blocked for NLT/COI, then I'd stick to a brief explanation that that's why they're being blocked and what their path to remediation should be. But I'm happy to defer to actual admins on this. DonIago (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree. I know I'm just a lowly IP but, in my opinion, it doesn't really read as an apology. It basically just says "I was called out for being rude, but here's why you probably still deserved it." Not meaning this as any sort of direct criticism on you, just an outsider perspective on the overall tone of what you wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.197.37 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Awful. You start by making it clear you are only posting again because you are, in your words, "in trouble". You go on to say "It doesn't matter if the article is pocketed with misinformation", talk of "excuses from people like you" (my emphasis) and accuse them of "a hissy fit", showing no empathy whatsoever. And still you do nothing to address their legitimate BLP concerns Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) Nothing restored in these two reverts (Special:Diff/983242268 and Special:Diff/983248381) jumps out to me as a BLP violation. What BLP vios would you presume the user saw? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

    It is unclear to me as well what the "legitimate BLP concerns" are here. It's important that any actual BLP violations be identified and resolved, regardless of the user's conduct, and regardless of Tom's tone in his messages. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

    I suggest you both read Jroccolv's edit summaries in article space. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

    Erik Weistiss was removed. His inclusion was unsourced, so that's a BLP vio fixed. I've also trimmed one piece of material tagged as citation needed. Feel free to revert if I botched it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

    And I agree with Swarm. If there truly are BLP violations, we should just get straight to correcting them. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It concerns me that, BLP violations or no BLP violations, Tom's dubious message remains in place. While I feel the block itself was justified, and declining the unblock was similarly justified as the request did not address the reasons for the block, I don't feel that the blocked editor deserved to be spoken to in the manner they were, and if anything, assuming that editor was on the level (poor methodology notwithstanding), I'm not sure what good is intended to come from addressing them in such a manner. DonIago (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

While Tom's response was harsh, I've looked over this editor's edit history which over the year all involves making sure she and her sister get credit as background singers on Milli Vanilli recordings without providing one reliable source supporting this fact. And they are both mentioned as singers any way. And over time, she has gotten angrier and angrier to the point of saying she was going to get legal representation. I've seen her Twitter account where she complains about her Wikipedia mentions and is trying to get attention from Tucker Carlson and the White House about it! If this isn't conflict of interest editing and SPA, I'm not sure what is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow. So all roads really do lead to Trump. EEng 01:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I retract my concern. :p DonIago (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, darn it, you made me look! :p DonIago (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Tell Abyad quotes

At Tell Abyad there is a discussion going on since May 2020, and we have a problem. An Editor Ibn Amr wants to have included two quotes in the Tell Abyad article:

Quote 1: "The Kurds formally renamed Tal Abyad with a Kurdish name, "Gire Spi", and proclaim its new identity in signs throughout the town — written in the Latin script used by Turkish Kurds but not readily understood by Syrian Kurds or Arabs. They have also unilaterally detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and made it a part of their newly formed autonomous enclave, carved from areas traditionally inhabited by Kurds but steadily encroaching also on territories that were historically Arab."

1. The Kurds, never "formally" renamed Tell Abyad into Gire Spi as Tell Abyad was also mentioned as Tell Abyad at the towns entrance for the time that the "Kurds"[ https://en.zamanalwsl.net/news/article/16665/ governed the town] and also afterwards like on the 2nd January 2020.

2. The use of Latin and Arab script was and and is widely known in Syria (commonsense, Latin and arab script are literally written on I guess if not all, sure most major traffic signs in Syria, be it terrestrial or aerial, in Damascus or Aleppo, Idlib or Qamishli etc.) before the "Kurds" governed Tell Abyad and also after.

3. That the Kurds "unilaterally" detached a town formerly governed by ISIL (within a "Raqqa Wilaya") from the "existing!" Raqqa Governorate of Assadist Syria is just nonsense. Assad had no control over the Raqqa Governorate at the time (2015). The Raqqa Governorate/Wilaya was majorly controlled by ISIL at the time. ISIL controlled Raqqa only fell to the Syrian Democratic Forces (Kurds/Arabs etc.) in October 2017. Sorry, but Tell Abyad was a major supply route for ISIS (as stated in the article) and was actually a part of the Raqqa Wilaya of ISIS at the time of its capture. It can't be unilaterally detached from an existing Syrian province, there would be necessary a cooperation between the YPG/SDF and ISIS which is utter nonsense.

Quote 2:

In administrative terms, Tal Abyad district no longer belongs to the Syrian government province of Raqqa, but to the Kurdish canton of Kobane. Although the population is predominantly Arab, there is no civil council to represent them as in Manbij, Deir al-Zour, Raqqa, and other Arab-majority locales liberated by Kurdish forces. Instead, the YPG’s goal is to fully integrate Tal Abyad into Kurdish territory, which the group still envisions as an autonomous belt along most of the northern border.

1. There was a Canton of Tell Abyad all the time from 2015 until 2019. And there was also an Arab majority in the council governing the town.

2. I'd also like to mention that the relevance of the quote by the author Fabrice Balanche is in fair dispute as the editor who wants to keep the quote of Fabrice Balanche called him an opinion in Kurds in Syria and at Tell Abyad he calls him an "expert". An "expert" who ignores and/or denies administrative entities like a canton/province and a civil council is not an expert. I advocate for the removal of the quotes and Ibn Amr wants to keep the quotes. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The whole (since May) ongoing discussion you can see here.

The recent since 3 September ongoing discussion you can see from :here onwards.

Ibn Amr mainly has the :argument sourced. Since May 2020, until today.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. Strive for consensus on the article talk page. If that doesn't work, there are various forms of dispute resolution available for your use. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We have tried numerous locations like the NPOV noticeboard where Slatersteven said we dont have to apply with an essay, WP:UNDUE is no essay it is a policy of Wikipedia. I am tired of not getting any answer at the talk page and then getting blocked for having done all correctly.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

We tried the DNR, the 3RR noticeboard we tried several times. I want a solution and here I come to the admins.

I see that when you tried the DRN, a moderator, User:Nightenbelle worked very hard to establish compromise, and then recommended either finding a WikiProject that could offer a volunteer moderator, or an RFC. In Wikipedia, an RFC is the closest thing that there is to a solution to a content dispute. You may have been trying some of the wrong ways to resolve your dispute, such as the 3RR noticeboard, which implies that you were trying to resolve the dispute by edit-warring. You may have noticed that that doesn't work. Is there a reason that you haven't tried RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There seems to have been an RFC (subsection at bottom of discussion) a few months ago at WP:NPOVN, though it may have been malformed and no one had stepped in to resolve the dispute. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Tenriyuuu is correct. I also asked the RFC to be reactivated, (to no avail) and EdJohnston wrote on the 11th July they would close an RfC if needed. We have tried many things.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

As the DRN mediator, I just want to say- the problem here is less a content issue than a political issue. Those involved are pushing their political views onto this page and being subtlety petty towards the others- and wp tends to tolerate the subtly petty. However- the argument is keeping this article from being edited npov. I have no idea what the neutral perspective is on this article- but I am familiar with this argument in particular. Honestly- I think both sides need to walk away from this article for a couple years and find something new to work on. But.... that’s just my two cents after trying to find a solution and realizing y’all are more interested in grandstanding than improving Wikipedia. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't the DRN mediator. User:Nightenbelle was. I concur with her judgment that this is a political issue rather than a content issue, which is why DRN did not work. This is the sort of dispute that Syrian Civil War Community General Sanctions were authorized for. I don't have a specific recommendation, but I think that it should involve imposing some sort of ceasefire within the context of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

If only we could impose ceasefires in a wider context. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

If an admin would see how the parties take part in the discussions at the talk page and the case dispute might get much more resolvable. Ibn Amr mostly doesn't answer on topic (if at all), refused to answer multiple times (I quickly counted 7 explicitly at Ibn Amr directed questions by Konli which he refused to answer, and there are other questions and points by me as well to which he refuses to answer) and mainly edit wars.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Link to a person in website?

Here is the diff. 103.18.245.111 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

What are you asking for here? Please explain what you want to accomplish and why this requires admin intervention. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In that edit an editor has been linked to a possible person on an external website. Does Wikipedia allow this? It seems unethical. 103.18.245.111 (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that OPs concern might be that User:Pahlevun's comment is OUTING the reported user. I don't think they are, Pahlevun is just pointing out the similarity between a username and and a subject to highlight a possible COI. --Paul ❬talk❭ 15:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Pahlevun is posting personal information of a person (workplace, job title, photograph, address). That is more than pointing out similarities between usernames. The OUTING policy indicates that posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy. 103.18.245.111 (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Repeated unsourced edits

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

---

Rad-Emo013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite several warnings, including 2 final ones as well as a personal plea from myself in September, Rad-Emo013 continues to add unsourced genres to articles. Their only communication regarding these concerns was an attempt to antagonize, as can be seen here. It should also be noted that they were previously warned against uncivil behavior. Examples of these unsourced edits can be seen here, here and here. I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look please. Robvanvee 16:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this editor, leaving clear instructions about what they need to do to get unblocked. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks as always Cullen328. Robvanvee 04:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

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

User KIENGIR is putting words into my mouth, what can I do?

Hi, I have a dispute with user KIENGIR for a while [[30]], so far the discussion was very unproductive so I asked for a 3rd opinion. He makes accusations, when I give him a reply, he makes the same accusation, when I make the same reply he accuses me of "repetition", despite being merely the same reply to the same accusations he keeps making. The moment he loses the argument, he starts switching to ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation, then I spend more time debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself, with the conversation leading nowhere. He has often misinterpreted me in the past, but this time he went one step forward. In the RFC posted above, the said twice that I said something I in fact did not say: [[31]] and [[32]]. He argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it.

When in fact, I did no such thing. I wrote a reply with diffs explaining that I in fact did not: when I asked him for a source - [[33]] and when he replied not providing a source - [[34]]. He then posted one of his diffs as "evidence" that I indeed agreed with him - [[35]]. Where it stands to common sense, that if you accuse me that I said X, you should provide a diff where I said X, not a diff where you say that I said X. He then moved the goalpost, saying it was about an older source not this one, despite his original "funny you start to deny again I provided a source" being a direct reply to my "you failed to provide any source for that 10% claim", and the RFC being about this one.

Now he insists in a bravado that "the fact that you acknowledged later I provided a source on the matter, is openly readable at the page", despite that not being the case. If that was the case, he could have easily posted a diff with my post, just like he posted a diff with his post. He is unable to provide diffs where I supposedly said what he claims I have said, because I in fact said no such thing. He is trying to lie that I said something I did not say to make me lose credibility in front of the RFC. I understand cases of misinterpretation either deliberate or by mistake, but this is completly another level, he is putting words into my mouth. What can I do? LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Relevant links: User talk:331dot § A user is putting words into my mouth, what can I do? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

LordRogalDorn, you have not notified the user KIENGIR on their talk page (as the banner said when you edited the page). I have placed this notice for you. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thank you! LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, ([36]).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC))

And I have to add, the user again reiterated the casting aspersion what he was blocked for "He is trying to lie", other diffs are present in the one I already gave. It's enough also to check the his talk page, multiple warnings from admins, and the other talk pages encountered, bullying everybody, administrators ([37]), users ([38]), etc. lately he copy-pasting other user's comments and reflecting/inverting them, inlcuding WP policies and warnings others told him ([39]), this goes all along WP:TE, WP:LISTEN, more editors tried to always with extreme patience care about the user, but in the end all of us are wrong and evil, shall they be users or administrators (and I could present gazzilionths of other diffs for the aforementioned, but it would just tire all the community). Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I couldn't help noticing that, although you claim various things about LordRogalDorn, not a single one of your links is to a diff of something LordRogalDorn wrote. Would you please be so kind as to back up your descriptions of what another editor did with diffs showing the behavior described? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:,

- the first link I gave (the user copy pasted here what he wrote there contains the casting aspersion, which I highlighted. The prevoius block log you may check on the user's talk page and additional comments and links (in the first unblock request another editor became a "liar" around 4 times, in next around 9 times. After you see an extensive WP:NOTTHEM, milestones far from the reality.

- the next other link directly shows conversation with others, including his posts

- if you wish to see evidence for the copy-paste accusation attitudes, see talk of Hungarian irredentism, History of Transylvania, Origin of the Romanians, and lately very intesively in the already incited Hungary in World War II articles (and don't get scared, because you will meet an impossible walloftext, although more of us tried to shorten aswers ar far as possible...)(KIENGIR (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

No need to ping me. When I comment on a page it is on my watchlist. Also, I have not yet formed an opinion on which one of to is in the right. To do that, I need to look at the evidence, hence my request that you provide diffs. I have purposely not looked at LordRogalDorn's diffs because I don't want to see just one side of the story, but if your next response does not contain diffs with LordRogalDorn's signature I will have to assume that you have no evidence to back up your claims. Again, none of this assumes that LordRogalDorn has a case. I haven't looked at the evidence yet so I have no opinion on that yet.

No, I am not going to read through an entire section that you link to. Either provide a diff with LordRogalDorn's name on it or it didn't happen. I know how to access the context, but first I need to see a diff. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but because you are not willing to see the diffs and evidence I provided (now you outlined you wish to see diffs with his signature), it does not mean your assumption is valid, because you just outlined you won't read an entire section, so in fact I work instead of you. But no problem, I'll pick of every issue one short demonstrative sample. A moment.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

I have to mention, last time, user KIENGIR deliberately misinterpreted a source and I knew that he knew it was a misinterpretation because we discussed that source. So I called him out for it. He told and admin and I got temporarily blocked for accusing another user of lying. In the appeal, I attempted to prove with diffs that he was genuinely and undoubtedly lying, but the admin declined my appeal because it was too long and he was not going to read all that. I understand this, as I could have been more succint. I also understand that my comment regardless of truthfulness or evidence was unhelpful and unnecessary, I could and should have only sticked to proving the arguments of the other person wrong without any accusations about the person itself. But this is a completly different level, it's not a deliberate misinterpretation of a source, but a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing.

The diffs he brings up as "evidence" that I'm a bully are rather ironic. I was new to Wikipedia and tried to add something to an article. Another user opposed and we had a discussion. He stopped talking for 2 days saying something like "I'm done" at the end. I took this as leaving the discussion, so 2 days later I reverted the edit. Got temporary blocked for that edit. I believed it was unfair so I talked to the admin who blocked me, turns out, I should have menitoned that I'm undoing that page in the absence of explicit opposition, which I didn't, so he was right to block me. He said that this is not a judgment on my merits, but only on the edit revert, so I can come back and continue the discussion after that. But I considered it's not worth it so I dropped it. A few days later, another user took my old edits and reposted them, the same user opposed him again, he quoted a part of the policy and turns out he was right, so my original edits remained part of the article in a funny way. I had the right information, but didn't know the Wikipedia method.

The "but in the end all of us are wrong and evil" is really only user KIENGIR. He is trying to make it look like he's the majority somehow. But nobody else told me this. Beside other things that he refers to as "we". He only cherry picked a few that I previously explained, there are no gazzilionths.

Anyway, this is what I meant about him going for ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation, then I spend more time debunking false accusations rather than talking about the subject itself. As Guy Macon pointed out, he claimed a lot of things about me, but did not present a single diff where I said what he claims that I said. This is a reccuring theme for him, with making accusations and his evidence being "it's self-evident" or "you can just read above", being as vague as possible so he won't have to back up his declarations. You can probably see how defending myself is redundant at this point, as he can make accusations on a conveyor belt, which is why I hope you don't mind if I only defend myself when the admin tells me to defend myself in order to avoid future walls of text and not get too much off-topic. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

For Guy Macon's request: On the exact issue here, sampled from here ([([40])]) The user told I did not provide a source in the article's talk ([41]), ([42]), also at AN3 ([43]), ([44]) (just a few samples from the many, the last diff - again a boomerang report, even contain the lying casting aspersions and reptititvely that I did not provide a source, etc.), although it has been always there ([45]). After the admin warned him ([46]), after he acknowledged I provided a source ([47]) (highlight, "yes you provided a source". Now, one month later, at another talk when I was referring back to this evidence, he responded ([48]) (highlight, "Again misleading and fallacious argumentation, I provided 2 sources while you provided nothing. (...) although this issue has been already discussed and demonstrated nearly 1 month ago (WP:LISTEN)" (in this you see also evidence for the copy-paste issue, since the second part of the sentence is what I directly told him before).

So after I faced him it is not a good thing after recurrent denial that I provided the source he again starts to deny it, although by admin pressure he finally acknowlegded I did....after, again in a counter-accusative rant ([49]) he again denied I provided a source, but foxily he cited in diffs from another recent discussion, in which he claimed a source (which anyway I don't have to provide since we have them already and that's all just about the user's fallacious interpretation), but it was unrelated to the discussion 1 month ago.

So now we have this boomerang report, when the user in a very lame way tries to coin the community and in fact he does what he is accusing me (despite I told him with experienced and diff-issue check-willing - huh, to even get through of those specified diff's walloftexts' - editors/admins he has no chance.

For further casting aspersions, see ([50]) or [51] (just search on the word lie) or previously this ([52]), but there would be much more. Guy, I hope you are satisfied and catched the issue.

(disclaimer, I just noticed meanwhile composing this, the user already put a long something, I will review it only now, may be the answer will built into this composition)(KIENGIR (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

ADDENDUM on the user's new "demonstration":

- "attempted to prove with diffs that he was genuinely and undoubtedly lying" -> WP:NOTTHEM, the user did not understand/acknowledge why he was blocked for, and now again uses this argumentation as an excuse, however I never lied, but it does not matter

- "but a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing" -> Sorry, to say that, epic fail as just here, recurrently

- "He is trying to make it look like he's the majority somehow. But nobody else told me this." -> ([53]) (Highlight -> "Three editors from three countries have been explaining a basic rule to him for days")

- "so my original edits remained part of the article in a funny way" -> It will be reviewed, as the perpetrator seem to be an IP generic following the same argumentation as the user ([54]), while another IP which appears to be a sock anyway ([55]) was just blocked for 6 months.

- "The "but in the end all of us are wrong and evil" is really only user KIENGIR." -> yes, maybe I am the devil incarnate.

I really sorry I have to spend so much time with obvious issues and not happy editing, in the aforementioned pages in every (half?) year we encounter some very tendentious and enthusastic trolls which are consuming our precius time, but our patience are almost unlimited.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

Please, read the whole text from the diff provided by user KIENGIR in order to avoid cherry picking, [[[56]]: "You provided a source, but it is not a source that counters my original source. The only source you provided only further proves the 1941 census is misleading without the mention of mass immigration.". He provided a source. Not a source relevant on the subject at hand. We were talking back then, as well as right here, about the 1940 censuses. For those, I have provided 2 sources, while he provided no source.

Admin pressure? wtf? Please, provide a diff where the admin pressured me to acknowledge your so called source. About his "highlight", is again a poor attempt to mislead by taking things out of context: it was part of that funny discussion. There were no three editors who tried to explain me a basic rule for days, and the admin acknowledged there were no 3 editors, but nonetheless he temorarly blocked me for reverting edits. I would like to ask a simple question to his out of context accusation: If 3 editors tried to explain me a basic rule for days, how come the guy who came after me to restore my edits explained 1 single rule, turns out he was right and my original edits were restored? There are 2 possibilties: (a) the 3 editors were wrong (b) there were no 3 editors. Go ahead and review them out of WP:REVENGE if that is what you wish, I don't think you will have any luck with it as the user who restored my edits quoted Wikipedia's policy simply and succintly: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia". As for the other user who was blocked for 6 months, how is he relevant to our discussion? LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

My analysis of the the diffs KIENGIR just provided:

First link: Diff to something written by KIENGIR. Ignored.

Second link: Confirmed that LordRogalDorn asked for a source on 23:39, 11 September 2020

Looking at the context (the entire page as it existed at that time is easily accesses by clicking on the "Revision as of 23:39, 11 September 2020Revision as of 23:39, 11 September 2020" link at the top), I see that it was preceded by

"Can you list the sources of the official agreements and mass return for verification? -- posted by LordRogalDorn 11:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Surprising you enter into issues you don't know exactly, although they are widely known by those who analyzed the subject. E.g. [1] --posted KIENGIR at 15:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

With a link to "A történelem tanúi - Erdély - bevonulás 1940 p 56. - The witnesses of history - Transylvania - Entry 1940 p. 56. - ISBN 978-963-251-473-4"

(I have no idea at this point whether that ref contains "the sources of the official agreements and mass return for verification", but no doubt someone will quote the exact words.)

Third link: confirmed that 12:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) LordRogalDornrote:

"It's impossible to gain consensus with a non-cooperative user who won't offer verificaiton for his concerns but at the same time is against edits whose sources have been listed. ... Since you are either unwilling or unable to back up your counter-claims with evidence, your concerns are not legitimate for they are based on empty words alone. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Fourth link. Did not read. It's an edit warring report, I am not investigating edit warring at this time, and KIENGIR has already established that LordRogalDornrote asked for a source. Moving on in hope of seeing the answer.

Fifth link: In [57] KIENGIR wrote about the "1930 Romanian census" and the "1941 Hungarian census" arguing that both should have been included.

So it appears that there is a disagreement as to what sources to use, and that there are sources for two censuses. but is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? I invite LordRogalDornrote at this point to describe exactly what he is asking for a source to. Please do so calmly, factually, and with zero added personal comments. We already know your opinions about each other.

Sixth link: The claims "the admin warned him" is misleading. The result of the edit warring report was:

"Result: Both parties have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. This is clearly a nationalist topic. If anyone is hoping to get support from admins, please make your talk page posts understandable. If you find that you can't reach agreement, use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. It is risky to charge that another editor is lying. User:LordRogalDorn, as a new editor, might be cautious when reverting on nationalist topics that have been the scene of past disputes. There does not have to be any time pressure on Wikipedia when we are trying to get the events of 1940 described correctly. If usability of sources is in question, WP:RSN is available."

