Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Hectoring comments in a RM discussion by Dicklyon

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

---

I'm concerned about Dicklyon (talk · contribs)'s behaviour regarding the Battle of the Mons Pocket article. They are unhappy with the capitalisation of the article's title. After some move warring ([1]) during an initial talk page discussion, they did the right thing and started a RM discussion. However, during the initial discussion and the RM they have repeatedly insulted me and hectored the other editors who disagree with them about this rather minor issue. Diffs and quotes:

• Insult directed at me [2] ("Maybe you're often distracted by titles?")
• Hectoring an editor who opposed the move while insulting me again [3] ("What do you mean, "per Nick"? You just want to repeat what he said that was demonstrated false?")
• Hectoring another editor who opposed the move while insulting me further [4] ("That's a rather preposterous presumption, given how wrongly he characterized the case usage in the sources he cited. He is obviously not up to speed on WP's capitalization guidelines."

This aggressive behaviour over a minor issue seems utterly unnecessary - it's obviously entirely possible to have differing views about capitalisation of a word without throwing insults around and needing to hector everyone who disagrees with you! Dicklyon has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, and this suggests that there is an ongoing problem which I would be grateful if an admin could follow up on. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The "maybe you're often distracted by titles?" comment does not read as an insult to me. I think they were just suggesting that you came to the wrong conclusion because you were misled by some occurrences of the term in the context of titles. (Incidentally, the addition of the "maybe" hedge plus the question mark makes this read as a very mild/polite form of contradiction.) Unless there's some more context missing, I think you've been a bit quick to impute bad faith there. Colin M (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Dicklyon is often forceful during move discussions, and I've been on the receiving end of that forcefulness before, but frankly I'm not seeing an issue here. That said, Dicklyon should keep in mind that many Wikipedians are not, in fact, up to speed on capitalization guidelines and that he is often the ambassador for those guidelines. Mackensen (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but even after I subsequently followed his suggestion and started an RM discussion, he repeated the error and two other guys seconded that. Definitely they needed some pushback, as you can see there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

If other people support a particular capitalisation then they don't "need pushback". When people disagree with you it may mean that things are not as clear-cut as you believe them to be. According to WP:RM "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested" - given the history of disputes about the capitalisation of this sort of thing you must surely know by now that these moves are likely to be contested. I suggest you use RM from now on. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, since Nick disagreed, we are using the RM process. The guys who joined him without saying why needed pushback because they gave no argument based in sources or guidelines, just an "opinion" that Nick liking capitalization there is better. That's not how an RM discussion is supposed to work. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I actually provided multiple sources to support the capitalised usage here, so was not relying on my opinion. It is beyond me why this editor is so aggressive about this minor matter and is continuing to attack me and the other editors who oppose the move. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe because what you "provided" there was shown to be false, which you have not acknowledged, and the others have failed to account for. Dicklyon (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to rehash the merits of the ongoing RM discussion. In my view, as per Mackensen and Colin M, Dicklyon can sometimes have strongly held convictions, but although his comments may not have been especially polite, they seem basically within the bounds of Wikipedia routine discourse. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333 and SnowFire: since your comments at the subject RM are under discussion here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• That's not "hectoring". The complainant has some history of accusing Dicklyon of aggression, hectoring, etc., when the complainant isn't getting his way. This kind of escalation is a waste of ANI's time. Tony (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't recall ever encountering Dicklyon before, so I'm not sure what history you're referring to. It's a bit odd that you're accusing me of Trumpian escalation while throwing muck at me here. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Probably Tony refers to the section just above the RM, which he chimed in on, where you accused me of insulting you a few days before this "hectoring" accusation. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

      Yeah, that would probably answer it. D'oh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that what's needed at Talk:Battle of the Mons Pocket#Requested move 2 May 2021 is more hectoring, not less. Look at the crap that Nick's Milhist project buddies are now adding, supporting his position based on false claims, not adding anything to the discussion but wind. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