Seventh link: confirmed that at 15:00, 13 September 2020 LordRogalDorn wrote

"You provided a source, but it is not a source that counters my original source. The only source you provided only further proves the 1941 census is misleading without the mention of mass immigration. Which you didn't do. We already talked about this but you won't listen. The 1930 and 1941 censuses were real, but so were the 1940 one. So why use the 1930 and 1941 ones when the 1940 are available and more accurate since the Second Vienna Award happened in 1940."

I stopped there. My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source. It is clearly a disagreement about which sources to use.

I am not seeing anything here that requires sanctions, and I recommend closing this ANI case. I advise both KIENGIR and LordRogalDorn to completely stop saying anything about the other editor (clearly doing that isn't working out for either of you), that you make all of your reposes way shorter, and that you each hake your point and then shut up rather than a lengthy back-and-forth where you repeat the same points.

I recommend a NEUTRALLY WORDED inquiry an the reliable sources noticeboard about what censuses the include and how much WP:WEIGHT to gave to each of them. On the RS noticeboard, you should both do your best to imitate emotionless robots who are only capable of discussing facts and figures.

Basically I am asking you both to figure out how to stop fighting and start cooperating. It actually is possible to have strong disagreements about article content yet treat each other with respect and dignity. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

For the user's reaction:

- There is no cherrypicking, I told in advance the collection is not complete, just fulfilled what Guy asked, just becase you declared something about the source which just your own sepculation and you keep telling I did not provide a source does not change the fact I provided even more.

- "Please, provide a diff where the admin pressured" -> The link is inside the diff above, only after this admin warnings you finally declared I provided a source, whilst denying it before around 5 times

-""highlight", is again a poor attempt" -> it was a help to Guy to guide through huge walloftext, nothing misleading on them, meet the facts

- it is fact the three editors explained you something, it is linked as well above and traceable in the relevant talk pages, why do you think you denying evidence will lead to somewhere? Again you expect some editors/admins will not check them?

- There is not any WP:REVENGE, you are the one who is making reports and abusing other editors

- "how is he relevant to our discussion?" -> you mentioned that case

- - - - -

For Guy:

- What you wrote in brackets, yes contains

- "12:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) LordRogalDorn wrote" -> denial again of the fact I provided a source, with other invalid speculations

- fourth diff you chose not to read, (highlight) -> "such as refusing to provide sources" (so again denying I provided a source)

- Fifth link -> I provided further source

-""census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"" -> no, not the same things, on the other hand on this issue the user did not ask futher source since then, the current issue here that he started to deny again what I have already provided, etc., as I detailed more upwards

- not it is not misleading, read it properly, you mistaken something:

"LordRogalDorn, if the disputes reported here continue it is likely there will be some admin action. I recommend that you have patience when working on these topics. This is a difficult area. Thank you,"

-7th link and your comments -> I basically agree with your summarization, however, but what is after the user's "You provided a source..." comment, it is just the user's inaccurate speculation which has been already demonstrated (the problem was he was denying this and hence the whole convesation about this occured)

-I restricted myself to the shortest anwers possible, but when the users denying reality and I present earlier evidence of the opposite, it is nothing ad hominem, but if someone is consenstently denying the existence of diffs how else should it be demonstrated? If you have noticed, the whole discussions are about the user is denying reality, and making inverted/counter accusations towards others, while mostly never acknowledging any mistake he did, but continuing casting aspersions. Dispute reolutions are ongoing, the sources we have, the problem is the user tries to draw or invent things which are in fact not represented or related or even said, and the issues are mainly is not about which source to use primarily, but the user's problematic, self-invented assertions.

"cooperating, respect and dignity" -> A basic rule of our community, which to the other user should follow, since I've spent a horrible amount of time of caring about him with extreme patience, explaining him, but I did not get any appreciation, just tendentious and disruptive accusations, casting aspersions, etc. WP:COMPETENCE is required, and at a point if user refuses evidence and the existence of diffs and tries to respond with manipulative denial, it cannot always continue like that.

Summa summarum, besides all of these, I disagree with you on no sactioning, the reiterated casting aspersions about "lying" has to have a consequence (recidivious), along with this boomerang report when I was again accused about something I did not do, however the opposite happened. It's very annoying.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

• Comment thank you Guy Macon for taking the time to look into this, and I agree this content dispute should be closed without action. @KIENGIR and LordRogalDorn: even after looking at your diffs and reading your complaints, it's difficult for an outsider to understand what this argument is about. In the future, I'd suggest that you provide a short description of the content dispute so that uninvolved editors can provide their advice. Based on these two recent diffs [58][59], I assume the conflict might be summarized as follows:

Early in the Second World War Hungary was awarded or captured ethnically mixed territories in Romania and Slovakia, and lost those territories at the war's conclusion. Since that time, the ethnic compositions of those territories have been disputed: for instance a Hungarian nationalist narrative suggests that the captured territories contained larger numbers of ethnic Hungarians, while Romanian or Slovak nationalist narratives suggest the territories contained fewer Hungarians. Today at Hungary in World War II and Hungarian irredentism, we are disputing whether to emphasize sources and census data collected between 1930 and 1945 that support the presence of more or fewer Hungarians and other ethnicities in these territories (link to sources). Outside comment is appreciated.

Is that accurate? Please correct me if I'm wrong. If you both can contextualize these disputes, other editors can more easily help you. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

A "census" is not the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return". The former is about the 1940s censues, the latter is about what happened between 1940 and the 1941 census. When we started our discussion, I originally made this claim [[60]]. He asked for verification [[61]] and I provided verification [[62]], while also mentioning the oddity of the 1941 census as a separate issue. The questionability of the 1941 census does not confirm in infirm the 1940s censues, they are separated issues with separated soruces. He did provide a source for the mass return of Hungarians after Northern Transylvania became part of Hungary, the one you mentioned and the one I confirmed here [[63]]. But no source for his refusal to accept my sources for the 1940s censuses, as I mentioned in the same comment [[64]]. Where I acknowledged his source about the mass migration of Hungarians (another subject) and was then asking him for a source on the 1940s censues (the subject where he claimed I acknowledged his source, but I didn't). As I suppose it stands to common sense that if you want to contradict a scholarly source you should do so with another scholarly source, not personal opinion or OR. Which he did not provide to this day.

In our recent discussion [[65]], the subject was the 1940s censues, not the 1941 census (notice the flow of the discussion: "the earlier mentioned (official censuses) don't have the percentages oscillate near 50%. We have the 1940 censues which clearly states: 48% Romanian and 38% Hungarian according to the Hungarian census, and 50% Romanian and 37% Hungarian according to the Romanian census, see the connection to Hitchins" followed by "you identify estimations as censuses", this is clearly a discussion about the 1940s censuses). For which he provided no source, but said more than once that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it.

Concerning the 1941 census with the "the official agreements and mass return", it's worth pointing out that not only the source he provided, but also his own words [[66]] speak of the Hungarians that returned after 2nd Vienna Award, a fact that he now denies and does not wish to be mentioned in the article next to the 1941 census.

It is not a disagreement about which sources to use, because we have 2 separate issues: the validity of the 1940s censues, and the Hungarian migration between 1940 and 1941 leading to completly different numbers in the 1941 census. He provided a source for the latter, but provided no source for the former. Yet he insists that he provided a source for the former and I acknowledged it. In the discussion we have here, he misleadingly used my diff when I acknowledged his source about the mass return, to make it seem like I acknowledged his source about 1940s population.

Edit: replying to Darouet as well. As you can probably see, the argument goes deep. But here specifically is about that fact that user KIENGIR put words into my mouth. He said twice that I said something I in fact did not say. He argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it. In summary: We were talking in an RFC about the validity of saying in the article that Northern Transylvania in 1940 was "divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians", because according to the sources I provided, it was not even. While he said: [[67]] and [[68]] that not only he provided sources in support of this, but I acknowledged them. My issue here is specifically about the fact he insisted I said something I did not say. In his defense, user KIENGIR pointed out to this diff [[69]] where I acknowledged he provided a source. But in that diff, I acknowledged he provided a source on a different subject, not on the subject we were discussing in the RFC.

I never denied that he did not provide sources in his life. I denied that he provided a source and denied that I acknowledged it on the subject we were discussing at that moment in the RFC.

I disagree that the dispute should be closed without action because at the end of the day, he did claim I said something I in fact did not say, even after I clearly told him I did not say it. But I understand that this is not an issue about the deeper argument, if we could call it that. And for that I agree with your summarized version for content dispute, where is the best place to place it? LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet:, Thank you for your comment (however why do you think recidivious casting aspersions are ok?).

Any outsider will deal hardly with this issue, since as you see, over 70% of the disputes and page content is about the user's misinterpretations and accusations (where you are not even sure if you provide or incite/explain evidence, will have an effect but continous denial you meet)

Short description of the content dispute is something hard, the one who is interested sadly has to crawl through the conversation, on the other hand I am not sure the content issue should be imported here, because the result may be again 80 km long copy-paste walloftext, which we are all fed up, dispute resolution is already ongoing in the respective pages, keep them there.

In fact, you grabbed the cutting edge diffs appropriately, however your summarization is a bit broader of the current issue (and it is about not necesarily nationalist narratives). Very shortly, the user wishes to add POV and misleading content, as well insist a Romanian majority in fact we don't know exactly what was then, but what we know the population was etnnically mixed, divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians (other side-by edits of him which I don't detail now are on similar problematic patterns). At one page there is short summary without data and after another section census data, at the other just a short summary reference cited with a link. In my edit I added the Romanian census next to the Hungarian census, thus I fulfilled the neutrality part, the user disputed the significant Romanian population remark above (I don't detail the very astonishing (?) argumentation on the talk about this), but I already proposed to write instead ethnically mixed. In the other page, since the summarization is short, does not take sides and vast details are out of scope, I don't see a reason to change. These issues are already handled by an RFC, in fact from small, flea issues an elephant have been created.

(disclaimer, now I noticed the user posted something, will review now and update)(KIENGIR (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

@LordRogalDorn and KIENGIR: I appreciate that you both are rightfully upset about behavior. It seems to me that this dispute has gotten overly personal. I'd suggest that you take a deep breath and focus on the issue of scholarship. One possible resolution to the conflict is to describe how historians disagree on the ethnic composition of these territories, and to describe the historical and geopolitical implications of opposing viewpoints. -Darouet (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet:

UPDATE:

unfortunately the user's recent post is just what I was concerning, importing copy-paste partially outdated issues here. The user reiterated the identical WP:LISTEN issue I draw the attention ([70]), which was one month ago, the denial of again I did provided a source is false, since I did (diffs above, acknowledged by Guy the claim and accusation has been false). The user funnily is again saying I am putting words in his mouth, of course not. Blatant boomerang, as he again comes up with a diff which was a response to the root issue of this report; claiming I did not provide source 1 month ago (which I did) has nothing to with a recent issue (claiming a source for a recent issue where we have in fact sources; the lame trial of explaining out his failed accusation, that is an impossible contradiction, just reaffirming the invalidity of this report). So he starts again...

Darouet it is not a mutual issue as you describe, I concentrate on the facts, while demonstrating the other users manipulative accusations has nothing to do with personal issues (just explained). I am the victim of this, and the issue is apparently obvious, amazing he tired again the same trick. Really boring (and in front of the whole community, and proof again he is not willing to acknowlegde anything, despite the evidence shown and even reviewed by others. So, WP:LISTEN, WP:TE, etc.).(KIENGIR (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

• Comment: This is basically a heated content dispute between good faith editors; this is an issue for an RfC or DRN, not ANI. Since I think both editors are trying to act in good faith, I think Guy's statement above is the best advice, "Basically I am asking you both to figure out how to stop fighting and start cooperating. It actually is possible to have strong disagreements about article content yet treat each other with respect and dignity." I'd add both editors should refrain from using the word "lying"; even if it is true, it is most often counterproductive to resolving a dispute. Comment on content, not contributors is sage counsel we all should heed. I propose closing this as not the appropriate forum.   // Timothy :: talk  18:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue:,

Hi, I think you did not read well the issues, unfortunately the other editor does not practise good faith, please read the evidence entirely. I never used the phrase lying towards him, while he did around 22 times accumulated, to more editors, even after sanctioned for this. I think anyone who gives a comment should entirely read the details, the good faith approach in normal circumstances the dispute between two editors would just an overheat would be understandable, but the evidence is hardly striking, even repetitevely (even on this report). If the user won't learn from this issue, he will just continue casting aspersions and manipulative accusations, without acknowledging anything, as it has been so far (while he sees other users barely will check all the details of the walloftext because of time , so better will likely take neutral stance).

Please reiterate Guy's summarization:

"My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source" -> in other words, the report was a boomerang, useless waste of time.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

• Reply: KIENGIR, Your comment above about me, is an example of what is not helpful.   // Timothy :: talk  18:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue:, I appreciate you, but without appropriate investigation was not really helpful to insist on both editors what is in fact a problem of one.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

To be clear - your accusation that I am commenting before having read and thought about the issue is an example of what is not helpful. It is insulting and especially irritating after having spent time reading walls of text.   // Timothy :: talk  18:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue:, I never said you would commenting before having read and thought about the issue, I said entirely read the details. However, even if you read through everything, then you could not conclude what you concluded. I appreciate and respect your efforts, but not seeing what I have drawn the attention is problem, especially when I am recurrently insulted and accused, though the counter-evidence have been already presented. I hope you understand me.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

Funny how user KIENGIR complains about "outdated issues here" when the original discussion is 1 month old and he previously brought up here an old discussion I had on another page, not related to him or this discussion, only to discredit me. Where those not "outdated issues"? In the same comment, Guy asked whether is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? And invited me to describe exactly what I was asking for a source for. I replied that no and explained above that I was asking KIENGIR for a counter-source to justify his denial of the 1940s censues. In his reply, user KIENGIR is again trying to move the goalpost from the 1940s censues discussion, to the 1941 mass migration. Because he did provide a source for the 1941 mass migration, but not for the 1940s censues. And the reason I made this complain is that he argues that not only he provided a source, but I previously acknowledged it, for the 1940s censues; [[71] and the reply [[72]]. In the first comments in this discussion, he spammed accusation after accusation, now he claims he is the victim of this.

In the meanwhile, user KIENGIR made a reply. I would like to remind him that in the same comment Guy said ""My conclusion is that this is not a case of LordRogalDorn asking for a source and KIENGIR refusing to provide one, and this is not a case of KIENGIR falsly saying that LordRogalDorn acklowedged having been provided a source"", he also said: but is a "census" the same thing as "the official agreements and mass return"? I invite LordRogalDornrote at this point to describe exactly what he is asking for a source to. Which I did now.

Also, please check the conversation after the diff [[73]] that he uses as "evidence" that I acknowledged his source in our recent discussion. Where I acknowledged his source about the mass migration of Hungarians (another subject) and was then asking him for a source on the 1940s censues (the subject where he claimed I acknowledged his source, but I didn't). He replied [[74]] "It's not about countering a source, on the other hand you should drop that fallacious assertion that 1941 census would biased" and I replied that [[75]] "If you don't have a source that counters my original source, then on what grounds you disagree with the 1940 censuses? and why you consider that disagreement valid? as in, justify your personal opinion with facts". I hope this shows I was asking him for a 1940s censuses source. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Reply: LordRogalDorn, I would read my comment above and then quietly let this close without any further comment.   // Timothy :: talk  18:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Now at least the community see the inverted copy-paste accusations, as this user tries to operate with the same trick which has been already debunked at by the demonstration of "03:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC))", reinforced by Guy's summarization. Even citing in Guy's other remark, which is not related to main issue of this report, but was a question, indeed answered and yes, for that has been also provided a source, even linked here, heh). This user seem never acknowledge what he did wrong, but enthusiatically continues the same style. Now at least here it is reinforced as well, pity....(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

If "indeed answered and yes, for that has been also provided a source, even linked here, heh", can you then please repost the link of the diff where you also provided a source for the 1940s census, and I acknowledged it? Just as you said I did on the RFC[[76]] page? You say there is a link here, but I haven't seen any.

To TimothyBlue, I appreciate that you took the time to read this huge wall of text to understand the matter, I can see it's not an easy task. However, from experience, I can tell editor KIENGIR is not acting in good faith, as evidence, his attempt to put words into my mouth in an RFC discussion. User KIENGIR's defense was moving the goal post, taking out of context a comment where I acknowledged another source not related the subject at hand. It is the equivalent of we talking about Disney+ and him posting a diff where I acknowledged he provided a source on Cartoon Network as evidence that I acknowledged he provided a source Disney+.

I came here at the recommendation of an admin, as I don't know what is the best place for this issue. But at least in this particular discussion, I am not reporting about the vailidity of his claims or my claims in our debate. I reported solely the fact that he said I did something that I didn't do. We can discuss the vailidity of his claims and my claims on other pages, this is only for his attempt to put words in my mouth. I have made serveral attempts to stop fighting and start cooperating, but please just count the number of accusations from each user and see who's the one to make more. The point I'm trying to make, is that, although I would like to and tried to on occasion, it's difficult when the other user spams ad hoemininems and fallacious argumentation on a a conveyor belt. He is talking more about me than about the subject at hand.

I also understand that the word "lying" is most of the time counter-productive, but this is not a deliberate misinterpretation of a source, it's a deliberate misinterpretation of something I said, and insisting upon it even after I told him that I in fact said no such thing. When I knew that clearly I didn't say what he said I did, but he inisted upon it, what was I to do? Anyway, I'm not willing to continue this wall of text discussion of mostly off-topic things if this is what you fear, I wished to keep this short too, I only replied for admin Guy as he asked me to, as replying to every one of KIENGIR's accusation would ressult in even more wall of texts and off-topic, so I will only do it at the request of the admin. Admin Guy will likely come back and look at my response, as I replied his question and explained why the other user's defense is misleading. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I am not intending to play your games further, when you try to desperately escape by rendering lengthy discussions and deteriorations from the subject. Above there is everything, your denial and competence issues are not my problem, and also others asked this thread should not be continued. Regardless what evidence you'll face, you'll just continue and try to turn the world outside of it's four corners. This is the last time a provide you a diff for a content issues which does not belong here (and already posted here anyway ([77]), which proves there was no census in 1940 (and I never had to provide anything for something that did not happen), anyway your new foxy inventions to create new claims of sources/acknowlegdement will not help you to escape from this serious boomerang issue.

Your last walloftext blurb of yours just reinforce everything I said, you just can't stop this behavior ("Cartoon Network", "Disney+", amazing (!)

If you continue further an administrator should block you without further warning for failing WP:LISTEN, WP:TE and the other disruptive behavior you just reinforced here. Enough, I am done here.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC))

The diff you provided as evidence that you also provided a source for the 1940s census, and I acknowledged it [[78]] has some problems: (1) Its your diff, not my diff, it stands to common sense, that if you accuse me that I said X, you should provide a diff where I said X, not one of your diffs. (2) Your source is off-topic, I was not talking about the 1930 census whose ressults were published later. In fact, if you look, you will notice that the numbers from the 1930 and 1940 census are different. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR, even if LordRogalDorn is lying, be the bigger man. Concentrate on the issues, not the person with an alternative viewpoint. As has been said, it is possible to have diametrically opposed views to another editor over an issue, but still be respectful of them and their right to express their view. There have been good suggestions in this thread re resolving the issue keeping WP:NPOV in mind. Stating both sides of the issue and letting the reader decide is a good way to go. Mjroots (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@LordRogalDorn: here's some info/advice: first, just so you're not under any misapprehensions, not everyone commenting here is an admin (I'm not); the editors who have commented here so far who are admin are Dreamy Jazz and Mjroots. (Admin highlighter helps distinguish.)

Second, there comes a time when you've tried to work things out with another editor and you're just hitting a brick wall. You have reached that point in this dispute. Just forget about that editor; you don't need to convince every single editor here that your edit is an improvement. You need consensus, not unanimity. So just work the content dispute resolution system, instead of trying to convince one particular editor. You asked: "When I knew that clearly I didn't say what he said I did, but he inisted upon it, what was I to do?" Ignore it, that's what.

Third, go make the edit you want to make, whatever it is. If it's reverted, don't reinstate it or edit war. Instead, go to the talk page and start an WP:RFC proposing the edit (or if it's not a matter of one edit, proposing whatever it is you want to propose). Make the RFC question short (like one sentence if possible) and neutral (like "Should this edit made" with a link to the diff of the edit that was reverted), and then post a !vote, "Support as proposer..." with your reasons. Let anyone who wants to oppose, oppose, including Kiengir. Don't respond to Kiengir no matter what they write in that RFC. Let other editors voice their opinions, discuss it with them if need be, but don't WP:BLUDGEON the discussion and basically let the RFC take its course and decide the outcome of the content dispute. While the RFC is running, go work on something else. If you make another edit elsewhere that is also reverted, repeat this procedure for each such edit. (Except try not to launch too many RFCs at the same time.) If you decide to follow this and have questions about formatting or whatever, feel free to ask on my talk page. Lev!vich 20:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lev!vich. Let me be blunt. Both parties have been asked by several people to stop saying things about each other. If either of you continues this behavior, even if the person described is as evil as you say and even if everything you say is 100% true, it is extremely likely that an administrator will simply WP:TOPICBAN you because you have shown that you are unable to control yourself. It won't be me that topic bans you -- I am an ordinary editor, not an administrator -- but if I see further personal comments I may end up recommending such a topic ban. Consider this to be a golden opportunity; if you suddenly start acting like an emotionless robot who only (and briefly!) talks about the issues at hand without saying anything bad about the other person and they keep trashing you, chances are that any sanctions will be one-way. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Continued disruption

I just looked at the edit history of both of the above users after they got the above advice:

KIENGIR:

• 22:14, 16 October:[79] This single edit contained a fair amount of saying bad things about LordRogalDorn, but this was less than an hour after the comments advising them to stop doing that, and they may have not read the advice yet. I checked the entire history after that without finding any comments about LordRogalDorn other than asking me to look into this.