"what's needed ... is more hectoring not less" "look at the crap" "not adding anything ... but wind". If that's collegial, good-faith editing then I'm a Dutchman. Dicklyon seems to to be taking every "oppose" as an insult and an opportunity to insult. Just chill, bro, as the Young People say. DuncanHill (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you disagree with my assessment of your arguments there, or you just think I should have found a more polite way to put it? Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You've already been pointed to WP:BADGER. I'll point you there again ⇒WP:BADGER. DuncanHill (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I attempted to suggest above, gently, that as an ambassador you should try to be more polite. Let me be clearer: your approach does not encourage the unconvinced to accept your point of view (and yes, I agree that the MOS is on your side). To the extent that you're seeking to convince people to follow the MOS you should adopt an approach that does so. Failing that, you should at least adopt an approach that doesn't have people muttering darkly on ANI about topic bans. Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they are the ones to convince. They are not open to facts, guidelines, sources, etc. My comments are really to challenge them to put up or shut up, to make it clear to a closer that they have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Yes, I have a long history of people who want to ignore the MOS muttering to ANI about me. It's disgusting. Why don't they grow up? If an ambassador is what they need, that's probably not going to be me. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Look at the crap that Nick's Milhist project buddies are now adding, supporting his position based on false claims Oh so we're Nick's cabal now? Never occurred to me. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know about you, but he did canvas the project to get some of the traditional Milhist MOS-ignorers like SnowFire and Thewolfchild and Keith-264 to back him. Thank you for your comments there. We persuaded the closer. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: I'll accept that there are often people at MilHist that share like-minded opinions, but Nick-D's post which you characterized as canvassing was simply Members of this project may want to participate in the requested move discussion at Talk:Battle of the Mons Pocket#Requested move 2 May 2021. This is a very innocuous message and was liable to be read by everyone in that project, even people who didn't necessarily agree with their interpretation such as myself. I more often than not find myself disagreeing with User:Thewolfchild, but unless you can provide diffs which proves Nick was specifically soliciting the assistance of "SnowFire and Thewolfchild and Keith-264" for "traditional Milhist MOS-ignor"ing purposes, you really should do as wolf suggests and apologize. Or at least stop making the accusation. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Dicklyon's comment on MilHist of "Fortunately, the vacuous and false arguments of Nick-D, Thewolfchild, Keith-264, SnowFire, DuncanHill, and a few others were weighted appropriately by the closer there. When sources use lowercase, the preference of these editors to use caps should not be what determines the outcome. When Nick-D falsely states what sources use caps, and others simply second him even after the error is pointed out, it degrades the credibility of the project." certainly struck me as inappropriate. I know from experience that they can discuss disagreements collegially. Perhaps they need some encouragement to do so more consistently? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  And Dicklyon didn't even have the courtesy to ping me when he called my arguments "vacuous and false". I'm not a member of the MilHist WP, it's only because of @Gog the Mild: mentioning it above that I saw the comment. DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• "They are not open to facts, guidelines, sources, etc." "Why don't they grow up?" "to make it clear to a closer that they have nothing to contribute to the discussion." - these phrases don't look like Dicklyon going with the fourth pillar Wikipedia:Civility, and seem to denigrate RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments presented. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, you can feel that this whole RM/ANI experience pissed me off pretty good. I'll try to get back to my usual calm self now. And I was not trying to "denigrate RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments", but rather to "help RM closers' ability to analyse the arguments" when I pushed back on the opposers and challenged them to say something meaningful. Dicklyon (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• You know, I wasn't actually going to say anything originally, as this seemed like pointless drama for the sake of it - Dicklyon has his stridently held opinions, whatever, move on. And hell, despite voting oppose, if I'd closed that RM, I'd have done the same thing as buidhe and close it as "Moved", so it's not like I think Dicklyon's comments or points are illegitimate. However, apparently Dick has found the time to call me out as part of the "traditional Milhist MOS-ignorers", because anyone who votes differently from him is part of an evil plot, after the RM was already closed. This is some severe sore winner behavior. I almost never look at the MILHIST talk page, and found the RM via the usual way of checking WP:RM's list, and had no idea that Nick-D posted it elsewhere. Additionally, you misrepresent my point in the RM (and probably others). I wasn't saying "ignore the MOS." I was questioning the veracity of whether sources really do predominately lower cap "pocket" and think that for obscure topics, we should defer to the experts, which would be the article creator. And, put bluntly, based on your comments on other RMs, you've made clear that you see any sort of non-capitalized use anywhere as reason to remove the capital letters, so it's hard to just take your word for it that Nick-D is "wrong" on the source usage. Nevertheless, you convinced others that the reliable source usage really was mixed, so whatever, I can move on with my life - maybe you're even right, I'm certainly not an expert myself on the specific battle and its terminology in history.
  As a more general comment, article titles are to some extent arbitrary. Both the Manual of Style and article titling policy are essentially guidelines, suggestions. They aren't irrefutable rules like WP:RS or WP:NPOV. As such, editors can't really be wrong with them. Their opinions are, at worst, different from the prevailing consensus, and consensus can change (the Manual of Style in 2021 is not the same as it was in 2006, and it won't be the same in 2036 - that's healthy and good). As such, people should chill out if somebody is "wrong" in a RM. If they really are out of step with the consensus, than the RM will be closed against them (as arguably happened to Nick-D here!). If the "wrong" side actually succeeds in a well-attended RM, then maybe the consensus was different than expected, but it's no tragedy either way. Dicklyon, if you're reading this, your constant assumption of bad faith in others is frustrating; please accept that not everyone will agree with you every time, and that's okay. You have your opinion, let me have mine. SnowFire (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I hear you justifying that it's OK to ignore the MOS; OK, you can have that opinion. But your comment to trust the article creator, who said 3 of 5 cited sources use caps, even though the actual number was 1 of 5, devalues my own contribution. I wasn't expecting you to necessarily take my word for it if you doubted my creditibility, but if you're not going to look into it you can at least notice that Nick's distraction by titles in the Google book search he linked makes him much less credible. You threw your weight behind a person shown to be spewing falsities. Yeah, like I said, you can feel that I was pissed. Nick opening an AN/I thread in parallel with the RM discussion was a big part of that. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  "Your comment... devalues my own contribution." No! No, it doesn't. We don't round up the "wrong" side of an RFC and mock them for devaluing the "right" side of the RFC with their wrongness. The whole point of these discussions is for editors to offer their authentic, good faith !vote. If it's a weak or unconvincing !vote, the closer gives it little weight. That's it. If there's zero disagreement, there probably wasn't need to open an RFC / RM to begin with. SnowFire (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Why should anyone take the word of someone who spews so much bile? Life's too short. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Raising concerns, at a wikiproject, about why participants in that project keep making arguments that defy our WP:P&G and directly contradict the sourcing, is not any kind of problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Also — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [5].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

break

Need to get back on track here. This is not about the RM itself, or which sources said what, this is about Dicklyon's behavior towards others, here, in that now-closed RM, and even now at an otherwise benign notification at milhist about said RM. Just because he doesn't agree with other editors, doesn't give him the right to badger his "opponents" with personal attack after personal attack, all with seeming impunity. Even if he is self-admittedly "pissed off", the MOS does not require such ardent defense that it gives a free pass to violate NPA. This ANI was filed 3 days ago, and as of an hour ago, the battleground mentality of this editor continues as he heaps more insults at others. - wolf 21:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Wolf, I have no problem with good-faith pushback on my MOS work. But this should have been a cut-and-dried case, or at least a simpler RM discussion. Go back and look at how it should have finished up after my May 1 comment. Nick could have checked his "After the Battle" source and noticed that there too he was "distracted by titles"; he could have said OK, done. Instead he took it as an insult and withdrew from the discussion in a huff, so I did the move again. He still objected, so we went to RM, where he again posted "evidence" (from a Google Books search) that was again nothing but being distracted by titles. OK, this happens, I get it. So I pushed back on him, and on those who seconded him without looking at evidence or apparently being aware of capitalization guidelines. OK, this happens, I can deal with it. Then he opens an AN/I case to complain about my "behavior". That's going way beyond any normal discourse that the situation required. Then he invites the Milhist project (which already had it on their article alerts for any of them who cared, so was really an "extra" appeal beyond their ordinary), bringing in more long-time MOS-dislikers like you and @Keith-264:. So, it's me that should take shit for being very pissed off over all this? Sure, pile it on. Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

So now you're the victim? Have you even read your previous posts here, at the RM, and at MilHist? You abuse all and sundry and then blame your behaviour on them? DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I blame them for most of the drama here and elsewhere, caused by the ridiculous things they wrote. Yes, including you, whose comments I quoted at the project talk page and reaffirmed that I considered them to be "vacuous". And I got to look up both "hectoring" and "vacuous", so it's not all bad. Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Those who make poor arguments are not in a position to complain they're being mistreated when called on the poor quality of those arguments. We do that 24/7, and that is what is happening here. This is an encyclopedia-building project not a social network, so all this overly emotive "hurt feelings" posturing is sorely misplaced.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You have a conflict of interest and Dick is waving a straw man. You should quit while you're ahead. Keith-264 (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Huh? You don't seem to have read WP:Conflict of interest or straw man, since neither of them seem to be pertinent to this discussion. Happening to agree with Dicklyon's criticisms of some of the MILHIST participants' transparently bogus and anti-source, anti-guideline argumentation, which increasingly borders on disruptive, is not any kind of conflict of interest, it's simply sensible. Dicklyon making observations that others are unhappy about isn't a straw man, even if they disagree with them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have a short memory. Keith-264 (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Which is just another non sequitur. Do you have any actually meaningful input into this thread, or are you just going to try to pick more fights? This is hardly a good venue for such an activity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack by Thewolfchild

In addition to blatantly canvassing his buddies at MILHIST to come to this ANI [6] (cf. WP:POVRAILROAD), Thewolfchild complains about Dicklyon's alleged "behavior towards others". Let's look at some behavior like Thewolfchild calling him a dick [7] and implying that he is incapable of civility, which is obviously a false accusation, and grossly hypocritical. Probably blockworthy in and of itself: he's clearly trying to make a penis joke out of Dicklyon's name, in a addition to calling him a dick in a jerk sense. The WP:DICK shortcut was deprecated years ago, so Thewolfchild is going out of his way to use it in this case, against community consensus to not use it. I have delivered [8] to Thewolfchild a {{Ds/alert|at}}, since this kind of behavior is not permissible in discussions about article titles, which are covered by discretionary sanctions. It's not at all like raising issues, as Dicklyon did, about editors making arguments that defy the sources and the WP:P&G; Thewolfchild's behavior is just verbal aggression for its own sake. If Thewolfchild will not learn from this (questionable, given this childish and again hypocritical tit-for-tat and missing-the-point behavior [9]) and will not refrain from similar uncivil behavior in future article-titling discussions, then it should simply go to WP:ANI for swift resolution next time. Thewolfchild would hardly be the first editor topic-banned from such discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by SMcCandlish

In a post which can only be described as hypocritical and disingenuous, SMcCandlish (SMc) has left out his own personal attacks; one the false accusation of canvassing (isn't that how all this started?), the other conveniently hidden in an edit summary on his talk page, while reverting an edit I made so that only I would see it. This is right after abusing a DS sanction notice, with the clear intent of having a chilling effect on further posts by me to this ANI. An ANI he now tries to derail with this sudden "stop-looking-at-my-friend-Dicklyon-and-instead-look-at-the-Thewolfchild!" left turn. WP:DICK is a redirect to an active Meta essay on behavior. As SMc's diff shows, it was used as a redirect, piped with the word "nature", as in "the nature of Dicklyon's behavior is addressed by the 'don't be a jerk' essay". There was absolutely no "dick joke" being made at the expense of Dicklyons first name, I think the accusation is crude and obnoxious, and not only does SMc owe me an apology for this blantant lie, but one to Dicklyon as well, as it seems SMc will stop at nothing, including the humiliation of his own friend, with this nonsense. Lastly, this ANI is about Dicklyon's behavior, not mine. If SMc really feels I committed "blockable behavior", then that should merit it's own ANI report, not an attempt-at-distraction subsection of this report, that had the obvious additional benefit of not requiring a notification to my talk page (I wasn't even pinged). If SMc is going to preach the high road, he should also walk it. - wolf 00:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This kind habitual (see previous diff above) "No I'm not! You are!" schoolyard-style parroting/projection tit-for-tat is not constructive, and is simply further strong evidence of Thewolfchild's ingrained battleground behavior and NOTGETTINGIT approach to criticism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

And yet, I've actually had very little involvement with this entire matter. A !vote at the RM, then a couple of responses to the badgering that was taking place, and then I disengaged. I posted a comment at the milhist notice, was again badgered, and again was the one to disengage. I only posted 4 brief responses in total, on both pages. Then 2 whole days go by. Then I post a single comment here, at the subsection "(break)", asking that this ANI stay on point, and all of a sudden you are on me, with your wiki-wp:essay-salad, battleground attacks, accusations, bogus sanction notices, (iow: threats), all seemingly with zero self-awareness. You keep posting repeated personal attacks while claiming I'm somehow... disrupting... something...

All I can say is, this isn't about me and you need to stop making it about you, this particular report is about your friend, Dicklyon. You seem really desperate to derail this report into the typical tl:dr dreck that admins usually don't bother with. Multiple editors have asked that Dicklyon's behavior be reviewed, how about you just let the process run through without the detours. Can you do that? Can you stop the must-have-last-word-posts with every. single. editor. and just let this report run it's course? I think we're done here. - wolf 07:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's have an RfC and be done with it

This thread seems to be getting to the part of a Monty Python skit where a policeman shows up and stops it because it's getting too silly. Clearly, there are larger issues going on here than this specific editor, or this specific RM.

I'm currently involved in a very long argument with Dicklyon, at Talk:Extremely_Online#Requested_move_27_April_2021 (for the record, I think he's wrong, and that the article's title should be capitalized). Nevertheless, he has made reasonable arguments, and been honorable about it. He's been insistent, which is not the same thing as acting in bad faith. In fact, I wish that everyone I argued with on Wikipedia were this reasonable about it.

One thing I'd like to point out here is that, if you look on his talk page (or even in this thread) you can see that he is far from alone in his opinions about capitalization in titles. Maybe he is right, and maybe he is wrong, but it certainly doesn't seem like he is just some lone yahoo.

Since it doesn't seem like there is a project-wide consensus one way or the other, and everyone seems to think that the PAGs support a different point of view, I think we should have an RfC somewhere (perhaps at WT:MOS) to clarify the scope of MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. This seems to me like the only way that anyone is going to be satisfied on the issue (least of all an increasingly Mad Online thread at AN/I). jp×g 05:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess that means you don't have a long memory of all the RFCs we've had on the MOS, including CAPS. There's a pretty strong consensus behind it, historically, though it's a continuing job to uniformly implement it. Almost all new articles that aren't obviously proper names still get created in title case, as most editors just aren't that familiar with the MOS, or they just like to cap things important to them, like Extremely Online. And yes, I appreciate your civil discourse there, though I disagree with the crux of your argument ("There is a difference between a simple conjunction of two words and a coherent concept being referred to by their conjunction.") since that's not how our MOS says to decide what to capitalize. If that was the criterion, almost every two-word concept that we name an article for would get caps, including Mons Pocket. For example, I just clicked "random article" until I found a two-word title not capped: Prague derby; now, I'm sure many will look at that and say that's the name of a thing, it should be capitalized. But if you look at news, or books, you'll see it's usually not; so we leave it lowercase (this one was not created in title case, but many are, and get moved to lowercase, like Extremely Online will). Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the call for a content RfC is outside the scope of this ANI report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Outside the scope, yes, but not a bad idea. To the extent that issues continue to crop up with how policy is interpreted, we should have a process to refine those statements of policy to make it clear how it is to apply in those particular situations. BD2412 T 16:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a bad idea, because it's the wrong process. Article titles are not determined by RfC, but by RM, which are near-identical processes. That is, WP:RM is RfC, for titles. That is to say, the RfC you want to see happen has already happened. Ergo, you are effectively asking for license to WP:Forum shop to a variant process any time someone doesn't like the outcome of the proper process.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: That's why I specifically said it should be started somewhere (perhaps at WT:MOS), which is where content disputes (i.e. the majority of this thread, unless I am missing something) belong. jp×g 19:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