LordRogalDorn:

• 07:14, 17 October 2020 [80]: "The other user is taking sides by attempting to go for a middle ground logical fallacy... not only this is OR, but sometimes halfway between truth and a lie, is still a lie. He tries to hide his POV by claiming the NPOV version is POV."
• 07:59, 17 October 2020[81]: "This discussion was already over when the other user started making the same fallacious arguments that were already discussed and disproved in the other page. I'm aware it's impossible to reason with him due to lack of WP:COMPETENCE and failure to WP:LISTEN. When he made the same accusations he repeatedly makes on other pages, dispite substantial evidence of the opposite being clear for everyone to see, I merely gave him the same reply. Once that was done, there was no reason to play his game of off-topic mirror accusations. "

I would also note that LordRogalDorn is now in a fight with Borsoka: [82]

My recommendations:

It appears that KIENGIR is capable of disengaging and no longer posting personal comments, but LordRogalDorn is not capable of disengaging and no longer posting personal comments. So I recommend:

1. A topic ban for LordRogalDorn from the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed.
2. A caution issued to KIENGIR saying that we appreciate him disengaging and that we expect him to continue talking about content and not about other editors.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

And now LordRogalDorn is removing the comments of other editors who he is in a content dispute with:[83]

I am not the only one to notice. EdJohnston wrote:[84]

"It appears to me that User:LordRogalDorn isn't going to stop, and is not receptive to advice. In the above, he seems to be insisting that anything which is sourced can be included in Wikipedia, making no assessment of whether a primary source from the 16th century is a good source for what actually happened in history. Trying persuasion at this point seems unlikely to work. It could be time for a longer block or a topic ban under WP:ARBEE, since they are already alerted to the sanctions."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Defending the clear WP:TPOC violation by arguing that the rules don't apply to them.[85] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The other user, KIENGIR, made the diff you posted [[86]] after the discussion above. And your argument was that it was less than an hour after the comments advising them to stop doing that, and they may have not read the advice yet. But in my case, the comments you posted were made the following morning, yet in my case you did not consider whether I may have not read the advice yet.

My first [[87]] diff, except for the POV part, contains nothing personal about KIENGIR. There is truly no peer reviewed RS which states their numbers was "near equal". And to argue that because the census before that showed one thing, and the census after that showed another, then the correct ressult must be the middle between the two censuses is indeed the Middle Ground Logical Fallacy, it's not a personal attack, it's merely stating logic.

While the discussion with Borsoka had no personal attacks and was a disagreement on Wikipedia's policy.

You could of course argue that after that comment [[88]] user KIENGIR stopped making any personal comments, but the same is true for me [[89]] when I saw that he has stopped making them.

And the reason I attempted to remove the comments [[90]] was already stated here [[91]] and here [[92]]: "the reason why I wish to remove that wall of text is that it only makes it more confusing for users to understand what is actually going on, and the presence of the huge wall of text will likely discourage anyone from joining the conversation. So far, we have no votes on the matter and the ressult is inconclusive". I understand now that it's not allowed, but the reason I made it was not to distort information or something similar that could be implied.

My argument here [[93]] was not that the rules don't apply to me. In fact, if you read the whole diff, you can see that I never said or implied that "the rules don't apply to me". If you read the whole diff, you'll find that at the end of it I looked for an alternative way of doing this, removing the huge wall of text without destroying previously made comments. LordRogalDorn (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Two different things. I and others advised you and KIENGIR to stop trashing each other and in fact to stop talking about each other entirely. This is about you violating WP:TPOC by deleting KIENGIR's comments.[94] And now you are searching for "an alternative way" to violate WP:TPOC by deleting KIENGIR's comments. It isn't your place to decide what comments made by the person you are in a fight with should be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Experiencing disruptive editing, and possible witch hunt by user:Onetwothreeip

Along with some other editors, @Onetwothreeip: recently put me and several other editors under a Sockpuppet investigation here. The process was absolutely chilling, though it made me realise I needed to do a better job of letting editors know that I have a semi-regular wiki meetup. But now I am beginning to wonder if it's part of this particular editor's pattern to both delete contributions that I and others have made and to pressure editors to accept those deletions. I have experienced this editor as increasingly abrasive, disruptive and antagonistic. I have also felt pressured to undo my anonymity - which I'm trying to protect as I work in the Australian Parliament, a conflict I declared some months ago declared here and declared here and declared here

Let me offer some context. 1. I connected with this editor after I proposed some changes to to page. I thought it was good manners to ping him and other editors as they had been involved on the article before. I am open about my connection in the talk page discussion, as I should be. But I experienced being pushed to disclose who my immediate boss is here which, of course would all but reveal my identity (some of these MPs only have a couple of staff). I felt quite worried by this, but decided to hold my boundary and keep to the processes that wiki offers.

2. Soon after, I noticed that this editor was deleting large amounts of the articles where I had declared by connection such as here - with the reason given that quotes are not useful and sometimes without a reason being given at all. On another article, large cuts were made because the content was considered subjective, though it was all given balance with extensive citations. On one article about 150kb of deletions were made [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] The reasons given are often dismissive, so this 30kb cut was made because "there's not much that's salvageable." Another cut - noting that this is an article about about a SAS officer turned MP - had all the content about the subject's service with the SAS completely removed.

3. These were bold edits being made, certainly, and, at first, I decided to revert then push to make improvements as you can see here. But then I thought I would try to simply move to a new section of the talk page - I alerted all the people I could see had been interested in the article and some other editors I know from a meetup who are interested in the subject too. At first the interactions went pretty well. Then things got bogged down, mostly around the area of notability. I was being told that various images and facts and quotes weren't notable. It took me a week to discover - from another editor - that the subject has to be notable. A given photograph or fact doesn't have to be notable. That's when I sensed that things weren't quite right. This deletionist didn't actually know the policies so well at all. It was just about deleting content. The language from the deletionist editor began to change, saying to someone else "this is a lie". It got aggressive. Once other editors began asserting the clearer understanding of the policies, and we were moving towards a consensus, then the deletionist editor seemed to excuse themselves from the discussion - to hit the nuclear button.

4. A fortnight ago the deletionist editor instigated an SPI investigation against me and other editors. This case appears to have been closed after many hours of work by admins. As one admin noted that these SPI cases can be used to drive off other editors, particularly those who are not in the majority on these pages, namely women. It's been from that point that I've become worried that's what's really going on here. An editor is not seeing the content they would prefer and they are driving off junior editors - and using mass deletions and an SPI investigation to get their way.

5. Sensing a lull, I took a moment to thank some admins for their time today on my talk page and that's when I noticed that user:Onetwothreeip is simply an agressive, disrespectful editor, operating in that unsafe area of harassment. Seconds after I posted my thanks on my talk page, I got a message from this editor saying "the investigation isn't over" - never mind that admins had said it was closed. I was having my own talk page patrolled and it feels a lot like stalking. When I asked that editor to please be respectful and just not interact with me, certainly not on my own talk page, for a while — this editor posted another aggressive message.

When you ask someone to leave you alone, give you some space, and they come back five minutes later, there's something badly wrong. I am not asking for any kind of bans, but I would like I would like some support from admins on handling this matter. I am very happy to have admins do their work, even if I'm the one under the magnifying glass. I would then simply like to go back to improving articles, taking on constructive feedback, making suggestions, understand policies better. I have tried to disclose my interests and connections as best as I can (which I've done voluntarily). I don't think I deserve to get extra harassment because I've tried to do the right thing. And I really think we need to draw a line at what feels like talk page stalking.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a disappointing overreaction and not the right forum for this. I will be as brief as possible to respond to these points, but if The Little Platoon is here for the legitimate purpose of improving the encyclopaedia then I would welcome them to continue contributing. They have gone between being friendly and unfriendly towards me before.

The sockpuppet investigation found what I had suspected, that multiple editors were engaging in off-wiki collaboration to influence certain potentially contentious articles, without making this known to other editors. I agree with assuming that this was done in good faith, even though they have a self-declared connection to the subjects of the articles. If the sockpuppet investigation process was actually unsettling for anybody, then that is certainly unfortunate, but this is certainly a necessary function of this project. I would not want even those who are most blatantly here to disrupt Wikipedia to feel that we are out to publicise them. To be clear about what they are referring to as a meet-up, it's a group of people who know each other off-wiki editing on the same articles.

I've certainly asked, as others have, for further information about their self-purported conflict of interest. I've never had any desire to know who their "immediate boss" is. Saying that one works in the Australian Parliament is just not saying much at all. It's clear now by their implications that they work for a member of parliament, but they could just as well have worked for the parliament itself.

This editor clearly disagrees with their bold additions of content being reverted. That's understandable, although I certainly had not and would not revert everything they have added. That's purely an editorial dispute though, and not something that relates to conduct. It would have been much easier to quickly revert the articles to versions before their edits, but I took the time to remove only the objectionable content to preserve anything appropriate they added that could remain in the article. I think "notability" and "due weight" are concepts that have been mixed up here.

As I have told The Little Platoon before, the investigation I opened was split into two, and one of those has closed. The conclusion was that there were multiple people who know each other outside of Wikipedia editing together on certain articles, and to assume good faith.

For the first time, I today left a message on their talk page. It is true that I had their user page in my watchlist, as I have for several others, and thirty editors have my user page on their watchlist. I do not appreciate being accused of harassment and I find that quite objectionable to describe these interactions in that way, and I hope The Little Platoon reflects on that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Can you explain this to me? I read this report and the SPI and I'm thoroughly confused. This is what I understand happened, please correct me where I've got it wrong:

1. There is a group of (4-7?) editors who are editing Austrialian politics articles
2. At least one of them has admitted/confirmed that they work in the Australian parliament and has declared COI
3. The group of editors have admitted to off-wiki coordination of their editing on Australian politics articles
4. At least some of the editors weren't even editors before they were recruited to join this group
5. A CheckUser has confirmed 4 of the accounts, the other 3 are "additional information needed"
6. Nobody is sanctioned, the SPI is closed without action

Do I have that right? #6 is really blowing my mind. What am I missing? I understand about Wiki-meetups, but an employee of an MP recruiting editors to edit articles with which they have a COI seems like... well, sanctionable? Lev!vich 19:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

And so the witch hunt continues.The Little Platoon (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The Little Platoon, do I have it wrong or is what I wrote correct? For example, you have a declared COI for the article Tim Smith (Australian politician), and yet the history shows you have been repeatedly reverting/reinstating content at that article. How can raising these concerns be a "witch hunt"? Lev!vich 20:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: That's correct, although the investigation for the four that are confirmed are closed, and the investigation for the other three is still open. Most if not all of these editors were not editors until this year. I was certainly surprised to see that the process did not find this to be particularly alarming, but maybe SPI is not the right place to report off-wiki coordination? I reported it there because I wasn't sure if it was sockpuppeting or a coordinated group of people, but I figured that the consequences would be similar. Is a place like ANI where coordinating is better handled? I was also surprised that The Little Platoon brought the issue here, as it only further publicises the off-wiki coordination. There is also very clearly a lack of understanding about the responsibilities of editors with a conflict of interest, other than to disclose it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about SPI and I don't doubt Amanda and GN's judgment there, but like you I was also surprised to read this report here. Declaring COIs in accordance with policy is great, but then off-wiki recruiting of friends who join an RFC (like Talk:Andrew Hastie (politician)#Request for comment on draft "Political views" section for the Andrew Hastie (politician) article) seems obviously problematic. Now that this is here, I'm looking forward to reading what others think. Lev!vich 21:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: I think your question was to me? You're correct in saying there's a meetup of editors, we help each other write on about a dozen different topics, from fashion to welsh preachers. I have a particular interest in Australian politics. I've helped others with their articles. A few of them have helped me improve articles that I have worked on previously. We started the group to get better at doing wiki on all the topics we're interested in. You're also correct to say that I went to the COI and disclosed my interest many months ago. I felt like that was the right thing to do, even though I don't feel it's okay to fully break anonymity. You're not quite right to say the group formed to edit on Australian politics, if you want to look at all the articles people have worked on, you can see the interests are eclectic. And the wider wiki community was fine with that until we got to politics. Hence the heat. And, in my experience, what seems to be harrasment-like behaviours from others. It's been really unpleasant. The recruitment thing is off. I'm not a member of any party. It's people interested in learning and supporting each other as writers in this format and putting good facts out there on wiki. So, you're half right on your point 1, absolutely right on point 2, mostly wrong on point 3, sorta right sorta wrong on point 4 (I don't think it's unusual to to help people who don't have a wiki account to create one), and totally correct on points 5 and 6. I note that you're having a good sniff around my previous edits - which feels a lot like "an action taken by a Wikipedia editor to find fault or violations in another editor when it is not already obvious that such has occurred." That is a witch hunt. I don't expect to change your mind. I am here to ask the support of admins from what I experience as uncivil behaviour.The Little Platoon (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not my intention to make anyone feel harassed or the subject of a witch hunt. You posted this report here, and as a result, you can expect that editors will look at your recent edits, as well as those of 123IP, and read the SPI and referenced article talk pages, and look at the edits of the editors participating there. What you're calling "sniff around my previous edits" and "harassment", I call "investigating the report". I'm glad you're editing here and recruiting others to do so, and I'm glad you've been forthright about declaring COIs. My concerns are (1) what looks to me like edit warring at Tim Smith (Australian politician) and (2) what looks to me like canvassing at Andrew Hastie (politician). Lev!vich 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Fair enough. I'm just a bit burnt by all this. The reason I'm copping all this hostility is because I pinged this hostile user in the first place, as someone who had edited a particular page in the past as someone who had edited a particular page in the past. I invited everyone I could see who might be interested on the Hastie edit too. I invited everyone I could see who might be interested on the Hastie edit too. I'm trying to do the right thing here. Wiki actually has it as a recommendation to let past editors of articles and those who are interested know. That's what I've done. And I've declared my personal interest. I wasn't made to do it. I wasn't found out. I declared it. But the pitchforks and torch fires bear down all the same.The Little Platoon (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with pinging editors who have edited the article; but -- again, correct me if I'm mistaken -- four of the editors you pinged are using the same computer you are using. Lev!vich 22:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: Almost right. The SPI found that four other editors had shared an IP at points, but not with me. I know some of them share some space. And that's where I actually do feel like a bit of a dummy. There's advice on the article about wiki meetups about telling the community if you're doing a meet up and sharing an IP and I hadn't actually bothered to read up on that. So lesson learnt. But the bit where I'm kicking myself is that these younger editors, who have great interest, but no real connection to politics — they all have different interests — have all had a bloody fright and now seem entirely disinclined to make further contributions. And I hate to say it but I fear that was the intention all along. I don't think the seasoned editors on pages like this have any idea how intimidating and upsetting a formal investigation can be, with threats of immediate blocking, all out of the blue, not a note of warning or gentle suggestion. Just elaborate accusations of which William Stroughton would be proud. I think it's not at all okay. The Little Platoon (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What had alerted me to something unusual happening was that most of the accounts they had notified into that discussion had not edited that article before. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be all pitchforks and torches, but that just seems like an important distinction. Lev!vich 22:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not usual at all to organise people who you know off-wiki to form a consensus on an article talk page. "The wider wiki community" was simply not aware of this until now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Noclador disruptive editing and WP:REVENGE deletion

Can someone please intervene? A few days ago, I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989, about an article created by User:Noclador. After lengthy discussions, I asked Noclador to no longer ping me at that AfD[104], to which they replied with two more pings[105][106]. I then muted them[107].

And four minutes later Noclador nominated Container Cup for speedy A7[108]. A revenge nomination if ever I saw one, and a rather unnecessary escalation of the situation. Fram (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

(merged duplicate section about same subject here)

User:Noclador has been WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 to the point of being disruptive and indicated an intention to nominate for deletion pages created by those of us who disagree with him/her: [[109]], when warned not to do this by me: [[110]] they indicated that they wouldn't propose pages created by us for deletion: [[111]] but has carried through with this here: [[112]] which is a clear case of WP:REVENGE. Mztourist (talk) 10:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer

This is clearly not in any way a WP:REVENGE issue, even though Fram and Mztourist try to frame it that way to shut down a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989.

Context: User Fram tried to mass delete military organization articles at the end of the Cold War in September. WikiProject Military History editors argued forcefully at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle to retain these articles. Fram withdrew this mass deletion request, and then returned to it in late September at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle (2nd nomination) without informing the WikiProject Military History editors. Out of the more than 1,500 editors of said project none were able to comment as the creator of this article has been banned (for unrelated issues) and other editors were unaware of the discussion. After succeeding with the deletion of (admittedly poorly sourced and incomplete) Swiss Armed Forces article Fram proceeded to the Austrian Armed Forces Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989. Again not informing any of the WikiProject Military History editors. Suggestions to source the article via the Austrian Armed Forces University, Austrian Armed Forces monthly magazine, Austrian veteran associations, the Heeresgeschichtliche Museum in Vienna, etc. were shut down by Fram, who will not accept any source. He clearly doesn't not intend to accept any outcome but the mass deletion of all Cold War military organizations he tried to force through in September. Mztourist is arguing that 1989 wasn't a particular important year in the Cold War terms and if shown that it was a key year of the Cold War, he changes argument that military organizations aren't important anyway, and when shown that military organization of the Cold War are important, he reverts back to saying 1989 was important anyway.

Container Cup: as I pointed out to Mztourist in the link he provided "I am certainly not going to nominate them for deletion, as I trust your judgement on their value." and "I am also not going to nominate the articles about obscure artists and scientists Fram created. None of them seem notable, but as I believe wikipedia should include as much knowledge as possible I am not nominating articles for deletion.". And I did not nominate any of their Vietnam war or artist biography articles for deletion as I had clearly stated. I nominated the article Container Cup, which in my view fails in many ways: it's WP:RECENT, it was broadcast on a minor Belgian TV Channel, one of the sources is said TV-channel itself, no other articles links to it (not even the channel that broadcast it). In my personal view it doesn't satisfy the notability standards of wikipedia.

Conclusion: The discussion at the Austrian Armed Forces is deadlocked as Fram and Mztourist refuse to engage in a constructive, good faith discussion to improve the article. Both, Fram and Mztourist, complained that I informed other WikiProject Military History editors about the ongoing deletion discussion (Fram, Mztourist). I pinged Fram when I was refuting his arguments, which he didn't want to hear, so he muted me. Fram and Mztourist both escalated this discussion to ANI, even though in my view the failure of Container Cup to meet wikipedia notability standards could be contested by Fram on the articles deletion page. In summary: WikiProject Military History editors forcefully argued to retain these articles, Fram and Mztourist nonetheless continue their attempts to delete them, without WikiProject Military History editors being made aware of their attempts. Fram and Mztourist are impervious to good faith constructive suggestions to improve the article in question, and Fram and Mztourist escalated two unrelated deletion discussion to ANI, in an attempt to force through their viewpoint at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989. noclador (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Noclador: I've declined your speedy of Container Cup. If you think that WP:RECENT applies do not list A7 as your reason for deletion. You've been here long enough to know better. Tiderolls 12:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Noclador's wall of text above mischaracterises the discussions at AFD and repeatedly accuses Fram and me of hiding the AFD from Milhist users which is completely incorrect and further demonstrates bad faith editing to try to defend his/her page and their actions.Mztourist (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I already explained this in the other discussion where Noclador raised this, but not only is such notification not required, but the deletions (both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Swiss Army order of battle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989) were listed in three milhist project subpages dedicated to listing AfDs (for the Swiss one here, here, and here), after I had announed in the closure of the earlier AfD that "I will as suggested renominate individual articles instead". I can't really help it if interested editors don't have the articles on their watchlist, and don't have the AfD alerts on their watchlist.

Noclador claims "This is clearly not in any way a WP:REVENGE issue", and then goes on to state that after having withdrawn the threat to nominate my articles on artists and so on for deletion, they found another type of article in my contributions which they could nominate without going back on their promise. How this isn't a case of looking for revenge is not clear. Perhaps their own attempt to do "a malintent and spurious nomination", as they described the AfD. Note that looking at Google News would give a load of new reliable sources about the Container Cup in Flemish newspapers and reliable websites, as a new (Student) version of it was held[113]. So even the WP:RECENT claim doesn't hold water.

Finally, I invite everyone here to go to that AfD and form their own opinion of the sources, the arguments, the relevance of arguments, and so on. Fram (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Fram. I did just that. Being independent of any knowledge of military structure but an able reader (that's an opinion) who can use common sense while following policy here at wikipedia, I see why the nominator brought this article up for deletion. There are NO in-line sources of any kind. I have managed to read through the AfD and understand the arguments. Without sources the AfD is no contest. Likewise, independent reading of the statements above ARE a mis-characterization of the discussion as indicated by Mztourist. Go read it yourself. And before anyone jumps on me, Mztourist and I have had debates, lively and sometimes heated, so don't just assume I side with anyone. Ask them if you doubt it. In this case I agree with Fram and Mztourist. Add independent (not directly linked to the subject) reliable (at least some knowledge of the subject) sources that can be verified (anyone can access it; with other sources that can possibly confirm) and you may have a case to keep. No sources means an automatic delete. I think that's pretty clear. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Tsistunagiska I and other editors have offered a list of possible references, all of which were rejected by Fram. For military articles of all types we have been using the military's themselves as references. I.e. the US Army organization is referenced to the US Army website. British Army, French Army, Spanish Army, Belgian Army, Dutch Army, Polish Army, Greek Air Force, US Air Force, Dutch Air Force, Italian Navy, US Navy, US Marine Corps, Canadian Armed Forces, etc, etc, are all referenced primarily by their websites, magazines, publications and press communiques. If Fram had accepted that for military organizations we have to reference back to the military's own publication, we could have by now referenced the article. Fram outright refuses to even consider this offer. As for Mztourist - his intransigence that 1989 was in no way a relevant year in the history of the Cold War, and that historic military organizations are per se irrelevant makes any discussion futile. If either of them would be willing to cooperate and collaborate referencing and improving the article could be achieved. As it is now, any work on the article is moot as the very basis for it and all possible detailed sources are reject. If you have a suggestion how exit from this impasse, please I would be interested in such a suggestion. noclador (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Noclador Easy answer? Add in-line sources to the article. I am a warrior when it comes to articles on Indigenous people and Women related topics but even I can't fight for those articles when there are no independent verifiable in-line sources. This article has nothing. You can't wait for other editor's, even those who nominate for the AfD, to add references and sources. You add and then have them and others review it. You may even get some to change their mind if the sources are good enough. But we can't get anything from nothing. I am sure that's in a policy somewhere or it should be. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Noclador and Tsistunagiska, the article and AfD should be discussed at the AfD. This report is about Noclador's refusal to honour a simple request to stop pinging me in that discussion, and his subsequent revenge nomination for speedy deletion of an article I created (a speedy which was swiftly deletedrejected). I'ld like to just highlight one aspect of Nocladors reply here: "If Fram had accepted that for military organizations we have to reference back to the military's own publication, we could have by now referenced the article. Fram outright refuses to even consider this offer." For all articles, notability (which this AfD is about) has to be demonstrated from independent sources. So yes, I refuse to discard this basic rule for this article. I have not stopped anyone from adding references to the article or otherwise improving the article, not in words and not in actions; but if the sources that are offered at the AfD or added to the article are not independent, reliable, in-depth, published, and actually about the subject of the article, then yes, they won't change my opinion that the article should be deleted. How this justifies your actions is not clear though. Fram (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Fram I assume you mean "swiftly declined." It's hard to avoid the impression that this was a bad faith nomination, given that A7 explicitly does not apply to TV programmes.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, corrected. Fram (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

This complaint is about Noclador's disruptive editing and WP:REVENGE deletion, however he/she is Wikilawyering to try to make it about page sourcing to try to avoid sanctions. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Inserting the word "notable" into a subject definition

——– The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –——

I'm sorry to have to bring the following incident to attention here, but 3RR and the absence of other editors in the discussion leaves me no other choice.

Now that his request for deletion of the article Cheminformatics toolkits seems to be doomed to fail (4 keep votes, 1 delete vote), user The Banner first redlinked all the items on the list that is part of the article. Red links imply that the items are indeed notable, which is contrary to The Banner's reason for the deletion request, so he must have gotten new information in the mean time. (He later said that by redlinking he "was anticipating the keeping of the article and comply to the wishes" of other editors.)

Three days later, and this is my main concern here, he added the word "notable" to the definition of cheminformatics toolkits. In the edit summary he used the tag Reverted[!]. Now the article starts "Cheminformatics toolkits are notable software development kits". Because I thought that adding "notable" to the definition was not helpful, and indeed only confusing, I reverted the edit, but The Banner would not and still does not comply, even after my explanation on the article's talk page and on the deletion request page.

I believe that the addition of the word "notable" to the definition is undesirable and unwanted. If we would keep it in this article, we could add "notable" to every single definition in Wikipedia articles. The Banner's defence, and in fact the discussion as a whole, is not lengthy, so I ask interested sysops to read his argument, which I find unintelligible, to say the least. I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered. Please prepare for The Banner's accusation that this is all just a personal attack. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC).

The word "notable" is a selection criterion for the list to avoid spamming. The Banner talk 16:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

But I must say that I would appreciate a two-way interaction-ban. The Banner talk 23:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Eissink, I strongly suggest you retract your comments above. I'm inclined to block you for making personal attacks and generally casting aspersions, and I also can't make out exactly what your complaint is above. But instead of me going nuclear and blocking you now, since you're obviously frustrated, try to explain just what you think is problematic right now and don't carry nlwiki issues here; this is enwiki, not nlwiki. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed I've been frustrated, and I wouldn't have mentioned nlwiki or even have interfered with The Banner if he had not, two months ago, felt the need to start goading me, intimidating me in the very first contact exactly with a reference to nlwiki. The latter I have already mentioned on this board, in a post that I didn't start, but that didn't trigger any sysop to give The Banner a warning to not import problems, nor was he sanctioned for haunting me here. The practical problem today, which seems solved by an editor that at least shared my conclusion, is described above and I don't think I can make it more clear than I already have. My involvement in that deletion request was the last residue of our encounters from the last few months: I had already decided not to interfere with The Banner's movements anymore, but this particular discussion hadn't come to an end yet and I refused to flee from it. I expect that The Banner will take action to his word and ends interacting with me, immediately – since I had already planned to do so, that would mean there is now effectively an interaction stop, and as far as I'm concerned there is no need for someone else to impose it. The case is then closed, as far as I'm concerned. I understand that my words were strong and for the sake of resolution I have removed them. I hope this has cleared things up and I thank you for your reply and your understanding. Eissink (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC).

Two AfD's started by me with input from Eissink. I have no clue why he showed up there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal. The Banner talk 13:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Because you chose to show up in discussions only because I was there first, as I have explained already several times. Now please stop forcing me to react on you again and do as you said: avoid further interaction. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC).

I prefer a two-way interaction ban. The Banner talk 17:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The behavior and bludgeoning at those two AFD conversations, in combination with similar behavior in this report, merits attention. Grandpallama (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

non-involved non-administrator comment A/K/A sticking my nose where it probably doesn't belong. Eissink's previous block was for personal attacks and harassment and 16 months ago they pledged "... I will certainly not get personal with any editor over any subject anymore" in the block appeal Huon accepted. Since then, I warned them about a personal attack this July and GizzyCatBella likewise warned them in August as did El C, which Barkeep49 further emphasized. EEng also felt it necessary to make a non-templated note about Eissink modifying another user's comments. This is all in addition to the apparent animosity between this user and The Banner. I think that their unblocking pledge from last May and their record of personalizing conflicts since then needs to be taken into account in evaluating this request. WP:ROPE is probably also relevant. I regret the necessity of digging into this history and bringing up old events but their habit of blanking their user talk page may obscure some of what should be included in this discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't let this boomerang on me, please just give me a final warning now, Eggishorn and other moderators. I regret every single of my editorial behaviour that led to the warnings you mention, and it was not my intention to obscure those warnings (but it might have worked as obscuring for myself, I realize now). My relation with The Banner is complicated, since we have quite a history elsewhere, and it wasn't me who started stalking the other here. I fully accept a permanent (this is to severe in these matters - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20) block whenever some administrator in the future thinks I crossed a line again, and I will not hesitate then to inform them on the final warning, if I get one, but please give me the opportunity to continu working on my draft and future articles (already published, just in case - changed 00:36 UTC 17 oct 20), and just give me a final warning now. Thank you, and I'm sorry for giving trouble. Eissink (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC).

Just now I see that Eggishorn is not an administrator. I was scared by the comment and misread the small print, as is obvious. Eissink (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC).

Ice

sink

Time

sink

Wow. You sure cower and cringe when you think you're in imminent danger of an admin pressing the button, but the rest of the time it's stuff like Eggishorn linked above, and this [114], and this [115], and this [116]. For someone with 2K edits you spend a surprising amount of time calling other editors out and then diving for cover. From your draft you linked you obviously have a lot to offer in underserved topic areas, but you need to cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening. EEng 04:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Since I was mentioned here, I'll drop my two cents. If I were a decision-maker, I would issue a clear and definitive final warning and administer an interaction ban as the counter person (The Banner) favoured. I believe that Eissink will eventually learn from this; My opinion is based on my prior discussion with Eissink in the past after I felt uncomfortable with his comments towards me. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

On the suggested topic ban for deletion requests

Since we're still here, maybe I should add some words and try to explain why I wrote "I think a topic ban for deletion requests must be considered", hoping it might improve my answer to The Blade of the Northern Lights' question also. I will use three examples, being The Banner's last three deletion requests.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheminformatics toolkits – This is the deletion request that lead me here. The request has failed, and I think I have shown that a sense of revenge edition might be detected in the subsequent redlinking and in what I find a bizar addition of the word "notable" to the subject's definition. Take a look at the reason for the request: "Advertising, a list of all most all non-notable toolkits (notable as defined as having its own article)". Isn't it a bit mind boggling that someone perceives a list of at least partly competitive products as advertising, not to mention about half of them are open source? And thereafter a personal definition of notability is introduced to serve as a second argument for deletion. What are we dealing with here?
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sainik School, Manasbal – Requester's argument here is less exuberant, indeed more of the usual kind: "Fails WP:GNG". This is of course convenient for everyone who likes deliberations that consist of yes-or-no votes, but it leaves little room for a more nuanced exchange of positions. After I had expanded the nominated version to what the article looks like today [the pictures where added later, we wouldn't have had them if the request had been succesful], based on a multitude of sources, all The Banner could say was "Yes, you have indeed added more trivia. It still fails the notability guidelines." Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia?
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenomania production discography – This is a new request, still active. The reason given for deletion is: "Spam". I only want to mention here what preceded the request, I will not weigh in on the content of the article too much, especially since I don't feel like interacting with The Banner anymore, but I can say that I do value publishing overviews. Yesterday, an editor expanded the article by singling out "International singles and certifications" in a new paragraph. Today, The Banner wouldn't have it: "Revert spamming". The other editor shows up again and reverts the revert, saying it isn't spam. Not a dialogue follows, not on the article's Talk page nor on editor's Talk page, but The Banner decides to want the entire article removed now. I think the question arises whether he would have granted the article a further life when his revert had not been reversed. In any case, I believe the removal of such content requires more explanation than basically the suspicion that one of it's contributors is a spammer.

I repeat some of my questions: What are we dealing with here? Where do I find such an editor's interest in what constitutes a contemporary encyclopedia? What are his motives? You won't get an answer from The Banner, he will never give you more than a sneer or the accusation of a personal attack, never. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago. His only interest seems to be to create by destroying, which would be fine if there was a reasonable cause for such destructions, but there isn't, not counting accidental hits or perhaps those cases were other people just don't have the time, the means or the opportunity to stop him.

There is, in my opinion, a very troubling pattern in The Banner's editing, most notably in his deletion requests. It is hard to determine exactly why certain articles fall prey to him: the reasoning is poor, and there seems to be hardly any interest into the subjects and there is never an attempt to fix anything. Is it all just a play: sink the teeth into an article [or an editor?] and just don't give up and show no remorse till the verdict has passed?

Considerations like these made me suggest a ban on deletion requests for The Banner, and I believe it is warranted. Eissink (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

Dude. This is not helping you. There is nothing in the wall of text that is actionable against The Banner but you've given any passing admin more than enough evidence that you have absolutely no intention whatsoever of living up to your previous promises. Less than 24 hours ago you were claiming you regretted personalizing conflicts and your next post here is a massive personalization of a conflict? And this after acknowledging you deserved a final warning and possibly banning without discussion? What seems proportionate or reasonable about this response? A boomerang is definitely in order. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by anyone who claims my sincerely drawn argument is a "wall of text". I don't share any of your conclusions. Eissink (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

My advice to cool it on judging others and do more watching and listening didn't penetrate, I guess. EEng 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It was pretty entertaining the read the "I surrender! Please, be merciful! I promise I'll never--hey, wait a minute, you're not an officer! Give me back my sword! I surrender nothing! You will be vanquished!!" Lev!vich 05:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

From experience, I can assure it is not pleasant to be blocked for unsolid reason and it does leave some sort of trauma, an effect of which is what you have witnessed. And I agree, it looked pretty silly. But I ask everyone to read what I have just said about a troubling form of vandalism – there is no doubt in my mind that I am not wrong here, I know what I am talking about. I am not coming from nowhere. Eissink (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

I tend to call this harassing and creating of an unsafe working environment. And evidence that he is following me around. The Banner talk 10:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Time consuming vandals are not entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia. Eissink (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

Wow. Time for a boomerang. Eissink's time on enwiki has been marked by personal attacks and weird harassment of other users (the discussion linked to by EEng is pretty telling), despite the numerous warnings on his talkpage, and the behavior in this thread makes it clear that he's not particularly interested in adjusting to our norms. It's worth keeping in mind that Eissink's previous block for personal attacks was an indef, and it got so bad that TPA and e-mail were revoked; he had to be unblocked through a UTRS ticket. All of which means that he's been given plenty of rope and is fully aware that this behavior is unacceptable to the community. I support a reinstatement of the indefinite block. Grandpallama (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope there are administrators who are able to grasp my case. I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, and I also know that progress hurts, not only on a personal level but also on community level. Anyone who dismisses the case I brought up here, is not doing Wikipedia a favor. Unfortunately, so far not a single editor reflected on the content of what I have said in relation to the deletion requests, that is: to the editing behavior of The Banner that got us here – at least try to refute what is on the table, instead of only asking for my head. Eissink (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

I love the way you are creative with the truth. You deny me a safe working environment, while claiming one for yourself. You are screaming for my head, but others are not allowed to judge your actions. And you won't see his personal interests reflected in his substantive contributions to articles either, because there virtually are none, except for a series of three line articles [or should I say: "trivia"?] on Michelin star chefs a long time ago., what is a bit at odds with the 380 articles I have created and 86,615 edits I made (as of today). A lot of those edits spent on plain dull maintenance (fixing links to disambiguation pages). True, I have not created many article recently here. My last real article was Martin Talty, slightly longer then 3 lines and also not completely a Michelin chef but an acclaimed musician. You are constantly referring to our past on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I am not responsible for your indef block there. That had something to do with your behaviour there and some privacy breaches. And so on. The Banner talk 15:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I am not asking for your head, I am strongly proposing a ban on deletion requests. And you should stop falsely claiming that I was blocked for privacy breaches: it is not true, as anyone in their right mind can easily verify. And I'm not claiming anything for myself, and I am not "constantly referring to our past" either, nor was I the one who brought it up, as is also easily verifiable. You are making things up, which is a major part of your problematic conduct, as the examples above show. Eissink (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

We should not be importing disputes from another wiki into enwiki, but upon checking, Eissink was indeffed on nlwiki for violating privacy (it looks like outing, or outing-adjacent behavior) and for using unacceptable language against other editors. While the nlwiki Arbcom did not necessarily endorse any particular finding about privacy in this case, it was because they found it unnecessary to make a distinction between an actual privacy violation vs. behavior that feels so much like a privacy violation that it affects another editor; they declined Eissink's block appeal on those grounds. Given this specific history, Eissink's already ugly comment that another editor isn't entitled to a safe working environment on Wikipedia is even more egregious. Grandpallama (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I know quite well what the community does and does not accept, says an editor who has been indef'd on multiple projects. It is so rare for Grandpallama and I to agree on a matter of editor conduct, I think this is only the second time in as many years, but I agree with him here. I guess we can thank Eissink for increasing unity among the editor corps. Lev!vich 16:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure. Now let's wait for an administrator to seriously evaluate my proposal, and please stick together also when the outcome surprises you. Eissink (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC).

Request for Boomerang site ban

It is now crystal clear that Eissink has taken a flying leap over the bar of WP:NOTHERE and is enthusiastically setting out for the outer rim territories of time-wasting tendentious editing. Their complaints that started this thread have little, if any merit. The AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheminformatics_toolkits shows Eissink violated WP:NPA and continued those in both the AfD at hand and here. The addition of the other two AfD's shows nothing more than terseness in nominations on The Banner's part and the attempts above to raise them into evidence of incompetence is itself a PA. It is also a good demonstration of Eissink's tendency to both make mountains out of molehills and personalize every interaction. The Diffs linked above by both EEng (link) and myself (link) provide support for their lack of cooperative editing behavior and their resorting to PA's. Their further disruptive editing in this very thread, going from demands of action against another editor to pledges to reform and back to the same demands again, shows that their promises to reform are not meaningful. This clearly falls within the standards of WP:RECIDIVISM Their earlier indefinite site ban should be reinstated and lifting it should be contingent upon a much more convincing pledge to abide by community norms and refrain from personalizing disputes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

New account, Lin Jinhai with suspicious non-referenced BLP additions in mass quantities

• Contributions: Lin_Jinhai

This user seems to add Alma maters of dozens of Chinese BLPs without any reference to indicate their validity. Account is only a few days old. I thought this was very strange, and wanted to bring into the attention of those who have been around here longer to look into this. @Lin Jinhai:, are you using some database of sorts to get this information? Transcendental (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Reply back User Transcendental: I'm adding these alma maters based on what is said and referenced in the articles themselves. For example, if it says Joe has went to (Toronto University), then I add he went to Toronto university in the alma mater section. I'm adding these based on what the article says, no suspicious motives here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lin Jinhai (talk • contribs) 15:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. The articles do state that the individual went to these universities. I didn't notice at first due to the fact that some of these BLPs appear to not reference the education history. Clearly you are doing this in good faith. My apologies for the confusion, Transcendental (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" (emphasis reproduced from above). Thus, this report seems inappropriate. What I do think is suspicious is a user who claims to be new, has fewer than 500 mainspace edits since registering on 25 September (99% reverts), and yet seems to be fully familiar with Wikipedia policies, procedures and jargon. 109.144.28.106 (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil editor Mark Lincoln

Mark Lincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been grossly abusing another editor despite warnings, etc. This is to request an indef block.

Here is a (possibly incomplete) history:

• First round, 10 Oct: Abuse 19:02, Warning 19:58
• Second round, 11 Oct: Abuse 18:36(It was not even the abused editor who had reverted him, it was me), Abuse 18:46, Abuse 19:10, Warning 19:34, Warning 19:37, Warning 20:10
• Warnings ignored: Further abuse 21:40, Oct 11

What really gets me is that by now the abused editor had made it plain that he had serious off-wiki troubles, but Mark Lincoln didn't give a damn, he just kept piling in there. Mark then went off in a huff, and the abused user asked me to bring it here if he returned. He just has:[117][118].[last diff corrected 11:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)]

Please can you indef block the guy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, @Steelpillow:, I'm not seeing anything actionable in your diffs. That's not to say the condescension and passive aggressive nature of the posts wouldn't be frustrating. I just don't see blockable attacks here. Tiderolls 19:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: When I let the abused editor know I had posted here, two other highly experienced editors sent me public thanks. Over and over the guy does not listen, does not pull back; what action would you suggest to enforce WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, or are you suggesting we sit back and let those policies burn? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant no criticism of your posting here and, to be honest, I see your point. It's just my opinion that the diffs you posted don't rise to the level of abuse. I checked my response to be sure, and no, there was no suggestion to let policies burn. Tiderolls 20:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Um. Whether or not I might have chosen the wrong word is beside the point. Have you no suggestion as to what should be done to make our policies stick? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

The vituperation of some is astounding. I have made it very clear I am not going to be editing Wikipedia any longer. It is perfectly ok with me if Wikipedia prefers to honor the unsupported opinions of some of the persons who have pull while ignoring carefully researched fact. I was taught long ago that History was a serious subject and there were Historiographic standards. If Wikipedia is happy making the opinions of those who desire to make their wishes more important than proven reality that is Wikipedia's business. I have no intention of disputing the desires of Wikipedia to propagate said opinion as fact. That some of the persons who have the ear of Wikipedia are still pursuing their actions in this matter is most droll. It is also incredibly vindictive and perhaps infantile. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I was deluded enough to believe them while it has become abundantly clear they are not honored by Wikipedia if they are inconvenient to the opinion of those persons that matter. Their retribution is still being pursued despite my having made it clear that I have no intention of continuing to edit Wikipedia. In fact I recently refused Soumya-8974’s invitation to edit Wikiproject Rocketry despite a life long interest in the subject and my possession of a large library on the subject. For those wishing to beat a dead horse for their personal gratification, I say go ahead. I could care less. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• This seems petty. An editor had apparently spent a significant amount of time researching a topic and was presenting a concrete correction backed by reliable sources. They appear to have been met with vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources, and were repeatedly spammed with NPA warnings when they expressed their reasonable frustration. This was a poor showing and I feel for the editor, who was actually driven to the point of giving up on contributing to the project as they had lost faith in it. This was an unfortunate episode, and while it wasn't handled ideally by the editor in question, it wasn't handled ideally by those opposing them either. The editor was repeatedly accused of beating a dead horse, even though they had done research and provided sources, and yet here we are, reporting them and asking for an indefinite block over comments that aren't even actionable to begin with, after they had already expressed their intent to leave Wikipedia? That's not even beating a dead horse, that's just grave dancing. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: Sorry, but you are totally misled by him. The objections raised against him have been many, detailed, well-cited and their relevance explained at great length - several times over by four extremely experienced editors, one of whom is an admin. Do his accusations of "them" conspiring against him not sound an all-too-familiar alarm bell for you? Evidently not, for you choose instead to believe him at face value. So now, please go read this initial discussion and this much longer one, then come back here and explain how they show your "vague, elusive objections which provided no conflicting sources". You should also revert this edit of mine to restore some of Mark's apparently civil (by your lights) words of wisdom on a talk page, and perhaps to censure those editors who sent me public thanks for redacting them. Also, please explain to us how continued participation in discussions, including this very one, constitutes not returning to Wikipedia. Just a voice from beyond the grave, huh? He says he has stopped editing articles, he does not say he has stopped or will stop passing insults. He is an extreme pedant, the distinction is significant; he is still here, arguing on. What would this discussion matter to him if he were really never coming back? His apparent intent to leave well alone has proved as empty as his grave and his accusations of conspiracy. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have been following this issue from the beginning at WikiProject Aircraft, so it is not a surprise that it has ended up here. User:Mark Lincoln has been persistently uncivil towards several editors, including one very tolerant admin in particular, as noted above. His consistent insistence that there is a widespread Wikipedia conspiracy to keep "the truth" about the 1930s British airship designation system's use of dots, certainly raised my concerns about his ability to contribute to Wikipedia in any meaningful way. His continued personal attacks against other editors violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and he persisted in continuing these, despite many warnings. His posts seem to quickly devolve into personal attacks, conspiracy theories and especially that he is a victim of some global plot against WP:THETRUTH. As noted above he has many times stated that he will quit editing and not participate any longer, but he has not carried that out. After attempting to participate in some of these discussions myself, in an attempt to contribute to a consensus, I was forced to give up as this editor had moved well beyond WP:DEADHORSE and into WP:NOTHERE. At this point he is just a WP:DISRUPTION. If he would carry through on his oft-repeated threat to stop editing, then I don't think any further action would be warranted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged as an involved editor, my attempt to suggest a resolution was not acknowledged, in fact it was met with another TLDR rant with no paragraph breaks. At that point I moved on to more constructive editing.