As a side point: There is in fact a site-wide consensus on this sort of matter, named MOS:CAPS. The distilled gist of it (and its first rule) is: if reliable sources do not near-consistently capitalize something then it should not be capitalized on Wikipedia. Various editors dislike this rule and will engage in both logic contortions (and in this case even source denial), and a "never give up, never surrender" approach to get their way (in a vein of "It didn't work this time, so I'll try again later, again and again until I WP:WIN"). A few editors make the same already-rejected arguments in favor of over-capitalization dozens of times at RMs spanning years, and refuse to accept the lower-case results that emerge again and again and again. The fact is that as a WP:P&G matter they are in the wrong about the vast majority of capitalization questions. The seemingly dire urge some people exhibit to over-capitalize things (especially jargonistic terms particular to certain fields/interests, because people steeped in them tend to capitalize them when writing to/for other people steeped in the same topic, versus how general-audience sources – like Wikipedia – are written) is the no. 1 cause of disputation about article titles, and also the no. 1 source of strife about all MoS matters combined. This really needs to wind down, and that's not going to happen if we continue to permit individuals like Thewolfchild, and WP:GANGs of editors at habitually over-capitalizing wikiprojects, get away with aggressive "style warrior" battlegrounding about their pet topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

S, thanks for changing "Many editors" to "A few editors". It really is just a few. The vast majority of Milhist editors are non-problematic (except that maybe they hang back and are afraid to contradict some of their fellows). Some do speak up in favor of following MOS:CAPS on occasion, which is good to see. If I've come across as criticizing the project or its members, I apologize for that. But the project is the place where some of the over-capitalizers find each other and support each other without evidence, sometimes. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the number of "defy the MoS until I die" sorts can be counted on one to two hands; "Many" got left in accidentally because the original setencence was going to begin something like "Many of these problem can be traced to editors who ...". Anyway, it's entirely appropriate in my view to take concerns to a wikiproject's talk page when they involve what amounts to organized activity on behalf of the wikiproject by some of its more vociferous participants. Wikiprojects – the principle purpose of which is centralizing topical discussion – can't have it both ways. If they want topic-related discussion that makes them happy to be gathered there, they're going to have to accept some critical commentary there as well, when it pertains to more than sole-individual behavior but pertains to group activity, which is the case here. It's always the case (cf. the bird capitalization fiasco, most memorably) that various wikiproject participants are not going along with whatever the "anti-guideline rebellion" is, if one is happening and is centered on a wikiproject. Being critical of the group for entertaining such unconstructive antics is not an individual crticism of much less an attack on every single wikiproject participant. People in wikiprojects also have to remember (and sometimes need to be reminded) that they are not walled gardens, private parties, or separate membership organizations. They are nothing but pages at which editors – any editors – can collaborate, provide information, and raise concerns that are on-topic (or in this case, on-meta-topic).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Thank you for clarifying your remarks about MilHist. @SMcCandlish: For the record, I closed the RM discussion notice on MilHist talk because it wasn't about "critical commentary" but a mudslinging contest. And I still strongly object to Nick-D's original comment being characterized as CANVASSing. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for closing that mudslinging. As or the canvassing, I don't know how else to see it. These things get automatically posted to the project's article alerts, and when a member makes an extra special appeal for participation, it brings in mainly those who agree with him, as it did here. Nick-D's notice of 10:05, 4 May 2021 was followed by comments from members Keith-264 and Buckshot06 (and DuncanHill, not a member, who echoed him). They said nothing useful, but added fuel to the fire. Also SnowFire and Thewolfchild seem to be (in my past experience) associated with military stuff, members or not. I don't know who watches that page, but it didn't really need this extra call to action. Thewolfchild perhaps still carries a grudge from when one of his ship names lost its comma after a protracted discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that closing that thread was a good idea. Has anyone suggested otherwise? What is Indy_beetle complaining about, in other words. Well, beyond the repeated obvious: yeah, Indy_beetle, you've made it clear already that you're upset about the canvassing claim. No need to beleaguer the point. And just being huffy about it is not a convincing argument. While the wording of the notice – delivered only to MILHIST not to any other wikiproject or other venue – was neutral, the intent and effect of it clearly was not, or the same notice would have gone to other venues, at bare mimimum WT:WikiProject Belgium. It was a rallying cry to MILHIST. It not having been the worst kind of canvassing doesn't make it non-canvassing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: That wasn't meant as a "complaint". In response to your previous comment involving "appropriate in my view to take concerns to a wikiproject's talk page", I wanted to make it clear I wasn't attempting to shutdown the expressing of concerns by closing the thread. The point about CANVASS re Nick-D and Milhist is because you are discussing the behavior of Milhist. When you are confused about something I say, you can always just ask me for clarification, instead of posing rhetorical questions to the whole discussion group and then condescend me. FTR, posting notices about RfCs, AfDs, etc. in milhist even though they are already listed at project notifications is a very common thing. Also, MilHist is actually active enough to where a notice will at least be read by someone who will go and comment. Speaking for myself, it usually doesn't occur to me post a notice involving a milhist topic in other wikiprojects because most simply aren't very active. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

MILHIST isn't an entity and doesn't have behavior; it's a page at which any editors may topically collaborate. Much of the problems surrounding wikiprojects is the false feeling of belonging to a private "walled garden" membership organization that makes up its own rules and norms and which exercises control over a category. That is not what wikiprojects are. Anyway, whether a particular kind of low-grade canvassing is common doesn't make it non-canvassing. There's a big difference between notifying all relevant projects and notifying just one stocked to the gills with people who agree with one's "capitalize all this military stuff just because military people like to capitalize it" views.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I posted a single comment about what I felt was an unfounded accusation and personal attack. It seems some others agree with me. I didn't initiate this and there is no ulterior motive. The whole comma thing was five years ago. I'd forgotten about it, perhaps you should let it go. - wolf 17:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

"This really needs to wind down, and that's not going to happen if we continue to permit individuals like Thewolfchild...". So, specifically naming me and me only? Out of all of this, the ANI, the RM, the MILHIST notice, how do you even remotely justify this? This just equates to another attack, bordering on some bizarre WP:GRUDGE, and if anything is the antithesis of "winding things down". If that is really your intention, then you need to let this go. - wolf 17:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I not-at-all-remotely, but quite clearly, justify it by your behavior standing out as especially crappy, as I've already demonstrated with diffs. I have nothing to let go. I'd already moved on from this conversation to other things. ANI threads many examine the behavior any/all involved parties, and they frequently come to a WP:BOOMERANG conclusion, or to a decision to sanction multiple editors. That either will or will not happen in this case, based on the evidence. If it you escape sanction, this remains evidence that will resurface if your attacky and battlegrounding behavior resumes. That is all. Presenting what amounts to an argument that your behavior should be immune from examination and that ANI participants who choose to examine are doing you a terrible wrong, is not going to have any effect here. That's not how ANI works. Hell, that's not how any of WP works.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

A contrarian view

Well, I'll call it a contrarian view here, though I'm not sure I wouldn't be in the majority if a truly site-wide survey could somehow be taken. I've never really understood why the editors within major groups of articles, with demonstrated subject-matter expertise, shouldn't be relied upon to decide the capitalization of those articles. A site-wide MOS that avoids repetitious subject-by-subject or article-by-article or even sentence-by-sentence debates over the same issues is desirable on many usage topics. Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki. The efforts for MOS-driven uniformity in this area therefore strike me as unattainable, and the emphasis on the importance of uniformity as excessive. There have always been a handful of editors, I will mention no names, who push for lower-casing of article titles even where the editors active in creating and maintaining the articles, and with the greatest expertise in the subject-matters of the article content, all assert and offer ample evidence that upper-casing is the convention in those areas. For more than ten years, forced lowercasing of such titles has demoralized some of these editors, and I wouldn't be surprised if it has weakened some of their good-feelings for and interest in Wikipedia as a whole. With all respect to everyone's good faith here and elsewhere, I'm not convinced that these aggressive forced-capitalization-uniformity efforts are a worthwhile overall contribution to the well-being of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• I totally agree. It would be much better for the encyclopedia if those with a super-human interest in fixing six million titles were kept well away from the dwindling community of content builders. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hey, John, if you're referring to me, note that I've created over a hundred articles and uploaded about a thousand photos, among other things. Besides creating content, I have a focus on style. Hope that's OK, too. I don't think I'll get to looking at millions of articles, but I've done case fixes in thousands at least; maybe tens of thousands. Do let me know if you see any I got wrong. Thanks for your interest. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  And that's a farcical false dichotomy of the same sort as "all those liberals should just get a job".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Indeed. Forced uniformity tends to have more downsides on a community level than advantages, especially when our house style is at odds with scholarly style. (The German Wikipedia's disgusting (to me) house style is one reason why I don't contribute to mathematics articles there: they follow some "official" recommendations that nobody else uses). —Kusma (t·c) 09:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree (per my comment below). jp×g 01:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  If you can take a bit more "hectoring", please say what you agree with here, and why; maybe reference what I said to NYB below. I can see how one might legitimately agree with "I've never really understood...", but are you agreeing that "Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki."? If so, do you have a reason for such belief? Or do you believe that "forced lowercasing of such titles has demoralized some of these editors" is a sensible thing to assert? Is there any evidence of "forced lowercasing" (against consensus in RM discussions)? I remain puzzled. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: Well, I think most people who've participated in these arguments about page titles have said it's unpleasant, or something which paraphrases to that. As for myself, I don't mind it that much, but I do see it as another item in a litany of strange arguments I have to deal with if I write articles on Wikipedia, especially on out-there subjects like Internet culture. I think the majority of lowercase moves (Winograd Schema Challenge → Winograd schema challenge) are correct, but there's a lot of them that seem to rile people up, as we can see here. Regarding consensus, well, I think we can all admit that consensus is to some extent biased by who shows up. If people were to change the spelling of some word in a thousand articles, and start talk page discussions on each page, I think it's quite likely most of the edits would stick, regardless of how right they were, because most people don't like arguing on talk pages. This would also probably be true if an RfC was filed for each one (and advertised on a list of currently open RfCs regarding capitalization). Most people do not care about arguing on Wikipedia, especially not with editors who are both rhetorically skilled and persistent in making their point; I'd say a majority of talk page arguments get resolved by one of the parties getting tired of responding, rather than a real consensus being reached.

  If you'll excuse me getting personal for a minute, this whole ordeal seems strangely trivial compared to other stuff you've done – for example, I've used dozens of your very excellent aerial photos in my articles about islands in the Bay and in the Delta. Many of your articles are sourced well and written well, despite being about very difficult technical concepts. I hate to say that anything is a waste of talent, since I have myself made tens of thousands of edits doing stuff like recent-changes patrol, but I would much rather be collaborating with you for a featured topic on the hydrology of Santa Clara County than arguing with you on AN/I about page capitalization. jp×g 22:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  I try to be pretty careful, and usually succeed in not riling people up. About 99% of my moves never get a comment; the ones that go to RM are the controversial ones, and all points of few are heard there. The points of view that just say say "I likes my caps because it's important and unique" shouldn't get much weight, but do tend to get seconded, adding to the noise. Often, a real consensus is reached; sometimes they close without consensus. That shouldn't keep us from trying to improve the encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