The personal attacks are there, just hidden in the mass of words. More importantly (IMO) is the editor's lack of understanding of how Wikipedia community editing works. If they have stopped editing and left the project then the problem is solved. I find it troubling that this report of uncivil behaviour does not seem to be taken seriously in this venue. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism assistance at my talk page

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

---

Hello, could someone semi-protect my talk page please? I'm getting a shower of angry messages from an anon editor. Thanks. Captain Calm (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I have semi-protected your talk page and blocked the main IP harasser. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Captain Calm (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing by User:Francis Schonken

This is just about the most ridiculous dispute I have come across in a long while on Wikipedia. It started with this edit by Francis Schonken. Removal was silly, I felt, but fair enough, there was no source for the famous theme of The Sicilian Clan by Ennio Morricone being an arrangement of Bach's BWV 543. It's obvious from a listen, so {{cn}} tag would have been better, but whatever. I provided a source with [119].

Then the silly stuff begings. FS claimed that the source didn't verify the claim [120]. I assumed good faith, restored the source [121], telling them how to find the mention (search "BWV 543"). They again claimed this failed verification.

I then went to their talk page, leaving them the full quote, which I willl reproduce here

Go here. Search for "BWV 543". Find

The influence of "serious" classical music is present throughout Ennio Morricone's musical output, and the composer often amused himself with these serious references, often citing and arranging works from the classical repertoire in his film scores: for example Wagner's famous Ride of the Valkyries for the theme of the "Wilde Horde" from My Name is Nobody (1973), and Bach's Prelude BWV 543 for the main theme of The Sicilian Clan (1969).

Emphasis mine.

Which was promptly reverted, which is fine. They then started a talk page discussion where they are making mind-boggling claims that Bach's BWV 543 referred to by France Musique is not what everyone understands by BWV 543 because the word "Fugue" does not appear in the FM article, and that it is original research to say that BWV 543 is BWV 543. Thing are getting silly, so I left a message at WikiProject Classical music, with a neutral summary of the issue, which they then reverted as canvassing.

And this is where I'm having enough of this nonsense, because AGF is not a suicide pact. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, what? The BWV number is unique. There's only one BWV543. The WikiProject message is not canvassing. This is, indeed, bloody silly. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Now tagged with an OR tag!, courtesy of FS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I've come across some edits made at List of compositions by Franz Schubert where it appears Francis Schonken has created articles in order to make the article appear smaller in size than it really is, by splitting the article into smaller articles and using templates to put them back together in the main article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The idiocy continues at Arrangement. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed a personal attack. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That's no PA. Restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Thing-adjacent discussion

This is hardly a personal attack. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC) I agree it's a mild one. It's why I only removed it, to try and prevent this thread from spiraling in unhelpful directions, and didn't say anything to you directly about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Generally we don't treat uncivil descriptors of someone's actions ("what you're doing is is idiotic") as being the same thing as a personal attack ("you are an idiot"). While I sympathize with trying to enforce civility, I think you're understating the significance of deleting a portion of someone's comment and replacing it with a boilerplate {{rpa}} template, which only serves as scathing "scarlet letter" that brands you as having committed a great behavioral wrongdoing. Especially if you're not even involved in attempting to mitigate the incident, and are just popping in to redact someone's comment, which at best is what you describe as a "minor personal attack", and then move on, and then when questioned, deign to suggest that such a drastic action was you being "lenient" and that the editor should be thankful that you didn't do anything more. Either take up the situation or don't, but dropping by just to enact some cherrypicking civility enforcement probably derails an AN/I complaint far more than said incivility ever could. Just some feedback on this situation. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)::::: As long as Headbomb has the opportunity to remove the template, I find the action to be appropriate. It would be helpful if Barkeep49 had suggested they could remove the template in their edit summary. The template is still better than the uncivil remark. I would add that I found the remark to be more uncivil than "this is idiotic" but less uncivil than "you are an idiot". Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC) I'm not some "respect my authority" sysop and so if Headbomb wants to remove the template and either mae clear that they were talking about content and not an editor (as Swarm suggests) or just go with something like "It continues ..." I have no objections. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC) A well-earned scarlet letter that will hopefully deter all editors from referring to other editors' comments as "idiocy". Lev!vich 03:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC) I don't believe in Scarlet letter's. Again this was something so mild I didn't even feel the need to leave a personal message to Headbomb about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC) You're free to believe whatever you want, "scarlet letter" is a term referring to a stigma bestowed on someone, which branding their message with a redaction template indicating misbehavior certainly does. Moreover, you can claim all you want that you took the "lenient" route, and yet that doesn't change the fact that doing what you did is a fairly strict action, far more strict than simply leaving a friendly note on a talkpage. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC) @Swarm: I notice that you also didn't choose to address the underlying conflict but instead chose to address something you felt needed saying. One of the great boons of editing Wikipedia as a volunteer is we have discretion about how we choose to invest our time and I think we both demonstrated that in this thread. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC) How about we get back on topic here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Back on topic, the "neutral" WPC notice wasn't really that neutral. "Please see [link]" would be better; it's not too late to replace it. FS should have replaced it with a neutral statement instead of removing it altogether. Everything else, e.g. whether various statements fail verification or not, is a content dispute. Lev!vich 03:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC) You can all argue all day and all night that a "scarlet letter" is deserved, but we're now nine messages deep into a side exchange about the censorship of a frustrated editor invoking the term "idiocy", on the basis of "preventing this thread from spiraling in unhelpful directions", whilst simultaneously having made no progress on the complaint itself. In other words, we're not even hung up on the complaint, nor the complainant's civility at this point, we're hung up on the tertiary complaint of an admin's dubious civility enforcement. We have an admin not accepting feedback and instead accusing another admin for being unhelpful for raising the point that they were being unhelpful. It's comical. As I said, I'm all for siding with and enforcing civility, but there are times we must determine whether taking stern civility-enforcement actions in response to a frustrated editor is actually a net positive to the project, and clearly, in this case, this was counterproductive. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Actually I did consider your feedback. As I noted above if Headbomb wants to remove the template and either mae clear that they were talking about content and not an editor (as Swarm suggests) or just go with something like "It continues ..." I have no objections (apologies for the typo now produced a second time). I read it differently than you and conceded that your way of reading could have been correct. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC) My apologies, I didn't see that message. I retract what I said about you not accepting feedback and on the contrary I appreciate your willingness to hear out a different interpretation. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I think the main idea here was tendentious Bach arrangements. Mackensen (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think Francis Schonken's objections are wrong and, frankly, bizarre. The provided source definitely and unambiguously verifies the claim being made. Anyway, here is a book in which Morricone himself verifies it. That should settle the matter. Reyk _YO! 08:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  This is a content dispute, so why here? Morricone is no reliable source for what he did, no? What he did was a citation from the theme from the Prelude, not an arrangement of the piece, not even of the prelude (missing the counterpoint), so the removed fact is indeed wrong (as Francis explained on the talk). And I agree that it is trivia for that article, - how about adding it to Morricone? - You probably know that Francis banned me from his talk page, but he often - as here - has the facts right. Discussion style is a different matter, but can admins help with that? Ask Boing and Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  (Sorry folks, not getting involved. I'm just going to listen to BWV 543 instead, which should be far more conducive to a restful Saturday. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC))

  enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Gerda Arendt, not sure it's a content dispute, it's a behavioural issue. Francis Schonken is being disruptive and WP:POINTy, and really needs to stop I reckon. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  How? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Gerda Arendt, $DEITY knows. Ideally by friends helping Francis to stop being an ass. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  Gerda Arendt, I'm not sure why Morricone's statements about his own work are unreliable. You'll have to explain that one to me. I also think it would be a trivial factoid in the Ennio Morricone article (he wrote a lot of stuff and had a lot of influences on his work), but useful as an example of BWV543's appearances in popular culture. If the only issue is quibbling that we don't like the word arrangement then the solution is to pick a more fitting word, not to forbid all mention of it. Reyk _YO! 12:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't say that all Morricone said about his work is per se unreliable, only that what someone says about his own work is not necessarily holy scriptures. What one person would call arrangement, another might call a quotation, and a third stealing material. I'd be with the second. Taking a bit from a work is obviously not an arrangement in the sense of our article arrangement, even if a source or two use that term. Back to "true vs. verifiable", a general Wikipedia problem. In this case, had both parties observed WP:BRD, meaning going to discussion instead of edit war, others might have noticed sooner. I only noticed when it arrived on Francis' talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  Primary sources are generally reliable for non-contentious material about themselves. However that doesnt mean 'factually accurate'. A primary source can still be wrong when talking about themselves. So if a statement from a primary source about themselves is clearly incorrect, either deliberately or by the primary source being unclear, its not a realiable source at that point. Gerda has explained the technical issues that mean the original removed fact is incorrect, but this sort of minor niggle is usually a result of people talking in more general terms than the technical definitions actually allow for. Personally its a trivial mountain out of molehill territory for me as well, but if an editor removes something because it isnt factually accurate, the onus, even on so annoyingly minor a point, is to provide a citation that explicitly supports it or rework the material to the point where it reflects the source. Not being an expert on classical music, I am happy to defer to Gerda here if they say its wrong, its almost certainly going to be wrong. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Content disputes do not belong here. This should be closed and the dispute should be moved to the article's talk page. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The issue reported here isn't the content dispute, it's the tendentious gaslighting behaviour of FS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You have to assign motives to come to that conclusion. I see an argument about content. Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Claiming that a source's mention of BWV 543 (which has no 'official' name) isn't really a mention of BWV 543 because the source doesn't call it the same as the Wikpiedia article, as well as reverting requests for comments on a relevant Wikiproject is clear tendentious and gaslighting behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to discredit the France Musique page; this is a nice list of names including Marc Voinchet and Pierre Charvet. It seems to be of the same caliber as NPR here in the US, or the BBC in the UK--no good reason whatsoever to cast aspersion on them, as was done on the talk page. In other words, the "failed verification" tag was incorrect, and doing it again was obviously pointy; FS chose that tag and not "unreliable source", so they'll have to explain that at least twice they missed "...and Bach's Prelude BWV 543 for the main theme of The Sicilian Clan (1969)", or refused to look for it--or disagreed that, eh, BWV 543 meant something other than BWV 543, or however I am supposed to read that semantic juggling act. But welcome, Headbomb, to the wonderful world of Francis Schonken. I wish you much patience. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I've already encountered that world, and it never was pleasant. But this episode crosses a line. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please watch Die güldne Sonne voll Freud und Wonne in that wonderful world. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Back to the topic: the key word in France Musique is "citing" (vs. "arranging"), - it would have been so easy if Francis had said this little thing in the beginning, instead of causing another waste of time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, the Dutch are very direct. But in this case Francis is just being belligerent. I'd hate to drive him away, but this really is not acceptable. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Francis is from Belgium, and I don't think what we need is national prejudice. The Francis I know is sure that all this served the article integrity. I don't agree, of course, but would not know how to get the message across that I explained just above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

IP keeps pushing spelling variant with deceptive edit note: "Fixed typo" continuing

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

---

Since the last discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1047#IP_keeps_pushing_spelling_variant_with_deceptive_edit_note:_"Fixed_typo", 2a00:23c7:559f:cb00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been blocked twice but hasn't stopped. Even if it hasn't read Talk pages, it already knows it's causing trouble because it is repeatingly editing the same articles that has been reverted.

Its activity cycle has a 7 days interval, which day-of-week of its "weekend hobby" shifts monthly, so I guess 2-days-blocks are ineffective if done right after its edits, perhaps even got unnoticed. Better cover its activity cycle. --Wotheina (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest referring to the IP as "they" rather than "it" (the latter being dehumanizing). JoelleJay (talk) 05:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The same /64 range was blocked twice back in September for the same reason, but for short times. I've now blocked the /64 for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Uncivil behavior and removal of references in Imelda Marcos

Hi.

May I request action to prevent user:jtbobwaysf from continuing to bully editors and impose his will before even seeking consensus at the Imelda Marcos page? Said editor seems to believe that BLP just means the page should not say anything negative about Imelda Marcos. In apparent pursuit of this belief, the said editor has consistently:

1. Deleted citations without consensus or warning, branding any source which says anything negative about Imelda Marcos as “biased” and removing them without consensus, and without bothering to check if s/he has broken citations elsewhere in the article. S/he has in fact deleted so many references in such quick succession, without even the benefit of a “failed verification” tag, that it is now virtually impossible to verify which sources he deleted were in fact relevant.

• a) In an extreme case, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imelda_Marcos... where he has called Philippine courts, including the Supreme Court of the Philippines “likely a politically motivated court.” Do note that this wasn’t a case of WP:Primary; the sources in question included multiple major news outlet, both Philippine and international.
• b) He has apparently joined the assault against Philippine News Website Rappler, despite existing wiki consensus that it is generally reliable, with some exceptions.
• c) In another humorous example, he maligned the Philippine Star, one of the country’s most respected broadsheets, as a mere "Lifestyle Publication"

2. Refused, despite persistent requests from other editors, to explain said deletions. Providing, instead, pejoratives such as “junk,” “dribble,” or “nonsense,” or vague dismissals like “not needed.” (A review of the talk page and of his edit descriptions will show this.)

3. Acted unilaterally to exclude well-covered topics such as the court-established “ill-gotten wealth” (see edit history, which he justified Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Ill-gotten_wealth), despite other editors warning that this would create WP:FALSEBALANCE.

4. Treated other editors with disdain, using language that is snarky, judgemental, scornful in violation of WP:Civility (see Talk:Imelda_Marcos#Wikipedia:Civility where he ignored the fact he has been called out for violating one of the five pillars of wikipedia), crying wp:bludgeon when he is called out, and refusing to use less offensive langauge.

5. (Apparently) deleted citations for having “failed verification” without having actually read them, without even using the “verification requested” cleanup tag

6. Deleted unresolved warnings on his talk page, not just for Imelda Marcos, but also for numerous other issues, as seen in the edit here: [[122]]

Granted, the page continues to need work. (There's a BLPN discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Imelda_Marcos, FYI). But the uncivil behavior has made it impossible to pursue a calm process of consensus.

Thanks! - Chieharumachi (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a circus going on over at the article in question with various users adding unverifiable (using "rare books" as citations) and poorly cited content (blogs such as Rappler) to anchor promotional content (such as the article subject is worth billions) to a BLP (noting a recent RS stated the article subject is worth $20M! The article is about a controversial subject that seems to attract WP:RGW and has big problems with WP:TOOMUCH. Maybe this post here by Chieharumachi at ANI (although I doubt was his objective) will result in more uninvolved eyeballs at that article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf The books are not "unverifiable". They are available, albeit you do not want to go through the effort of accessing copies to verify. As per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". One of them, "Some are Smarter than Others" by Ricardo Manapat just received a new printing and a relaunch a month or so ago with an e-book available for purchase if the physical book is not convenient, another, "Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption" by Barney Warf, which was also printed relatively recently in 2018 is available online in both print and e-book version. What is alarming here is that you did not even read these books when you falsely and dishonestly tagged them for "failed verification", and deleted a section of content as well as the 3 citations you did not read, also breaking a number of citations on the page. That was not the only time jtbobwaysf did that on the page. He also deleted a whole swatch of blbliographic citations that broke multiple citation links on the page. It outlines a repeated bullying pattern of his of deleting citations and content without seeking consensus on the talk page, then edit warring by reverting edits that restore the content he deleted, then putting the onus of seeking consensus at the talk page to the person who restored content he may have unjustly removed, putting the person who restored content at an unfair disadvantage. Moreover, he mass-deleted citations by Rappler and Vera Files, claiming that Rappler was just a "blog", when it is a reputable news organization and acceptable WP:RS as per Wikipedia consensus in the links jtbobwaysf himself here. This outlines another pattern in which jtbobwaysf has been deleting citations without just reason (such as calling RS like CNN citations "nonsense" ), rendering the article being sort of slowly whitewashed by removing citation proof of BLP subject wrongdoings (from accepted RSes!) creepingly over time. He also accuses other editors of POV-pushing and RGW, when other editors are merely documenting what is generally accepted by the global public about the subject (infamous for being the Guiness World Record holder for Greatest Robbery of a Government for example) and has been documented for decades... (@Seav: outlines it well here at the BLP noticeboard on why it is not RGW).

Even now jtbobwaysf is unrepentant and dismisses Rappler as just a "blog" that is not RS, when it is a reputable news organization that has passed the stringent requirements to be a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network at Poynter and is one of only 3 organizations certified by Facebook to be a Fact-checker in the Philippines (along with Vera Files and Agence France-Presse). Jtbobwaysf is also wrong about the RS recently stating that the article subject is only worth $20m -- that amount was Imelda Marcos's self-declared net worth -- the RS jtbobways is talking about states that the subject had "likely stolen billions". Edits on the article also qualify that the subject's net worth of $5b+ was in 1986 and is supported by RS like The New York Times at the time. Anyway, the point is jtbobwaysf has been a very problematic editor at the Imelda Marcos article and has been quite dishonest in his edits, the most serious is which deleting content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he does not even read and verify the citations in question, and such behavior is quite disruptive to the integrity of the Wikipedia project. -Object404 (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that jtbobwaysf has also been dishonest by evading the question multiple times on whether he deleted content and citations claiming "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations -- he claimed he answered the question in the talk page when he did not, and was ultimately caught when he asked to be e-mailed scans of the RS citations he deleted from the article. @JzG: @Nil Einne: -Object404 (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to reiterate noting jtbobwaysf's behavior of demeaning the work of other volunteer contributors by calling them "junk", "nonsense" and "dribble" before deleting them. When attention was called to his behavior at the talk page, he posted a link to a satirical Internet comedian JP Sears instead of apologizing and implied that the editors who called attention to his behavior were too easily offended. -Object404 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to chime in that I consider Jtbobwaysf's edits and behavior on the Imelda Marcos article to be very disruptive. In his response above, he again repeats assertions that are either patently untrue or not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (1) "rare books" is not an excuse to dismiss sources per WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". (2) "blogs such as Rappler" is patently untrue and a long discussion on WP:RSN has already concluded that Rappler is a reliable source; Jtbobwaysf's unilateral deletion of all Rappler citations without discussion is frankly extremely disruptive. (3) His assertion that the article subject attract[s] WP:RGW does not apply at all: WP:RGW is about not using Wikipedia as a platform to start a crusade, but the crusade against Imelda has already been ongoing for several decades now and has extensive documentation in reliable sources—the article merely reflects this ongoing situation and so WP:RGW does not apply. —seav (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There are 3 rappler discussions at RSN. The one you note, conveniently you and other editors involved in this dispute also voted to keep. Seems you Philippines genre editors like this source? A second RSN and third RSN seems less convincing. All looks pretty dubious to be used for BLP. I am glad that you guys have moved your POV pushing to this ANI as you are shedding more light to it. This looks like we need a Philippines politics genre GS, much like we have at AP2. Aquillion said "It looks like it's all user-submitted stories with absolutely minimal editorial control (their terms of use talk about stuff like "don't submit NSFW stories", which makes me think that they exert no actual editorial control at all and that stories go live instantly without review." This is junk sourcing being pushed by an RGW circus. Its laughable that you justify the RGW saying it is already going on in the mainstream (while advocating for use of 'mainstream' sources like Rappler). Seriously a blog is RS? Same goes for this blog verafiles above? Also an RS? lol Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm very inclined to turn the tables around and ask Jtbobwaysf what Philippine sources he thinks we ought to use. Rappler generally is reliable, having used their articles as sources for what I've been writing, but I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use, when it fact we do. Unless you think Rappler's participation in the IFCN is a moot point, just because the site happens to have a blog component? No one's saying BuzzFeed News is not reliable just because it happened to be an offshoot of BuzzFeed now, right? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion Seav linked is the latest chronologically and it's the one that matters. Seriously, calling Rappler and Vera Files just "blogs"? They're serious news organizations founded by veteran award-winning journalists.[123][124] -Object404 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Echoing Object404, Jtbobwaysf, misrepresents the chronology of discussions about Rappler in the RSN. "second RSN and third RSN" as if those were the latest belies the fact that those earlier discussions (in 2015 and 2016 respectively) were hardly discussions that resulted in any sort of consensus. The 2018 discussion that I linked to had more participants, and even a poll to assess consensus which has established that Rappler's news articles are definitely reliable sources. —seav (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sky Harbor (talk · contribs) now suggesting I need to be a Filipino to understand what an RS is, and foreigners need not apply. Which of the five pillars is this part of? And buzzfeed, WP:OSE... Rappler, buzzfeed, Verafiles, etc are all WP:USERGENERATED. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything; you're the one suggesting that what we know to be reliable sources in the Philippines are, by your singular judgement as the "objective" foreigner, not reliable because you say they aren't, even when the consensus clearly suggests they are. Both Rappler and Vera Files were established by esteemed Filipino journalists, of whom you're claiming that the likes of Chay Hofileña, Glenda Gloria and Maria Ressa are mere "bloggers" despite having long, established track records as journalists. A blog can just spew out whatever it wants; both Rappler and Vera Files, on the other hand, have codes of ethics which they have to abide by. Unless you can prove to me otherwise (and likewise to the other people here), I'm not convinced one bit that the two sources are not reliable simply because you say they're user-generated, when it's pretty clear that they aren't. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You (Jtbobwaysf) really need better reading comprehension. I definitely agree that BuzzFeed is not to be used for citations, but BuzzFeed News, which Sky Harbor has already mentioned and is a completely separate (but associated) website from BuzzFeed, is definitely a reliable news source: it has won multiple journalism awards and has even been nominated for Pulitzer Prizes: [125][126]. As for Rappler and Vera Files, other editors have repeatedly shown you by providing numerous links (here are some more: [127][128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137]) that these two news organizations are generally reliable. You continually assert the opposite without really providing any evidence of your opinion. —seav (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(Note: Wanted to say a few things, but then realized they were part of my original post and I did't want to repeat them, so I just went back and added boldface to my key points there. Just FYI to everyone that I changed the layout of that bit, for greater emphasis. - Chieharumachi (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC))