NYB, I hear you, and acknowledge that sometimes project members want to have their own project style that deviates from the central consensus as embodied in guidance such as the MOS. But members with that idea have not convinced even the larger project, in discussions where they've tried. And I disagree with your premise that "Capitalization norms, however, vary widely from one topic or profession or area of expertise to another off-wiki." That's not what's happening here. Military historians have varying styles among them, but do not generally capitalize "Mons pocket", or any of the other things that I've worked on moving toward Wikipedia style. A few do, but that's not indicative of anything about the "topic or profession or area of expertise". Rather, what you see is the tendency, in all topic areas, for editors to capitalize what's important to them. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me like there is a "central consensus" in this discussion, or indeed, in most of them, on what constitutes a proper name (which is the subject of most of the contention, if I understand correctly). I think that a guideline (or a guideline section, or a supplement) specifically outlining what a "proper name" is would go a long way toward resolving these; even in the case that consensus wasn't established, having the guideline say "consensus isn't established" would be better than having it say something vague (or nothing at all) which everyone interprets as obviously agreeing with them. jp×g 01:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, a consensus on "what constitutes a proper name" is a tricky one! That's why at MOS:CAPS the consensus is around the more practical criterion "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason for the kerfluffle here is that an experienced expert editor/admin wouldn't admit that the term he wanted to capitalize was capitalized in only a small minority of sources, argued that it was "close to half" (which it was not, as I showed him) and that that should be enough in spite of the guideline, and then came to AN/I because I pushed back on his nonsense and those who jumped in with support with no reason given. This thread should never have been opened. But as long as you want to keep it going, I'll keep explaining and pushing back on nonsense. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect to NYB, the line between "expert" and "fanboy" on Wikipedia is not easily discernable, and I don't think it sets a good precedent to allow a small group of people to contravene MOS according to their own style preferences. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The current situation is that there is a small group of people willing to spend days arguing about the capitalization of a title. That small group dominates MOS and then has their own consensus to spread irritation throughout the project. The issue is not whether This Is Bad and this is good—it's whether the benefit of this is good outweighs the disruption. There are lots of gnomes and vandal reverters, but there are not many good editors with specialty knowledge and who are willing to invest time maintaining core articles. Perhaps the benefit of all titles being perfect is not worth irritating those who maintain articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Being among those who maintain articles, I can agree that disruption sometimes wastes my time and is irritating. Like when a user in a simple style dispute complains about it at AN/I. Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The super-obvious logic problems here are already covered in detail at WP:SSF. The gist is that virtually every specialization likes to over-capitalize a whole lot of stuff, when specialists are writing for other specialists. This capitalization for "signification" emphasis is completely meaningless to non-experts and just looks like shitty writing. It doesn't actually signify anything to them. Meanwhile, the experts are entirely used to the fact that outside their own materials people don't write that way. Just going withi "specialist caps" would have a lot of negative results, including the aformentioend problem of most readers thinking WP editors don't know how to use English properly, to the fact that if nearly every subject's experts like to excessively capitalize within their field, then basically everything under the sun would end up capitalized on WP, since nearly everything is the subject of one specialization or another (sometimes more than one, with conflict over-capitalization habits!). Next "participant in a topical wikiproject" != "subject-matter expert", but Newyorkbrad leads with the opposite assumption, itself transgressive of WP's anti-credentialist norms, and see also WP:OWN and WP:VESTED, and over a decade of ArbCom rulings that a) wikiprojects and other gaggles of editors cannot lay controling claim to any subject or category, and b) they cannot make up their own rules against site-wide policies, guidelines, and norms. Putting a stop to attempts to do so is the very reason we implemented WP:CONLEVEL policy. Finally, the entire purpose of a style guide is consistency, and yes sometimes this comes at the cost of convenience or personal, even professional, preferences.

It is never going to happen that any given line item in any style guide will please everyone, or that any given person will agree with every line item in any style guide. Otherwise, there would be no need for style guides to exist, since everyone would already be in agreement. They are compromises, by definition. WP implemented a style guide nearly from the start because squabbling half-to-death over style trivia was consuming too much editorial time and goodwill. These silly anti-MoS posturings that people come up with from time to time (which really amount to "I can't get my way on my favorite pet peeve", or NYB's variant here which resolves to "everyone should get their way on their pet peeves" and which of course falls apart the instant two people have conflictig pet peeves, which is why we have MoS, remember?) rely on a fantasy-land scenario in which MoS is causing style disputes and they would go away if we got rid of MoS (or some big chunk of it). In reality, MoS prevents about 95% of style distputes, and WP's daily activity would consist of little but an endless firehose of style disputes being waged page by page if we did not have MoS. We have as many style disputes as we still do only because a) people don't read MoS (which is long, and is really intended as a "gnome" cleanup reference; we expect that people will just write however they like and someone else will normalize it later), and b) certain processes like RM encourge page-at-a-time argument and, frankly, relitigation. This could in part be fixed by having a rule to speedily close any RM the question of which is already answered by the style guide.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to frame the dispute over uppercasing as happening between serious encyclopedia editors and fanboys (or, indeed, fangirls). Let's say, for example, that an article called "Pradley's Kiki" is renamed to "Pradley's kiki": we'd expect a bunch of kiki enthusiasts (or experts, or fanboys) to show up in the resulting argument. This doesn't imply bad faith: it's just unlikely that anyone else would give a damn about these articles at all. We could then come up with a laundry-list of reasons why their arguments were prima facie not credible, which would always be true regardless of the merits of the move: we could accuse them of being out to advocate for Pradley's Kiki at the expense of the rest of the encyclopedia, since they focus most of their attention on that instead of MoS arguments. If there was one of them we could say "well, look, it's just one person engaging on a lone crusade" and if there were a bunch of them we could say "well, look, this is clearly an organized gang of editors". Moreover, I'm not sure why a group of people who focus a lot of editing attention on the narrowly defined subjects of military history, or electrical engineering, or underwater basket-weaving would be discredited by simple virtue of this, but a group of people who focus a lot of their editing attention on the narrowly defined subject of MoS arguing wouldn't. What does seem true to me is that people disagree about an interpretation of MoS, and having the same argument to convince 20 separate groups of people to agree with one interpretation of a vaguely written guideline seems like a waste of time when you could just do an RfC to change it to a more unambiguous wording (and the more correct you are, the more of a good idea this is). jp×g 22:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

MoS

After reading up on all the various pages, to see what the kerfuffle's about, and yes, I believe that much of this is well-intended, but really, the thought that keeps coming to mind is: are you all intentionally trying for a listing at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars?

If the issue causing contention is some policy or guideline, and in good faith you all believe it should be amended, then please start an RfC at the VP. It doesn't matter how longstanding - if it needs to be amended, then it needs to be amended.

Policy and guidelines are only healthy if they are living documents, not stone-engraved aedifaces. - jc37 07:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're proposing to amend, or in what direction. The MOS is amended continuously based on discussions and RFCs and such, and the capitalization guidance has evolved to have wide consensus support. It is indeed a healthy living document, not a stone tablet. Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's no edit war related to this thread, so going for the "lamest" would be lame. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. WT:MOS is one of the most heavily watchlisted and active guideline talk pages on the whole system, and counting the subpages like WT:MOSCAPS, WP:MOSNUM, etc., MoS talk probably dwarfs all the others. The fact that (see above) any given editor is almost certain to wish that some line item or other in MoS said something different, there will always be a large number of people with a generalized bone to pick about "something in MoS", but this does not mean MoS as a whole lacks consensus. By way of analogy, nearly everyone I know is mad at "the government" about something (a different something from person to person), but this does not demonstrate any particular problem with the government, nor mean that anarchy is about to be declared because the public has lost faith in having the government exist and generally do what it does.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of Hectoring (capped in honor of my old bud Hector Levesque, author of "The Winograd Schema Challenge"), I just downcased Winograd schema challenge. Is this "forced"? Is it wrong? I don't think so. I do such things every day, and seldom get any pushback, because it's right, within Wikipedia style, to not cap things that aren't consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Good move, per MOS:DOCTCAPS. As an adjuct to Turing test, which we do not capitalize as Turing Test, why would Winograde schema challenge be capitalized? These are not titles of published works, or other sorts of proper noun.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You both appear to have missed what I was saying. I really have no opion / I don't care about the content debate. What I was saying is that (except the very few legal-related ones), no policy or guideline on Wikipedia should be considered sacrosanct/engraved in stone. If in doubt, start an RfC. If there is (or isn't) consensus, that should easily come through. And doing so is far better than edit warring (regardless of whether that is revert warring, or warring on a talk page). - jc37 04:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, nobody is edit warring. And yes, if someone is in doubt that the current guidelines or policies still have consensus, they can always open an RFC. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Move to close

The underlying move discussion concluded, and there's no ongoing interaction to speak of, and nobody is clamoring to sanction anybody, and people have expressed what they think of the MOS, so could some admin just put this out of its misery? Last call for rejoinders to SMcCandlish's rejoinders... Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Indefinite block for User:Sportsfanrob

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

This person is clearly not here to contribute, given their behavior. Their edits have largely been disruptive in nature, and this person recently made even more disruptive edits, after he was blocked for 3 months and entered into a period of inactivity on his main account. During this period of "inactivity", he engaged in multiple instances of block evasion, via IPs, which can be seen on his SPI page, and some of which CUs are aware of (including instances that aren't in his SPI archive). As such, I am requesting an indefinite block on their account. This person is a sheer net-negative, and net-negatives do not belong on this site. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Widr, Favonian, ToBeFree, and Spencer: Can someone please take a look at this report? This person just continues to cause more and more problems. Their history of block evasion and IP socking is also a real concern. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

LightandDark2000, I'm afraid you need to give more detail and evidence for an indef block. Please link to previous discussions, diffs of disruption, etc. Fences&Windows 11:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at the numerous complaints/warnings on his talk page. He is *STILL* engaging in the exact same types of disruption. Also have a look at is SPI archives. This person has also evaded his blocks using IPs at least twice (one case isn't listed in the SPI). Oh, and he's editing on 86.0.200.183, his IP, in order to evade scrutiny. This is clear socking. This person is a clear net-negative. And I think that we should show him the door out. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, Destroyeraa, Mattythewhite, TSP, and Lee Vilenski: You've dealt with this guy before and you're more familiar with his behavior than I am. What do you think? This guy hasn't changed at all, and given the messes that he's made again and again (along with the socking), I think he should be indeffed. And also blocked on his IPs for a while (since he WILL sock on his IPs if he is blocked). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't think of much useful to add here beyond what's self-evident from the user's talkpage. WP:CIR and this user lacks it, sometimes deliberately and repeatedly making erroneous edits in spite of plenty of warnings. Sometimes enough is enough. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'd support an block for this user. There are CIR issues which can be shown by the many flounces they have done after receiving warnings, as well as the very clear sockpuppetry by using IPs to edit when under scrutiny. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've only had the encounters you can see on his talk page; but the pattern is fairly clear. He makes inexplicable, unsourced and unjustified edits; when questioned, he says he is leaving Wikipedia ("Goodbye Everyone who tells me to stop Good Riddance I will log out", or similar). He returns a few days later (with his account or as an IP), and repeats. He has posted comments containing the words "good riddance" to his own talk page at least fourteen times.

He does edit a lot, and not all the edits are malicious (though most that aren't still seem to be unsourced); but there's a consistent pattern that he has no willingness to even attempt consensus, and reacts to any criticism of his edits by saying he is leaving Wikipedia - then returns a few days later to continue the same behaviour. As this cycle makes it fairly clear he has no plan or willingness to address his behaviour, I can't see any way forward other than a block. (I do expect that he will evade it.) TSP (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@TSP: ... when questioned, he says he is leaving Wikipedia... Well, even though he did that on his own talk page (see diffs below) this may eventually amount to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (4) if he persists in relevant article's discussions. I encourage you to provide diffs showing disruptive content editing.

• 10:14, October 13, 2020 - «‎October 2020»
• 10:13, October 13, 2020 - «‎You have been reported at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents.»
• 07:49, October 3, 2020 - «‎October 2020»
• 10:31, September 11, 2020 - «‎September 2020»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the user's talkpage contains sufficient evidence, it doesn't need to be ported over here. If that's not enough, then just allow the disruption to continue. This isn't a bureaucracy, if you can't see the problem clearly enough then, well, meh. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree that providing more evidence of the behaviour would be a waste of time in this case. Either we agree that the general record of disruptive editing, followed by flouncing aren't needed on wikipedia, and give a WP:CIR / WP:NOTHERE block, or we say it's not enough and move on. I would be on the side of a block, but feel I'm a little too involved due to the history to pass this without prejudice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Well I would agree that intentionally logging out to continue disruptive editing would violate the WP:SOCK but this doesn't seem to be the case. Related investigation also didn't find relationship between the two: ip 86.0.200.183 and Sportsfanrob. Admins should not blindly ban a person for making silly replies. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What about the very clear use [10] and [11] when specifically told not too? They have been told multiple times, see User:sportsfanrob#Editing while logged out, User:Sportsfanrob#July 2020 et al. Also see Special:Contributions/82.20.190.222 for where they edit their own responses after being told about not doing specific things, and edit the same way. I think even if for some reason you aren't inclined due to the sockpuppetry concerns, there is a very clear WP:CIR issue, especially that they are unable/unwilling to communicate without flouncing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: In fairness these edits are from the August 2020. Only 2 out of total 8 he made for the whole year in that article. He was banned in October later. Is this even relevant now?

• 19:38, August 26, 2020
• 19:36, August 26, 2020 - «‎2020 cancellation»

The latest 82.20.190.222 contributions are from September 2020.