@Jtbobwaysf: has now also begun edit warring on the Imelda Marcos article, constantly removing valid external links without good reason. Claiming 1) External links are not allowed on Wikipedia ("no external links") and 2) Accusations of tendentious editing just because an archive.org link was used (the valid reason for which is the site is now down). -Object404 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into this mess, but has User:Jtbobwaysf explained why they removed sourced content using the edit summary "failed verification" [138] when they apparently hadn't actually checked out all or possibly any sources [139] the content was tagged with? This apparently includes one from 2018 which had a page number [140]. This is a serious problem IMO the kind of thing which may warrant an indefinite block if it continues. It's little better than claiming a source says something when it doesn't. In both cases you are misrepresenting what's in the source, and since a lot of the time we WP:AGF about what editors say are in sources, it can cause major problems. Especially in a case like this where according to Jtbobwaysf, the sources are rare, meaning many people won't have access to them. As I've remarked elsewhere, if Jtbobwaysf was concerned that the sources were unreliable or unsuitable for a BLP, represented a minority viewpoint or there was some other problem, they could have raised this issue without misleading people into thinking the source didn't support the cited claim. I mean heck, if Jtbobwaysf had reasons to doubt the source supported the claim, or felt the lack of page numbers made it very difficult to verify, I might support removal until this was clarified. But again this required a edit summary which accurately reflected why the changes were being made, and probably a talk page comment explaining the situation. Of course we all make mistakes, but it's concerning that AFAICT, Jtbobwaysf has persistently ignored any requests for clarification [141], including on this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf is claiming that the citation source books that he removed are rare and out of print as an excuse to delete them as sources when this is false as they have had recent printings: Some Are Smarter Than Others by Ricardo Manapat reprinted in 2020, available in print and as an e-book and Handbook on the Geographies of Corruption by Barney Warf (2018), also available in print and as an e-book. Even if the books were rare and out of print, his deletions are violative of WP:Verifiability#Accessibility: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." What is completely wrong here is that he claims they failed verification when he did not verify them, and was very dishonest with his reason. When asked point blank if he had read the sources before claiming that they failed verification, he evaded the question multiple times and was ultimately caught that indeed he did not when he asked Chieharumachi to e-mail him scans in this talk page thread. This is now far from Good Faith editing, and is worse than vandalizing the article as he has been deleting content under the pretense of Wikipedia rule violations. Neither is he excused from possible inexperience in Wikipedia as he has been throwing around WP rules in their acronym form that are supposedly violated left and right when they have not. Also, he did it multiple times: [142][143][144]. Furthermore he deleted more valid citations afterwards (Rappler) that WP consensus has determined to be RS, claiming that consensus said it was not RS when the discussion he himself linked determined that it was RS. This is an ongoing pattern that he has been repeating and he has been unrepentant. Despite all of these issues raised, he has now recently continued deleting content without valid reason in his latest edits (see above). It would be good if administrators can look into his behavior and take appropriate action. -Object404 (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Why were you pinged by Object404 to this discussion? Which source did I delete that had a page number? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: I assume because I commented at BLPN. In any case, I don't think the ping worked since I never saw it and it doesn't show up in my notifications history (I rarely remove them). I'm here because I saw the comment at BLPN about there being a discussion here, I was waiting for my concerns to be addressed somewhere but they haven't been so decided to finally join this discussion. I see you are still refusing to address the point of concern. I already linked to the diff above [145] where you deleted content as failed verification. It seems clear from your persistent refusal to say anything about it that you hadn't actually checked out any of the sources. I admit I misread this request [146], the page scans were about PCGG@30 (which didn't have page numbers) rather than Warf (which had page numbers). However I can only assume from your latest comment you hadn't checked out Warf either as you wouldn't need to ask which source if you had checked it out and found it wasn't there. And frankly the page number thing is only a minor point. While in some ways it's worse that you didn't even check the source which had a page number, the bigger issue is that if you did have some other reason why you deleted the content such as difficulty finding where it was in the sources which lacked a page number, this is what you should have said in your edit summary. And perhaps followed up with a talk page post. Deleting something as failed verification when you haven't checked out the sources is not acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I apologize, I do now see the page number at the very end of this citation you have listed (#19) above, haven't seen that any of the times I have looked in the past. Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted. As you have pointed out I made repeated requests for the other Philippines Politics editors (Ill call that PP for ease of use) to supply the sources scans, page numbers, etc and they don't. This means nobody has read it, and the justification to keep it is that it is already there. Is there another logical justification if nobody can verify it? I believe WP:ONUS is on the editor that wants to include content, not the editor that wants to delete it for failing verification. I infrequently edit this article, every six months or so, and mostly my edits relate to removing chaff, dribble, and overt POV content. Normally these edits result in wails of dissatisfaction from the daily POV editors. If you have a look at the whole of my edits and what is going on in general on the article, you will see my edits are neutral and helpful to obtain WP:NPOV. I thought that other uninvolved editors (besides the PP WP:CIRCUS) might take this to note, but until now most of the focus on this talk page is unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part. To be clear, I do not have any connection to the article's subject, I am certainly not a paid editor, and there will be no basis to assert otherwise. But the allegations are fine, and hopefully more views of this discussion in the ANI space will make it the article and WP better, but I admit this this ANI has only seemed to involve two uninvolved editors (you and JzG). Guy's comment was just asking me if I knew the articles subject, which I took to be a justification for vilification. Yes, Imelda is distasteful, but 5 pillars doesnt take that into account. I think we all agree that a BLP must be neutral and the PP editors use of unverifiable rare books, overuse of biographies to pursue WP:TOOLONG, blog sources (rappler and the like), and other nonsense to promote the subject as important (apply a huge net worth to the article's subject) and then vilify her is incorrect from a 5 pillars perspective. You will note one of the editors said I was a "foreigner" and my opinion on the issue was not valid. This is the definition of POV edits and pure CIRCUS. I was asking how you came to this article, since there was also an effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS to get other PP editors to join the discussion. We all agree the article's subject is notable just from her infamous shoe collection, so we do not need to add UNDUE content. I would suggest that PP be added DS, just like AP2. It would then be easier to challenge and remove all the crazy content is at this article, and I guess is also on other PP articles (although I admit I haven't yet ventured to look). You might note that it was also a similar discussion relating to my edits that resulted in DS WP:GS/Crypto, dissention between editors is not always what it appears at first glance. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Just leaving notice that I have reverted the removal of the Presidential Commission on Good Government external link here, pending further discussion, since I can find no prohibition for the content, which is a "site that contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to... amount of detail." I am bringing this up here because an editor claims that the neutrality of the government site is in dispute. So it might be good to discuss, which is why I have brought this up on the talk page, and will also bring this up at the ongoing BLPN. Thanks.- Chieharumachi (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The editor has numerous times deleted online sources which assert that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion," and the only reason we're talking about these "rare" references is that they were the last ones he deleted. The editor has also repeatedly refused to acknowledge the fact that the sentence as asserted on the lead makes no reference to current or recent net worth, but to the amount at its greatest estimated extent, in 1986. It is asserted by Warf, as indicated. It is the main premise of the entire Manapat book. The accusations of being blogs against Rappler and Verafiles are slanderous to those organizations, and the editor's refusal to acknowledge consensus asserting this is... I do not have polite words to describe it. Further, said fact is asserted by other articles which have in the past been removed from the lead. Fischer, 2020; and Davies 2016 come to mind. There is an entire section down in the article full of sources asserted the fact that "Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos illegally acquired USD 5 to 10 Billion." - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf has again and again repeated assertions and allegations that have been rebutted many times yet he has never responded or acknowledged them. And he keeps on putting words in various editors mouths. Here are some points of his that I would like to respond to:

• "blog sources (rappler and the like)": yet again: Rappler is an established news website not a blog (yes, it has a blog section, but editors are careful not to cite those), and Rappler has already been established as a reliable source in WP:RS/N. If Jtbobwaysf really believes that Rappler isn't a valid and reliable source for citations in Wikipedia articles, then he is free to start (another) thread on WP:RS/N with new points or evidence that have not been brought up in past RS/N discussions. Merely repeating that "Rappler is a blog" without any sort of evidence is bad form.
• "unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct on my part": links, diffs, and detailed explanations posted here, on BLP/N, and the article talk page are "unsubstantiated"? Jtbobwaysf probably need to review what "unsubstantiated" means. Tip: Jtbobwaysf might be thinking of "unproven" which is a word with a totally different meaning.
• "one of the editors said I was a 'foreigner' and my opinion on the issue was not valid": This is a mischaracterization of Sky Harbor's mention of the word "foreigner". See the actual message ([147]) which never stated or implied that Jtbobwaysf's opinion is invalid, but rather that Sky Harbor thinks that Jtbobwaysf is being patronizing.
• "effort by the involved editors here to WP:CANVAS": now this is an unsubstantiated allegation. Just because I agree with other editors that Jtbobwaysf's behavior is disruptive doesn't mean that canvassing has occurred. Personally, I've been monitoring several of the Marcos-related articles since 2016 because of contemporary events in the Philippines. For instance, Marcos's son ran for vice-president in mid-2016 and Ferdinand Marcos was given a controversial hero's burial in late 2016 and there has been a lot of one-sided Wikipedia editing that happened in the wake of those events that ultimately resulted in the one-sided editor getting topic banned.
• "do not need to add UNDUE content": As I have said elsewhere, Ferdinand and Imelda's excesses have been extensively documented in various forms of literature going back several decades and these are really the major talking points that can be readily found about the Marcos couple. I fail to see how mentioning some information that Jtbobwaysf keeps on deleting is a violation of UNDUE because these pieces of information are definitely not minority viewpoints.

—seav (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"Yes, I have checked the sources using the various tools I have at my disposal and I was unable to get any hit on the ones deleted." -> By "tools I have at my displosal", Jtbobwaysf means lazy Googling. Warf is a searchable Google book, and he did not bother checking in it before deleting it as a citation. And by extending this line of logic, he deleted swathes of citations of content just because they were offline sources, claiming "failed verification" when he in fact, did not check the sources, and this is completely unacceptable behavior. Jtbobwaysf is also gaslighting here claiming insertions of WP:UNDUE when the content in question are widely-held views well-documented by RS, not minority ones. -Object404 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This article subject is not Ferdinand Marcos. Please send me the scans of the offline sources that you are implying you have access to. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos are inextricably linked and share the Guinness World Record for the Greatest Robbery of a Government. You cannot separate the 2 in terms of theft and wealth. As for sources, you have once again proved that you did not read the sources before claiming they failed verification, and is patently dishonest and unacceptable Wikipedian behavior on your part. x -Object404 (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it should also be pointed out that the handful of sources around which this discussion currently revolves are not the only references that the editor has deleted. Numerous other sources cite the "Billions," whether referring to them as "stolen", "plundered", illegally acquired (that's based on a ruling by the Swiss Federal Court), were "ill-gotten" (that's at least one Philippine government agency). Several of these specifically cite the USD 5 to 10 Billion amount. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I decided to do some digging up of various references the editor has so far removed from the Imelda Marcos page (although other editors have since returned some of them). I'm not done yet, but from about March to July 2020 removed references these references either on the ill-gotten wealth or on related court cases:

• From The Guardian: Davies, Nick (7 May 2016). "The $10bn question: what happened to the Marcos millions?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 May 2018.

• From The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Primary source supported by other references):Supreme Court of the Philippines. "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), FERDINAND E. MARCOS (REPRESENTED BY HIS ESTATE/HEIRS: IMELDA R. MARCOS, MARIA IMELDA [IMEE] MARCOS-MANOTOC, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. AND IRENE MARCOS-ARANETA) AND IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, respondents". Supreme Court of the Philippines. Retrieved 15 November 2018.

• From the Philippine Star: Marcelo, Elizabeth (11 September 2017). "Cases vs Marcoses, cronies remain pending at Sandigan since late '80s". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 9 November 2018.

• From the New York Times archives: Mydans, Seth (November 4, 1991). "Imelda Marcos Returns to Philippines". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 12, 2009. Retrieved August 16, 2018.

• From the Sydney Morning Herald: Dent, Sydney (November 23, 2012). "A dynasty on steroids". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved September 1, 2018.

• From Gerard Lico’s 2003 Ateneo University Press published book: Gerard., Lico (2003). Edifice complex: power, myth, and Marcos state architecture. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 978-9715504355. OCLC 53371189.

I haven't had time to complete a review, though. - Chieharumachi (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

And also, quite aside from the sources, there's the matter of bullying behaviour, refusal to recognise consensus, and deletion of citations for no actual reason (just his opinion that they are "dribble")... all of which were raised in the first post of this thread, and further asserted by other editors. I believe it's clear that the editor wants the article either to not to contain or not highlight the negative history of the subject, which would be reasonable except that the subject is palpably notable because of that negative history. One's fear is that the editor will continue deleting details of this ill-gotten wealth, as he has had a long history of doing. I argue that this is would be as much whitewashing as not mentioning the holocaust in the lead of the Adolf Hitler article. Short of that, his refusal to recognize consensus and denigrating of news sources (and courts!) that disagree with his views have held the talk page hostage, making consensus in the article difficult to achieve, and editing intentionally vexatious for anyone who disagrees with him. - Chieharumachi (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Court documents, including verdicts and rulings, aren't reliable sources, actually. EEng 14:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly the issue on this article. Some of these editors are asserting primary sources, blogs, and decades old sources should overrule current sources that says the Marcos fortune is maybe only in the millions (or maybe billions, or maybe $168B as one of the sources listed). If the fortune is disputed, or there is no clear consensus, then it should be reflected as such in the article.

Note also, an editor above trying to walk back the "foreigner" comment which was "I find it patronizing that a foreigner seems to imply that we don't know what sources to use". Essentially these editors assert 'I am a foreigner and thus have no right to edit this article.' This is wrong. @JzG: do you support this? You started this ANI proposal to ban me from the article. Is this your intent? I might have crossed some invisible line (I certainly was nowhere near 3RR), but you should be able to spot a circus when you see one. While I edit this article form time to time, this article is not of any particular interest to me, nor is Philippines politics as whole. Besides Manny Pacquio (the boxer) or Duterte (the Trump clone), I would not even recognize a politician from the Philippines if I ran into them. I edit this article simply as it is a poor quality BLP and I dont think it is right under 5 pillars to use wikipedia to inflate the importance (pump up a dubious net worth) and then vilify the article subject. What this article really needs is DS, not some focus on an editor. That's my two cents. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It would be great if you could list the diffs of the content you assert that I removed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: another falsehood from you. I never said that you did that. I said you should have done that. When I looked at the discussion before my earlier responses, what I said is you you never actually made any attempt to ask for help verifying the info before deletion. Instead you just went ahead and deleted it while claiming something had failed verification when it's clear you did not have access to any of the 3 sources, and made no genuine attempts to obtain access, so had no idea if it was verified by any of the 3 sources. Only when someone queried you about your deletion did you begin to ask, while still ignoring the question over whether you'd actually checked the sources. Missing a page number is an excusable error. What is not excusable is lying and claiming something failed verification when you don't have access to any 3 of the sources (regardless of whether they had page numbers). As I did actually say, even if you had made a genuine attempt to obtain access and failed, and were unsure enough about the info that you felt it warranted deletion until it could be confirmed, the correct course of action was to accurately explain why you were deleting (e.g. 'awaiting verification' with an explanation in the talk) rather than to lie and say it "failed verification". Similarly if you didn't have access but felt there was no point because you couldn't find the info in a long book and so the info should be removed until someone provides page numbers, the correct course would be to accurately explain (e.g. 'removing as the lack of page numbers make this very difficult to verify' with a follow up on the talk page). Likewise if you did obtain all 3 books, and couldn't work out where the info was because there was no page numbers and didn't find it anywhere obvious, again the correct response was to explain why you were removing the info (e.g. 'awaiting verification' or 'no page numbers, couldn't find this in the book' again likely with a followup on the talk page) rather than to lie and say it failed verification when the actual case is it was impossible to verify since you have no idea where the info was in the book. I'd be willing to accept failed verification if you'd skimmed through the books and couldn't find it although frankly I'm not sure why we need to be having this debate. Instead you could just use a better edit summary, or at least explain on the talk page, what the actual situation was, which let me repeat, you never did. Indeed you evaded questions over what you did. You've been given multiple chances to acknowledge you made a mistake not because you missed a page number, but because you falsely claimed something failed verification. But instead of doing that are now claiming I said something I didn't. Unless you're willing to undertake to stop making highly misleading claims in edit summaries, I won't engage with you any more. Frankly, if there weren't already 2 proposals, I'd consider making a community ban proposal myself. People who tell lies about what they did should not be on Wikipedia, given the harm they cause. I should be able to trust that when an experienced editor says "failed verification" they mean "I checked the sources, and don't see where it says what we claimed" and not "yuck this article uses books, I'm going to delete this content because I can't be bothered visiting a library or asking someone for help obtaining access". Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: AGF please. I have previously stated that I used online tools (with an s) to check and I couldn't find anything. You seek to keep challenging this point, including leaving a long post on my talk page as well on the same subject. I have already also admitted I missed the book in google books. Am I required to state the name of the tools I use? More importantly, does anyone in this ANI have any evidence from RS that the article subject IS a billionare? Do you? There has been plenty of this discussed on the article's talk page, and I recall I even challenged it on the talk page a week or more prior to me starting to remove it. Why is it such a big deal if they lady is a billionaire or not, my understanding of wikipedia is we dont care, and we just follow the sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

AGF? Assumptions of good faith flew out the window when you flat-out lied and claimed that the content "failed verification" when you did not read the citation sources. As an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor, this is unforgivable on your part. What is a big deal here is not Imelda's being a billionaire or not, but your patently dishonest and disruptive behavior which is detrimental to the Wikipedia project. What's more, in your latest comments, you seem unrepentant and continue to evade the issue. -Object404 (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits. I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me, or to other uninvolved editors, to demonstrate that you (or anyone else here) has actually seen the disputed content. Have you got access to this? Or are you still pushing that the sources support the content, but you dont have access to it. The sources have been referred to as rare, etc. Do you have it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policies (such as AGF) dont fly out the window because you disagree with the edits" Agree. They fly out the window because you brazenly lied to the Wikipedia community. I'm now inclined towards Nil Einne's stance that you be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia as you have not changed your stance. -Object404 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"I have repeatedly asked for evidence including scans to be emailed to me" -> Note that Jtbobwaysf only started asking about scans to be sent to him after he'd been caught and called out for deleting content and citations for which he claimed "failed verification" when he did not even read the citations. -Object404 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Jtbobwaysf)

Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from the subject of Imelda Marcos, broadly construed.

• Support. I have seen enough. At best this is WP:RGW, and in reality it looks a lot more like WP:TE. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support. A lot of documents have already been cited yet the editor still denies them and goes against the consensus. This is obviously a case of WP:DE and WP:TE. Suitable sanctions must be meted to the erring editor. HiwilmsTalk 01:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The "consensus" on this ANI, and besides you and guy, is the all of the editors involved in the circus on an article (that I edited too much and got involved in rgw in the face of strongly opinioned political editors). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly support -- as per proposed sanctions by User:JzG], and as per concerns I and others have raised above. - Chieharumachi (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support. Propose too that Jtbobwaysf be topic-banned indefinitely from related articles such as Kilusang Bagong Lipunan, Ferdinand Marcos, Bongbong Marcos, Imee Marcos, People Power Revolution, Ninoy Aquino, Martial law in the Philippines and the like. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Have i even edited these articles recently? (or ever). Or are you just listing the articles in your interest group? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding Operation Big Bird to this list. -Object404 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Was the edit on that article controversial? I did the same as I have done on the Marco's article, remove gross violations of WP:TOOMUCH. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support. And with emphasis on "broadly construed". —seav (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support depending on how the term "broadly construed" is defined. Given Imelda's entanglements, I imagine a broadly-defined topic ban covering Imelda and topics secondary to her would be more than sufficient, including topics suggested by Object404 in his comments. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I think this overlaps strongly with her husband, Ferdinand Marcos. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It definitely overlaps with FEM. There's no doubt abut it. It's exactly why the book The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos exists. HiwilmsTalk 12:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Just because there is a book written we dont change wikipedia rules. There are other articles on the Marcos family (eg Unexplained wealth of the Marcos family) , and this ANI started over a dispute to Imelda's net worth, not her husbands net worth. I dont recall I have ever edited the husband's article and I tend to be more interested in BLPs than deceased people. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support the editor has provided no coherent explanation for why they lied and said something had failed verification, when they had actually not read any of the 3 source. Missing a page number is one thing, lying and say something "failed verification" when you did not have access to any of the sources is another thing completely. This frankly isn't someone who should be editing Wikipedia point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, do you have any evidence I lied? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You said content failed verification when you did not even read the citation sources. . -Object404 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Jtbobwaysf)

Jtbobwaysf is topic-banned indefinitely from subjects relating to Philippine Politics.

• Support. I hate to see what kind of headache Jtbobwaysf causes with the kind of disruptive and dishonest editing he has been doing at the Imelda Marcos article, applied to other articles relating to Philippine politics. -Object404 (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

  Object404, I think we'd fix that if it happened, by extending the ban. See also WP:ROPE. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Support, but more measured - I think maybe it will do to have a topic ban on the Imelda Marcos article, broadly construed (by which I understand "Marcos" and "History of the Philippines 1965-1986" - related articles) and then some sort of limitation on his reverting privileges on Philippine poltics related articles (say, 1RR instead of 3RR)? - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Support. -- I reviewed the conversation to better understand the differences between categories, and it looks to me that the concern is more with the risk posed by the editor's behavior doing damage to contemporary Philippine politics articles. (My primary interest is history, not contemporary politics, so I did not immediately notice this.) Changing vote to a more straightforward "support" for now, applying to Philippine politics articles broadly. But if there is further discussion on this section, I may be swayed towards a more measured application of the ban again. - Chieharumachi (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I am not sure if i have even edited a another article related to the Philippines more than once or twice. Nothing I can remember off hand recently. Or this some type of Preemptive arrest? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Too broad compared to the articles said user has actually edited recently. The only other Philippines-related article edited by this user in the last 500 edits is Operation Big Bird. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Adding Operation Big Bird to the list in the preceding section. -Object404 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong support As I said above, this editor should not be on Wikipedia point blank. The more we restrict the, the better. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Philippines politics covers it nicely, and prevents arguments about individuals being in or out of the topic area. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment it is strange that editors such as Mjroots suggest that I be given a topic ban, when I dont edit any articles relating to the topic other the one article subject of this content dispute (other than a little cleanup a few months ago of one related article, and none of that was controversial). I rarely edit politics articles in general (regardless Philippines or otherwise), with the exception of a few BLPs that are related (Julian Assange, etc)). I often edit biographies of undesirable subjects that tend to be smeared (Harvey Weinstein, OJ Simpson, Leland Stanford, etc), and sometimes that crosses over into politics, as there are highly polarized editors in those realms (as you can see in this ANI). JzG showed up early on and asked 'If I knew who Imelda was?.' I guess implying that since she is a 'bad' person and has a large shoe collection that we should somehow invalidate the 5 pillars and allow her article to be smeared with unverifiable content? Practically speaking, I cant see how a topic ban would be any different from a single article ban, as this is basically the only Philippines Politics (PP) article that I edit. But is that the correct approach? Nil Einne suggested I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified ;-) is that more appropriate? I have repeatedly asked all the involved PP editors (who all voted in this ANI as far as I can see) if any of them actually have the sources that I deleted to substantiate the sourcing (other than 'this is a rare out of print book, etc' excuse) and none of them can provide it (other than one error which I admitted above). So this ANI is to suggest giving me some sort of ban, ranging from article level, to topic level, to full wikipedia ban (as Nil Einne suggested) because I deleted sources that nobody has provided a copy of until now. To my understanding the majority of the other sources listed above all were used to anchor content that wasn't supported in the source. Pretty vanilla deletes. Sad the Wikipedia process has degraded to this level where people want to weigh in on a ban, without actually looking at the supposedly offending diffs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• FYI the intent is to prevent further disruption by stopping you from expanding into other areas of Philippines politics. This is something that can also be done by means of an indefinite block. I can apply that if you wish, you've only got to say so. Mjroots (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (DS)

I propose this issue above be dealt with using DS for all Philippines politics topics. It is pretty obvious that it is necessary from reading above. Same proposal as Chieharumachi posted above (before striking the cmt). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 4 - (Jtbobwaysf) - Indefinite Block

It is clear now that Jtbobwaysf is unapologetic in his stance and continues to lie, claiming in essence with his latest comment to @Mjroots: that books that are not free online as well as offline sources are unverifiable. For a very experienced editor like Jtbobwaysf to claim these things is ridiculous and goes against Wikipedia rules. It is likely then that Jtbobwaysf is probably going to commit the same egregious behavior of deleting reliably sourced content as well as citations in the future with his own justification that he could not find free online copies of citation sources, and claim "failed verification". WP:V: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" -> judging from Jtbobwaysf's latest comments, it sounds like he is willing to violate this tenet in a heartbeat again. Jtbobwaysf claims "I be banned from Wikipedia entirely for deleting content that cannot be verified". False, the said content CAN be verified. Warf is online and searchable as a Google Book, Manapat is available in print and as an e-book, Jtbobwaysf was just not willing to pay for it. -Object404 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Support As per @Nil Einne:, I support an indefinite block on Jtbobwaysf. -Object404 (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Resuming

Thread retrieved from archive after a lull

Erm... the Imelda Marcos discussion about the Imelda Marcos page got automatically archived (at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Proposal_1_(Jtbobwaysf)) while people were voting on proposoals. Apparently there was a 72 hour lull. I think it was unclear when exactly a consensus would/could be achieved. May I ask whether there are next steps for this, or whether we have to start all over again? The potential for whitewashing seems too significant to just be let go of. - Chieharumachi (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC) @JzG: -Object404 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Chieharumachi, just revert the archive. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC) @JzG:, Hi. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean/how to do that in this case. Do I just go to history and click undo? - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC) @Chieharumachi: Just a heads up, I've asked the same thing here: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Lengthy_ANI_discussion_archived_without_a_resolution. HiwilmsTalk 14:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• I think someone needs to ping back all the participants, but I just haven't got the energy so I'll leave that to some other kind soul. EEng 19:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Pinging: Chieharumachi, Object404, Seav, Sky Harbor, Nil Einne, JzG, LaundryPizza03, Mjroots, EEng, and Jtbobwaysf. HiwilmsTalk 05:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

New user adding copyright violations, well, everywhere

• Zend2020 (talk · contribs)

I've reverted copied content from a half dozen articles--pretty much everything they've contributed looks suspect. A lot of rev/deletion may be necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I will look after this. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Casting aspersions, personal attacks from Normal Op

Normal Op was previously topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs (ANI report), during which they were blocked for socking to circumvent the ban. They were later unbanned with the advice that they steer clear of pit bulls.

Since they have been unbanned, they have been uncivil and repeatedly cast aspersions and personal attacks against other editors in this area. They must recent and most egregious is in an AfD discussion where they insult another editor, Doomsdayer520, by saying, among other things At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off.. In previous discussions related to other animal matters, they have baselessly accused me of lying, cast aspersions at Cavalryman, and accusing him of gaming the system, and cast aspersions at Atsme, baselessly accusing her of COI.

Additionally, they have submitted a lot of articles for deletion that resulted in keep votes:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of veterinarians
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Rescue Sofia
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Bay Cat
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog camp (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois Leveen
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loving Hut
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Rescue Foundation
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regan Russell
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Phipps (2nd nomination)

while this isn't a problem in and of itself, combined with the hostility and previous problematic behavior in this area suggests WP:GAMEy behavior.

Since their topic ban, they have been warned a number of times 1, 2, 3 about their behavior, but it is still persisting.

I'm requesting that Normal Op's topic ban on dogs be reinstated and extended to animals in general. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have seen Normal Op around the project and they are a net positive. I do hope that they would listen to the two admins who recently warned them: 1, 2. Perhaps they can agree to take a step back because none of this looks good. Sometimes we all get hot and need to simmer down. Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Response from accused: I wasn't aware that counting AfD statuses was a competition, and I'm not all stuck on seeing an article deleted that I nominate. In fact, in some cases I have afterwards enhanced or re-worked a poorly written article I had nominated for AfD which was decided as Keep. In other cases, I have rescued articles nominated for AfD by others through enhancing them so well during the AfD process that they are Kept. On the flip side of AfD nominations, here are 15 AfDs I nominated that were decided as Delete: Clifton report, K9 Pro Sports, Street dogs in Chennai, Dog Scouts of America, Kitten Rescue, Rescue Chocolate, Lawyers to the Rescue, Delta Humane Society & SPCA, Rent My Wedding, Pritzker Military Presents, Muttshack Animal Rescue Foundation, WiseStamp (2nd nomination), Western Plains Animal Refuge, List of governments supporting trap–neuter–return, and Annie Harvilicz. And here are 5 AfDs still open: New Woodlands Hotel, Humane Society of Huron Valley, Richmond SPCA, Animal Liberation (album), and Indian microlight aircraft competition — 3 of which will probably be decided Delete, 1 probably Keep (been enhanced since nomination), and 1 still up in the air. You might as well excoriate me for !voting on the wrong side of an AfD.

Now, PearlSt82, if you're going to write a report on me then you should get your details right (like where another editor corrected you about details on this ANI post [148]). The "sock" you mention was a houseguest who visited me in the month after the 2019 ANI and was not me and wasn't "during" the ANI. Further, I have submitted a detailed UPE report on you, proving your connection to the industry. Your own edits [149] in a very narrow window of topics (pit bulls, dog bites, breed-specific legislation, and fatal dog attacks) are the longest running single-purpose account I've seen in Wikipedia. Your COI on "pit bull topics", along with another editor who has connections to a (bully-breed) dog breeding business, are the complete source of my troubles with "pit bull topics". As for AfDs, of course there are AfDs where some were deemed Keep; that's the nature of community consensus. I'll remind you of your own Support !vote at my request to un-topic-ban: "Normal Op has come a long ways in ten months and has made a great deal of positive contributions to the project, and has clearly been learning the law of the land. I think the most important takeaway is that Wikipedia is a community-based consensus project, not a battleground of who is right and wrong, and their recent contributions have shown a great deal of evidence of this." [150] Normal Op (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd love to read your evidence of my connection to the industry, because there isn't one. I did indeed support removal of your topic ban, but your edits and personal attacks since have been disruptive despite multiple warnings. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Also it completely strains credulity that a houseguest would edit only in articles related to dangerous dogs and animals while you were topic banned. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, you need to get your facts straight, PearlSt82. I wasn't "topic banned from pit bulls/dangerous dogs" (as you wrote in your first sentence of this ANI post). And not only did my houseguest NOT edit in "dangerous dogs" topics (as you assert), but looking at the list of articles they did edit [151], 49 of the 50 topics I had not edited in before, and only about 3 have I edited since then (a year later). Their single edit to the one article I had edited, was to add a new fatality of a baby boy (mauled to death by the family pit bull) that happened during the time of their visit with me. [152] You have been targeting me since early 2019 when I first discovered the Dogsbite.org article; a topic on which you have put an extraordinary effort into defaming since at least 2015 [153], nay, since your very first edit on a dog topic in 2013 [154] (over 5 years before I even came to Wikipedia). Normal Op (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Correction: Pardon me, I made a mistake when I said your first dog article edit when in fact it was your second. The first edit was also on the same topic, however, [155], as was the third [156] (which included a most curious choice of citation). Normal Op (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album), Normal Op called for the article's deletion. I disagreed and recommended that Normal Op read some WP policies on inappropriate nominations and how to improve an article rather than delete it. You can see my comments for yourself. Normal Op construed this as a "personal attack", but then got far more personal with me, accusing me of: "all you have to contribute to AfD discussions is to insult nominators", "you weren't willing to do [the work] yourself", "you should consider staying away from AfD discussions lest you run off more editors", and "your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off." That looks much more like a personal attack toward me, and it also shows no knowledge of my body of work at WP. I'm an adult and can handle it, but truly wonder if someone who reacts to a minor disagreement in this fashion, and there is evidence that it happens a lot, can contribute constructively to a volunteer community. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 17:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, Normal Op can and does make positive contributions to the project. On the flip side they can and do assume bad faith in the contributions of others, particularly if they take an opposing position to Normal Op’s but, as shown in my second interaction with them linked above, sometimes where absolutely no opposition exists. Their casting of aspersions against Atsme, someone who openly reveals their true identity and even provides links their profiles on other platforms, is particularly egregious. I am unsure what would remedy this, they have received multiple warnings. Cavalryman (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC).
• The only interactions I've had with Normal Op that I recall have been on the List of fatal dog attacks in the United States article, where this editor is responsible for 60% of the text (authorship attribution), and I have made a total of just three edits (the third of which just corrected a technical error introduced by my second edit). Both of my two substantive edits were reverted by Normal Op (DIFF 1, DIFF2), who also felt the need to drop an edit-warring notice on my talk that was reverted by another editor sixteen minutes later (thanks, BilCat). The pot calling the kettle black? I was bold, Normal Op reverted me. Twice. My second edit was not the same as my first. So OK, discuss. There hasn't been an adequate response to the concern I raised on the talk page. See Talk:List of fatal dog attacks in the United States#Fatal dog attacks "rare"? and the section below that. wbm1058 (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not recall coming across Normal Op before a week or two ago, but the user certainly seems to have an axe to grind when it comes to coverage of animal welfare/animal rights on Wikipedia. They have some rather surprising interpretations of policy, and this leads to some less-than-stellar interactions with other editors. For example, consider their conduct a couple of days ago on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album) and the complete refusal to listen to others because they used the "esoteric mumbo-jumbo" (!) that is the normative/descriptive distinction. I was not impressed by Normal Op's choice to refer to vegans as "veggers" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination). At first, I thought they were evoking vigger, which is intended as a slur. They assured me, however, that this was "merely a word [they] coined", apparently to contrast "veggers" with "normal people". Josh Milburn (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I noticed NormalOp's unpleasant behavior in this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States and saw that they'd been warned to stop casting aspersions and making personal attacks. Unfortunately, it looks like they've continued on the same tack since then, and it appears that their incivility and aggression extend beyond the narrow topic of dog attacks and into the subjects of animal welfare and vegetarianism as well. I don't know if they're capable of being civil elsewhere on the site, but they've demonstrated that within those topics, they either can't stop or won't stop personalizing disputes and making unfounded accusations. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I participated in that AfD. Normal op was a bit bludgeony in there. And it went to DRV. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment - regarding the second paragraph above: At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off, there is no disrespect in a pissed-off man stating that he is pissed-off. Inelegant English perhaps, but nothing to be ashamed of. William Harris (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree. What I objected to was not that Normal Op was pissed off (or said so), but the aspersions made about the editor who pissed them off. It seems, from this thread and the previous topic ban, that this casting of aspersions was far from a one-off. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia griefing my Talk page.

Sorry to bother anyone about this but Emir of Wikipedia continues to edit my Talk page after I've requested that they no longer post at my Talk page. I believe this activity falls under the user space harassment. Wikipedia:Harassment#User space harassment

It's time-consuming and discouraging to encounter these messages and have to undo them upon logging in and I would like guidance or support in ending it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMusicExperimental (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Some of their edits seem tedious. Like you made a statement about not wanting these messages on your talk 1 and they ignored it to get one more bothersome template in. 2. They made bothersome edits instructing you to archive. 3 4. Also not really sure why Guy Macon needed to involve himself. 5 Lightburst (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  At least ping @Guy Macon: so they are aware. I do not feel too strongly about readding the OW tag, but I think we should remind TheMusicExperimental to assume good faith and not just accuse harassment. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

  If someone had put that OW template on my user talk page, I would have been miffed. Not sure why we even have it, as adding to a user talk page is ALWAYS going to be seen in a negative light. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

  @Emir of Wikipedia: IMO you were harassing them. And you ignored their request to get another trolling edit in at the end. Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I was restoring the edit of an admin who was reverted without explanation. Please do not accuse me of trolling, without evidence. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply; thanks!)

Which administrator - proved a diff? And why is this your duty to monitor another editor's talk page? Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I was on about Guy Macon. I got them mixed up with JzG who signs their signature with Guy. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Ahem. EEng 05:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

More importantly, they are fully allowed to remove notices from their page unless it's a declined unblock request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't add User:Guy Macon to this ANI because after he edited my page and I then asked him to not edit my page he stopped. In my opinion, he was a dink no big deal, I asked him to stop, he did. End of it. In the case of Emir of Wikipedia I asked to Emir of Wikipedia to stop posting to my page but Emir continued to return and post to the page, becoming a nuisance. Continuing to post to my userspace, after being given a direct request to stop is in fact harassment per the way harassment is defined on Wikipedia. This is why one but not the other is included in my ANI. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

My comment about pinging Guy was not directed at you, but at Lightburst. I will not restore that OW tag again. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Unless @Emir of Wikipedia: or @Guy Macon: can explain what warning on the talk page fall under "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user" they should be invited to mind their own business and warned that adding that OW tag, absent a diff, is obnoxious.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Comment: I think the dispute arose from if {{ow}} was one of the few things that were not allowed to be removed from user talk pages. Joseph2302 removed the item today as they did not find any discussion about adding the item in the first place; it was first added by Ad Orientem roughly a month ago. This issue had been raised at WP:HD by Guy Macon (WP:HD#Minor infraction) and had seemingly been resolved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In this edit[157] I wrote "(Please read WP:BLANKING, which says "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: [...] The "Old Warnings" {{ow}} template.)"

At the time[158] that was what was in the guideline.

TheMusicExperimental deliberately violated the guideline by removing the tag.[159]

I raised a question at the help desk:[160]

As a result, the prohibition was removed.[161]

If you don't like the existence of the {{ow}} template, then take Template:OW to WP:MfD. Until you get it deleted, please don't criticize other editors for using it as intended. I personally think it is entirely appropriate for any editor who deletes all warnings.

I question the legitimacy of a user who declares that anyone who posts a warning is a troll and forbids all user warnings. I also question the legitimacy of a user tells everyone who posts a warning to stay off their talk page. Wikipedia policy is that warnings can be removed, not that an editor can preemptively forbid any warnings.

That being said, if an editor specifically asks you to not post to their talk page, you should not post to their talk page. If the result of this is an ANI report that starts with "normally I would have warned this user but...", too bad. You brought it on yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

The section of WP:USER you're citing was added barely a month ago, with no discussion, and an edit summary of "+", tucked into a group of uncontroversial edits. It had no consensus behind it and obviously does not reflect current practice; beyond that, it was patiently absurd - obviously it wouldn't make sense that an editor in a dispute with another could slap a template warning on the other editor's page, then slap {{ow}} on it when it is removed and insist that the template cannot be removed by the user. --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware that it had been added a month before. And it seemed odd enough that I raised a question about it at the help desk, which resulted in it being removed. Nonetheless, we are required to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, asking that they be changed if we find them to be "patiently absurd" (patently absurd?) rather than deciding that they don't apply to us. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Why on earth is Emir of Wikipedia lecturing anyone on archiving their talk page, when they themselves delete warnings without archiving [162]? They should at least add {{ow}} to their own talk page,no? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have sent the OW template to MFD. We really need to not be using that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not the purpose of {{OW}}. It primarily serves to replace IP talk page discussions, and currently transcludes hundreds of thousands of times for that purpose. It would be a bad idea to suddenly create hundreds of thousands of broken templates on existing IP talk pages. BD2412 T 00:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • No, there is a separate template for IPs, {{old IP warnings top}} & {{old IP warnings bottom}}. If they are using this on IP's talk pages, then they have missed the whole point and are using the wrong template, which is another reason to remove this template. I agree that it is useful for IPs, but not registered users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe it should be clearly marked as being only for use on IP pages? The use case for that is obvious, but putting it on the account of a registered user is only ever going to piss them off. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

That would be my second choice, but either will work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Link to the TfD for anyone interested. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to note that my requests to both User:Guy Macon and User:Emir of Wikipedia were initially direct to them on their own userspace. See Oct 9 for Emir of Wikipedia [163] and Oct 15 for Guy Macon [164]. I added the note to my Talk page once it was clear that, despite receiving a direct notice that I did not welcome posting from them on my userspace, Emir of Wikipedia continued to post. The message on my Talk page is for future trolls and griefers. Guy Macon has refrained from posting on my talk page and Emir has stated that he's now going to respect my request. Given that, so long as this conversation remains available for use for people in the future to refer to--especially as Emir [165] and Guy Macon[166] have a history of griefing others--my individual needs are satisfied though I remain concerned that Emir and Guy Macon will just move along to grief someone else and thus lower participation in Wikipedia. Thanks for your assistance everyone and I'm glad to hear that there is some movement toward deprecating a template that is so often used by editors to attempt to "shame" others. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Emir and Guy Macon have a history of griefing others" is a clear violation on WP:NPA. Making accusations like that without providing evidence is toxic behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• Note that Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative environment - banning anybody from posting on your talk page for whatever reason, which is what you seem to be doing by your talk page note is effectively just saying that you are not willing to edit collaboratively. This is unhelpful.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Baprow

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

---

The issue is connected to a previous one I raised a few weeks ago here. While that one was archived due to inactivity (the user stopped all editing shortly after I filled it) they have come back up again when I edited President of the Valencian Government earlier today (diff). The user has reacted by editing a number of non-related articles which I had edited earlier throughout the day (note that their edits had little to do with my own edits there, but rather, were related to their own stance in the Talk:President of the Valencian Government discussion).

It should be noted that the user has not edited Wikipedia at all for about three weeks, nor has engaged in any discussion. Rather, this seems a reaction to my edits at President of the Valencian Government, in an attempt to piss me off or to prevent me from conducting any edit in that article, which seems to be continuing at a behavioural pattern of ownership over that article's contents. This is openly disruptive, disgusting and creepy and needs to be stopped ASAP. Impru20^talk 19:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, as I understand it, we are all free to collaborate on Wikipedia for as long as we want and in whatever way we see fit. And that's what I do. You have made and you make edits similar to mine adding timelines and I don't think you consider yourself a bad contributor.

I would also ask you to stop interpreting my words. I have never claimed ownership of any item, no matter how much you insist. I believe that the changes I add improve the articles. And I would also ask you to lower the tone. I do not think it appropriate to be offended by alleged offenses when you use the adjectives "disruptive, disgusting and creepy". I am as tired of you as you are of me and I have not used that verbal violence.

Also, you still maintain that my changes are wrong because "things in Wikipedia are done as I say". And it is not true, as I have already shown. And you continue to insist on breaking the visual aesthetic, with names in black and names in blue, as in the table of the presidents of Aragon. You do not want to reach any kind of compromise, such as looking for an intermediate size that satisfies us (or leaves us equally displeased) and you do not want to give in to maintain the slightest visual coherence.--Baprow (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with you, guy? You have been absent from Wikipedia for three weeks. Then, when I chose to implement an edit at President of the Valencian Government that I had already announced three weeks prior, you have gone to immediately edit that one as well as those other articles that I had edited today! You have refused to discuss anything for three weeks (and indeed, for most of the time we have interacted), and you only react whenever an edit is done in "your" article. Don't play like it's my fault or something when I've attempted to seek a compromise on the issue. Instead, you have reacted by bringing such issues to every article I edit!

This is disgusting and sick. Not just that you seemingly have that article on your watch 24/7 so that you can react whenever someone edits it. You are absolutely obsessed with me and with your absurd aesthetical issues, and have now come to the point of hounding me because I don't agree with those. That's fucking creepy, pal. Creepy, disruptive and disgusting. Leave-me-alone and stop chasing me and my edits throughout Wikipedia! Impru20^talk 22:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

That you have tried to find a compromise? Are you really saying that? When? When you said that all my edits were wrong? When you do not even agree to follow your own "majority rules" with which you justify yourself to say that I am not right and you are? When you made your only settlement proposal, I accepted it and you immediately retract what was said? Stop reporting persecution and making up offenses (by the way, you say "my" edits, so according to yourself is a claiming of property).--Baprow (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Baprow, when you say "we are all free to collaborate on Wikipedia for as long as we want and in whatever way we see fit." you are flatly wrong. There are rules here for collaborating, and people that can't accept and follow basic rules are generally blocked from editing. It isn't a free-for-all. For the most part, this is a content dispute, which should be handled on the article talk page, perhaps an RFC since it seems to be a single issue. I will say that returning after a break and reverting without a summary is kind of a jerk move, however. That said, you are both a bit overly excited over this color issue, which is another reason why holding an RFC is a good idea, to get outside input on the colors. And remember, we do have a WP:Manual of style that must be followed as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I was not saying that this was a free-for-all, but that the time that is put into the contribution and what is done, if it is up to the rules, should not be belittled, as if he were a top-notch editor and I a second-rate editor. As for the discussion, I have tried to reach compromises but the matter is tremendously complicated. He accuses me of being a persecutor and dogmatic, but the truth is that he has been inflexible, he has accused me of many things, he has cynically mocked me and now he is insulting me.--Baprow (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Checking the history of President of the Valencian Government, there seems to be an evident edit war between these two editors. El Millo (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Visual comparison

The first timeline is the one that I consider better. The years go from four to four because elections have been held every four years since 1983 and so it can be seen at a glance whether a term ended abruptly or corresponds to a full legislature. The other user says that on Wikipedia the years always go from 5 to 5 or 10 to 10 and therefore it is wrong to do it that way. I do not know if it is true.
In the table that he defends, there is an acting president who only lasted a week (and with the powers shared with the president of the regional parliament). In my opinion, it shouldn't be listed. He agreed to consider at a given moment that the presidents would not appear, if Olivas' term would be shortened (he was interim president before becoming official). I accepted and made the change, but he withdrew his proposal.
Anyway, I asked him to put Sánchez de León with the same blue color as the rest (now she does not have an article in this wikipedia, but she could have it in the future and thus we advance work by creating an access), but he says that he does not see any visual incoherence in which some names are of one color and others of another.
The size is another point of discuss (I wanted 900, now 850, and he always 800 because according him it is the correct way in this Wikipedia).--Baprow (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I think ANI isn't the place for content disputes like this one. That said, the claim that on Wikipedia the years always go from 5 to 5 or 10 to 10 needs to be substantiated by policies and guidelines. Was that the case? El Millo (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I needed visual support to explain the situation easily. Regarding the question, the other user never quoted me a specific rule. He just showed me many examples of timelines where that division was followed and said that it proved his point and that the division 4 to 4 was enterely wrong. When I showed him other timelines that were different in size, aspect and division than he defended, which denied that supposed "correct way of doing things", he ignored me and he even said that the fact I used a similar argument also proved his point.--Baprow (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If it relates specifically to the content of the artcle, let's continue the discussion at the article's talk. El Millo (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but I think that would be useful clarify if there are or not these rules of time division and size and colors because if he insists on this position the agreement is very difficult.--Baprow (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• The underlying content dispute may be legitimate, but that's irrelevant. Looking at the editor interaction tool and Baprow's contributions, it seems rather straightforward that Baprow returned from editing and engaged in a campaign to mass revert Impru on a wide array of articles, in a rapid, bot-like manner, and without comment. I think it's patently unrealistic that Baprow was editing routinely and just so happened to have all of these interactions simultaneously, and indeed Baprow does not deny it, he only states that he had a legitimate reason for doing so. This looks like rather straightforward hounding, which is a form of harassment that is virtually never met with anything other than a block. I think the only question is whether the block should be time-limited or indef at this point. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: The topic of discussion here is not the content dispute (though I no longer think it's truly a content dispute, since it'd be a very absurd one, tbh), but rather a behavioural pattern (most likely, one deriving from WP:OWN). As I denounced in my earlier ANI thread, Baprow has been engaging in an edit-and-vanish strategy for weeks, under which they would only reply to me with one or two comments (with always-changing arguments, so that they would never be truly pleased) for as long as I kept undoing their reverts of my edits. They have not even cared to discuss much at Talk:President of the Valencian Government, only doing so whenever I was still editing the article. I already pointed out the OWN, WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:GASLIGHT and other such concerns in the previous ANI thread, which even back then, Baprow didn't even care to deny.

If you look at Baprow's contribution history, their wiki activity is very limited. But, since 14 September 2020, their only activity in Wikipedia has been to react to edits that I have been making to articles (and related discussions):

• Their initial edits on 14 September were a reaction to my own edits at President of the Valencian Government. They took a break from 14 to 21 September, which is a time in which I stopped editing that article. They returned on 21 September after I made a new edit there (this one), this time also editing several articles which I had edited earlier in the month.
• They took another break on 22 September, lasting until 26 September, when they came back again after I made another edit at President of the Valencian Government (this one).
• They finally took another break on 28 September, after I opened the previous ANI thread, and until yesterday, after I made a new edit at President of the Valencian Government (this one), to which they are reacting (since it's still ongoing) by editing a whole set of articles which I had edited earlier throughout the day. With no summary, no explanation, no justification on why they were doing so, despite knowing that such edits would probably be contentious and cause a reaction from me (or, precisely, seeking to provoke that) since I had already pointed out to them three weeks earlier than editing other articles to prove a point in another discussion was disruptive. They have not even cared to deny any of this. This is purely disruptive, and they know it, yet they keep doing it anyway.

As Swarm points out, raising this content dispute is legitimate, but only if sincere. This has not been the case here. Just check the timespan of Baprow's edits and that of mine. They are not engaging in constructive editing, but just reacting to my own edits whenever I make them. Check their arguments at Talk:President of the Valencian Government: whenever I addressed their concerns, they simply changed their arguments to other ones, and kept refusing to stop their edit warring and to revert their contested edits despite my multiple pleas for them to do so (in fact, most of the time their reaction was to simply vanish until the next time I chose to edit the article). By this point, it's fairly obvious that their only intent is to discourage me from editing President of the Valencian Government (and, possibly, other similarly-themed articles as well), because of them feeling than that article is theirs and that their edits must be preserved. The content issues raised seem to be a mere excuse to accomplish that.

As of currently, they are keeping on their behaviour at President of the Principality of Asturias, President of the Regional Government of Andalusia, List of presidents of the Regional Government of Galicia, President of the Community of Madrid, List of presidents of the Government of Catalonia, List of lehendakaris and President of the Government of Aragon. Note that their next reverts in those will be in violation of WP:3RR, though they will still probably not care. Impru20^talk 08:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Swarm: I am not participating in any harassment campaign. I deny it a thousand times. I am convinced that those articles need to be improved and I do. I do not understand why when he acts on them it is considered good and when I do I am bullying. The other user has never wanted to reach a consensus on anything, he has insulted me and for saying "my editions" and "my timetable" he accuses me of claiming ownership of the articles, but when he says "my editions" it is perfectly normal and nothing vindictive. I have offered him various meeting points (consensus size, add the acting presidents with blue letters, do not put them ...) and he has declined all of them, even the only one he proposed in some moment. Rewarding this attitude would not seem appropriate to me. Honestly, if he tells the truth when he says that everything has to be done as he says, someone tell me and let's get it over with. But if he is only elevating his personal preferences to the status of the supreme norm, then he has no right to act the way he is doing. By the way, he is not only erasing my contributions on timelines, in the article by the presidents of Asturias he is erasing referenced information on the duration of the mandate of one of the presidents.--Baprow (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note that Baprow has now broken WP:3RR on eight separate articles, continuing on their hounding behaviour despite having been noted about it even on this very same ANI thread. Impru20^talk 11:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've reported this edit warring behaviour at ANEW as well, which I'm linking for reference. Impru20^talk 11:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(Note: I've witdhrawn the report at ANEW as the user has now been blocked. I'm linking the diff to that report here, again for reference). Impru20^talk 12:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (Baprow)

How about:

Baprow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with or reverting Impru20. Additionally, Baprow is subject to a WP:1RR restriction on all articles. Baprow is warned that continued issues may lead to an indefinite block.

Would that do? Guy (help! - typo?) 09:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It should be a block, probably an indeff one, as per explained above. Hounding after one-month of persistent harassing, filibustering and edit warring is bad enough; but that coupled with breaching 3RR on eight articles, insisting on their hounding even after being warned about that both in one of the pages in question and in this very same ANI thread while this discussion is ongoing is just beyond any words.

Also, even when this may be the most blatant case of such disruption from this user, it's not the only one: their talk page is ridden with warnings from multiple users (and some others that they have removed) throughout this year alone, and they seem to spark conflict (also involving edit warring and ownership-like behaviour) in most of the pages they come in contact with. An interaction prohibition with me is unlikely to forestall this user's reckless behaviour. Impru20^talk 11:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your attitude of trying to impose your way of doing things as if your word were the supreme law, your lack of dialogue, your unrepentant inflexibility, your unpleasant fondness for taking words out of context to attack with lies is truly reprehensible and worthy of a blocking.--Baprow (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indef

I've just applied an indef block for wikihounding and edit warring. Any admin is free to unblock if they are convinced Baprow "gets it", but it seems very obvious that they aren't accepting any responsibility at this point, and their behavior is clearly over the line, following an editor around just to harass them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Guitarguy2323

Could an uninvolved admin please take a glance at Special:Contribs/Guitarguy2323 and decide if action should be taken? I see they've been warned and blocked for previous behavior along the lines of what they've just exhibited at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory: [167], [168]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked for two weeks per my earlier warning to them. This is a regular admin action, not an AE action, and doesn't preclude topic bans or other forms of AE action. Acroterion (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe that WP:NOTHERE may be applicable, see User_talk:Guitarguy2323#Discretionary_sanctions_alert. It appears their only purpose is to either scream about how they believe Wikipedia is "bought by" the Biden campaign, or add stuff like this:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MSNBC&diff=prev&oldid=965394884
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antifa_(United_States)&diff=prev&oldid=981341635

I provided a few other links to GorillaWarfare, obviously this is up to the admins. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Their battleground approach to editing and talkpage conduct is extensive. My term was set by their previous block length and their attempt to skirt my warning by making their most recent talkpage gripes non-specific. Taking only the recent edits, it's not indef-worthy, but their editing history as a whole may be. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to apply one right now, but an ARBAP2 topic ban would not be inappropriate for this user. We shall see what happens once their block expires. ST47 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion, I think that blocks expiring early Nov should be the default for this, for a while. Maybe midnight of Nov 7? I know it's just kicking the can down the road and invites a massive explosion when the count is in, but the immediate problem is a mix of good faith boosters and frankly bad faith messaging prior to Nov 3, and Wikipedia is not supposed to reflect breaking news, we are supposed to be more analytical. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably - expiration before 11/3 and the ensuing 48 hours is probably going to prove too great a temptation to continue to misbehave. I think I'll extend it a little to cover the 3rd and a couple more days. Acroterion (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Acroterion: @JzG: To judge by their talk page responses it won't do much good.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGuitarguy2323&type=revision&diff=984090396&oldid=984081790
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guitarguy2323&diff=next&oldid=984090396
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guitarguy2323&diff=next&oldid=984090908 "GorillaWarfare Thanks for proving me correct :) you have unverified bs about Trump published as facts. Have a political hit job on FNC page but anything that is proven true is not allowed. Judging by your talk page it has also proven me correct.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)"

Don't know if it matters since they are blocked but it's not a good look. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Also there may be another one or it may be their alternative account or someone else's alternative account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TruthWarrior5940 aka https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TruthWarrior2020, who was warned for using multiple accounts in March 2019. 2601:2C0:C300:B7:2CFA:3DA8:CE80:C645 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Their latest response to the block shows they are not learning anything, so it appears that a topic ban is the only way (short of an indef ban) to protect the encyclopedia. -- Valjean (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

South Africa rangeblock - political stuff for a different country

I'm asking for a rangeblock to stop some strange political disruption coming from South Africa but targeting the USA. Probably a proxy. There's also music article edit warring, which first got my notice. Binksternet (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• 41.144.64.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

  Strange indeed - I think there are a few things coming from it. There was some weird disruption of an election page coming from the narrower range 41.144.82.176/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) but it seems to have stopped a few days ago, and then recently there's been contributions from a wider part of the range that are mostly unhelpful promotional edits to music articles, but one random edit to Susan Collins. Given the extreme shortage of anything actually useful coming from the range recently, I've anonblocked the /19 for two weeks. ~ mazca ^talk 11:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by S11141827

• S11141827 (talk · contribs)

This user is a typical example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Keeps making unsourced, disruptive, poorly written, and sometimes promotional edits, falsely marking them as minor. Does not communicate at all and ignores all explanations and warnings (about unsourced edits, inappropriate capitalization, disruptive editing and marking major edits as minor), including three final, level-4 warnings. Other editors keep reverting the edits.

One important, but lesser known fact: Marking major edits as minor is not only a breach of wikietiquette, as WP:MINOR explains. When done repeatedly and knowingly (and after receiving multiple warnings about it, it is definitely a deliberate choice), it is also a form of vandalism, as WP:VANDAL explicitly says.

I can see only one solution—blocking the user from editing.—J. M. (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

IP with unhelpful opinions

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

---

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

This IP was previously blocked for a year and is back to share more ... opinions.

• [169] "Yes, all Germans were Nazis. Get over it. This is accepted consensus by historians. All Germans knew about, and aided the Holocaust."
• [170] "White Nationalist Proud Boys are using this page as a tool to defend against claims of the Proud Boys being Nazis. This is obviously false."
• [171] "Anyone who disagrees with me will be taken to tribunal for racism and bigotry. This is obviously a racist and bigoted page."
• [172] "this entire article should be deleted it is Islamophobic and Xenophobic. It's not mentioned anywhere that the professor provoked the Muslim in question. Free speech is not freedom from consequences."

They seem to be both pro- and anti- racism. Please note the lack of actual contributions. After several blocks, I don't think more warnings are going to be the solution. Natureium (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Taken care of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Repeated unsourced edit and unresponsive

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

The user has been abusing their editing privileges persistently. They have been persistently adding unsourced contents in football related pages like here, here, here. Even after they were warned, they continued their unsourced content addition. Even after a final warning I've asked explanation twice here, for the reason of unsourced content addition but there was no response from their side. Above that the user has been blocked thrice most importantly for personal attacks and disruptive edits. Verifiability is an important content policy and failing this are considered disruptive, so it can be assumed even after the blocks the user did not learn anything or did not even care to read the guidelines. I will thankful if an admin can take a look into this. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Templates are not the best way to begin communication 1, JMHO. With that said you have 10 times more edits than ShonRoY and I can see your frustration because the editor is not communicating about the disruptive edits. Seems we need to get their attention, and previous blocks may not have got their attention. Hopefully they will come here and explain their edits. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Lightburst, I think our expectation is too high for such users. They actually don't want to response anything. This is what they did now, changed their user name and pursue the same unsourced edit. Which shows they are pretending to be diffferent user and continue their editing behaviour. And this is not the first time, they did same thing before when they were warned they changed user name and did those unsourced edits. Drat8sub (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I see. So we need to get their attention. An administrator will have to come along and evaluate. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments I would like to add here that the user in question has been making not only disruptive edits but also vandalising the Mohun Bagan A.C. page ignoring all the discussions. There is no harm if he is an SC East Bengal fan but this user is just changing user names and going on with similar behaviour ignoring all the warnings as I noticed in his talk page. This requires perhaps strict solution. M Kariyappa (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, deliberate insertion of factual errors and sockpuppetry by Mybuddylive

The user in question has been edit warring on Thiruvananthapuram despite having been warned not to do so and has been logging out to make problematic reverts which counts as sockpuppetry.

Deliberate insertion of factual errors diffs: [173] [174] [175]

Sockpuppetry diff: [176]

Edit warring diffs: [177] [178] [179] [180]

Content removal diff: [181] This kind of removal of content looks like vandalism. A lot of content have been removed along with maintenance, cleanup and copyedit work. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Tagging Fylindfotberserk and Arjayay since they have reverted this user's edits. Prolix 💬 15:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thiruvananthapuram semi-protected for 1 week. Mybuddylive and Gaya3menon blocked as sock or meat puppets. Mybuddylive was edit warring to restore edits by Gaya3menon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Archohan01

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

---

Vandalism-only account: contributions at Commons. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited here however. This would need to be addressed at Commons. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Commons:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard redirects here, so this is the correct place. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

AlgaeGraphix Try Commons:Administrators's noticeboard/Vandalism. c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism We can't do anything here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Conduct of User:Nakamuradavid

External link: Talk:United States Army Special Forces: WW2 engagement?

The Nakamuradavid has made hostile and uncivil responses on the States Army Special Forces Talk Page. The user has violated the Talk page guidelines and WP:UNCIVIL. I have reviewed the Resolution policy but feel that the user's responses goes beyond the suggested first and second step. I request that you please review the talk page, much appreciated. -Signaleer (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@WP:MILHIST coordinators:

V. Gordon Childe

Some help here, please. JNW (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Sro23. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent disruption at Garo people

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

---

Following a user block by Ohnoitsjamie, persistent disruption via block evasion. Addition of non notable people and/or removal of notables, out of apparent spite. Asking that all sock/meat puppets be blocked and/or page be locked. The page has plenty of underlying problems, and I've tagged it for possible copyright violations. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Repeated addition of unsourced genres

Ilovelife68 68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've posted 4 warnings in succession on their talk page as well as a personal plea requesting they source their (genre) edits but despite all that, Ilovelife68 68 has ignored my requests and continues without any acknowledgement or engagement of these concerns. Their repeated additions of unsourced genres is extremely disruptive and examples can be seen here, here, here, here and here. There are more examples on their contributions page if needed. I'd appreciate an admin stepping in and assisting please. Robvanvee 05:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Just from today, I'm seeing multiple unsourced genre changes, as well as genre-changing edits that were accompanied by a source which, on inspection, did not support the change. I've applied a partial block from article space to give them a chance to respond to these issues, and to try using the talk page to propose/discuss changes. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 09:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks GS. Robvanvee 11:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Spam links to vietnamese site

A number of IPs are repeatedly adding bogus "reference" links to nhanlucnhatban.com; e.g. Special:Contributions/2001:EE0:48CF:5180:E0A3:977:8F86:BDF3. The site is in Vietnamese, and while it looks as though it might be vaguely relevant, it is of no help to WP:en. Formerly all the "references" included the capital name "NHANLUCNHATBAN", which a WP search would find. Later edits involved removing this, perhaps just to make it harder. Could this site be blacklisted for references? And perhaps an IP block? Imaginatorium (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Suggest you list at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Hi! This IP 2409:4072:613:6973:17a4:67e7:d34a:773d is making disruptive edits on Sheela Rajkumar page. This user also use foul language on edit summary. Please block this IP.--Universalrahu (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

User Vamlos continue to act in wikipedia

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

(1) He's been following me around and constantly attacking me.

(2) He is Single-purpose doll who created an ID to interrupt the debate.

(3) He is constantly obsessed with my personal information. [[182]] He confessed that he was another illegal IP user(70.77.154.228). He's attacking me using an external site. [[183]]

(4) He is constantly obsessed with Korea, which is not related to the debate. He is constantly attacking not only me but also certain countries.

(5) He is trying to attach or preserve false data all over. He plastered a lot of false information not only in documents but also in talk page. Many users have warned him, but he is ignoring it. [[184]]

He should be deported. Bablos939 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Bablo939: When you report another user you must notify them on their talk page, as per policy. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

All of these are false accusations. I never confessed I was 70.77.154.228, this is another typical accusation. Bablos939 have been previously blocked for 1 week for removing the work of other users and not going to talk page, he had multiple warning of disruptive editing. He was also warned of misusing the ISP by ramdonly accusing anyone that reverts his edits or opposes his opinion in talk pages and wikipedia edits. Vamlos (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Furtherthanfrappe

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

This account appears to have been blocked by a CheckUser six months ago as a sockpuppet account. The blocked sock is now using their talk page for an obscene rant. Blocking the talkpage is obvious. I don't know who the master account is, and so can't file a sockpuppet report, but would suggest a CheckUser check for other accounts from the same IP address (or address range). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked the talkpage, but I can't handle the sockpuppet side of things - so this should not yet be closed Nosebagbear (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, mebbe someone with the bit should revdel those edits? At least one of those is pretty damned egregious. Heiro 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Offsite coordination of harassment against two audio engineer–producers

A wide variety of IPs and new users have been attacking the BLPs Kenny Beats and Alex Tumay, a record producer and an audio engineer. The harassment is likely from social media coordination. Both bios were protected for a couple of days, but that seems woefully insufficient to me. Can we permanently protect the two BLPs from new users? Below is a list of harassment IPs and new users. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

• KNNY808! (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Pryor4x (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Camige1210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Cruise11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 99.238.114.137 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2A01:4C8:C63:2760:397A:58D9:99E1:C141 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.78.155.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.17.172.73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2804:26EC:ABAB:29DC:61B3:88EA:8DA8:FFC2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2604:2000:1383:9C9:588B:4DD6:4FBC:2868 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2405:201:A404:D0CB:E8D1:4B6F:48BF:32E2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 68.149.122.84 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 45.72.243.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:1700:A6E0:6DB0:BCCC:3EDB:7DC6:A31A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2601:5CB:4000:90F0:2191:132E:B788:1A5A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 108.49.145.112 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 201.231.60.184 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))