• 21:18, September 2, 2020 - «‎Changes of network affiliation»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 Israel–Palestine crisis

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

---

Moved from AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello there, this issue involves more than one problem so I've brought it up here. This mainly concerns User:Gianluigi02 and User:Selfstudier who have decided themselves what must be correct, but other users are causing disruption as well. In many conflicts, we have claims from two sides about death tolls. But here in this case neither side is contradicting each other. Of course that doesn't mean both are true.

But Gianluigi is only taking his own conjectures made in conjunction with the Palestinian statements which are being reported as true. For example when earlier Palestinian health officials stated that 30 Palestinians had been killed [12]. But they never claimed they were all civilians. Gianluigi02 however inserted his own claims that 26 civilians had been killed [13], basing his claim Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad deaths of 1 commander [14] and 3 commanders respectively so far [15]

One thing that should be noted that the Palestinian groups have only confirmed prominent deaths ie commanders, they haven't confirmed how many militants or their members have been killed in total. But despite this Gianluigi02 continues to regard that only 4 (now 5 after Israel said it killed another commander) were killed. [16]

Despite me explaining it to him many times that he's solely relying on Palestinian claims of casualties himself, he claimed again only 4 militants died and without proof claimed identity of 15 dead people (excluding 5 militants, 10 children and a woman confirmed dead) is unknown so far and they are suspected to be civilians [17]. I couldn't find any source for his claim, and it's different than his earlier claim of 26 civilians being dead.

I later removed the commanders who have been confirmed as dead from the overall toll so people did not confuse it. [18] Then I added that Israel claimed it had killed 18 militants [19]

But Gianluigi took to reverting me and baselessly claimed that the Israeli source I used (Times of Israel) was false, even though it said it was claim of Israel that 18 militants were killed [20]. Without presenting one thing to contradict it. He also claimed that the death toll of Gazans provided by Palestinian sources is also confirmed by Israelis [21]. I have however not found the IDF or Israeli government saying so.

There have been other user repeating similar claims against Israeli sources like User:Selfstudier, to whom I pointed out that the number of dead Gazans was only based on Palestinian/Gazan health ministry claims and not independent claims [22]. In response he said he has nothing to add beyond what he said [23].

By that I assume I he meant that I should add contradictory claims [24] or the death toll being from the Palestinian health ministry [25]. Thing is I pointed out earlier to him that Palestinians didn't contradict Israel's toll [26] (neither Israel has contradicted Palestinians).

Also I had pointed out that regarding one side's claims as true and the others as false is incorrect way to do things, especially since Gianluigi is himself deciding how many civilians died using only the number of prominent militant commanders confirmed to be killed [27].

Later he got in a long-winded argument with others about Israeli sources like Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post being false [28]. Per his claim Times of Israel was making false reports and did not attribute the number of dead Palestinian militants to IsGov. In addition, he says Jerusalem Post was paid by IsGov to smear BDS [29]. This was said by him after I pointed out to another using disputing the number of Israeli injuries, that you have to prove a website deliberately reporting false news to prove it's unreliable, not it just being wrong sometimes [30].

Selfstudier used a +972 Magazine article claiming that Israeli government had funded Jerusalem Post's supplement against BDS discreetly, which it claims was revealed a freedom of information request. However as AlexEng pointed out the relationship between JPost's supplement and the State of Israel Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy was never hidden [31]. Even in the supplement you can see the logo of the ministry on the last page and the ministry's director-general delivering its introduction [32]. Regardless of that it isn't the only independent newspaper to have a government-funded report once-in-a-while.

Even if we disregard JPost as unreliable, Selfstudier still ridiculously claimed that Times of Israel had made a false claim and didn't attribute the number of dead Palestinian militants in its blog to Israeli government and it had been removed from the article by an editor (which was Gianluigi02 of course) multiple times, in order to discredit the website: [33], [34], [35], [36].

However the source article he refers to quite clearly does attribute the number of dead militants to Israeli government source: Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists.. Me and AlexEng pointed this out clearly to him even with the direct statement [37], [38].

After this however he ridiculously started claiming that just it didn't attribute it because it said "Israel" and since the editor (Dianluigi) who removed it said it was false he agrees with him [39]. After I pointed out that one editor calling it false is not evidence and saying "Israel says it has killed at least 18 terrorists" is attribution just like "India said x number of people died", he took to calling IDF as disinformatory and stated he believes it is likely ToI's source, but it didn't attribute them directly [40]. Thing is no one said they have to specify directly who was it from. In addition IDF as we know is the military arm of the IsGov, and he was also talking about there being no attribution to IsGov.

Now regardless of what you think of IDF's reliability, Palestinian sources can't be blindly relied blindly on either. I did say this clearly earlier how GianLuigi02 is using them openly as factual and was using his own conjecture as to what they meant, but Selfstudier has no issue with it [41] [42].

I'm not going to describe my whole talk with him since it's long but you can see it for yourself on the talk page.

I believe these two users need to be temporarily banned from the topic or have it at least told to him not to be biased towards any source, plus not decide on his own what should be correct. The others there probably need a warning too. The appropriate way to be regard either both as reliable or none as reliable and label which claim is Palestinian or Israeli.

While I don't like to point fingers, it seems clear that there's anti-Israel bias going on, where Palestinian claims are believed and Israeli claims aren't. These two actually aren't the only ones so I think the article needs to be monitored. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: please note that as noted at the top of this page you must notify involved users if you start a discussion about them. I have notified Gianluigi02 and Selfstudier of this discussion. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I forgot about the notifying part. Sorry it slipped my mind and I was busy in something else. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) I put a Arab-Israeli DS notice on LKS's talk page; the other mentioned editors have already been notified.

(2) LKS has a very interesting talk page, worth reading.

(3) This appears to be primarily a content dispute with a disagreement about the reliability of sources.

(4) The question of source reliability should be handled at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard; off hand, I can't see the editors there deciding that The Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post or Al Jazeera is unreliable.

(5) Otherwise, the right place for settling the content dispute is on the article talk page, not here.

(6) It seems unlikely that an admin telling a possibly biased editor "Don't be biased" is going to have any positive effect, and also unlikely that anyone is going to be topic banned on the basis of this report, even if everything in it is perfectly accurate and not in itself biased.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(7) This should be at ANI, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(8) So I moved it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it should be at WP:AE. I do not think we can take any action using the current format. Unless somebody wants to launch an investigation of course.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I never said that the Times of Israel is spreading fake news. I said however that the IDF is claiming the death of 15 Hamas and PIJ members without proving it. There are no proofs of that. And no, I'm not saying that is false, it can be true that 15 Hamas members are killed by the strikes. However we need proofs, not claims without evidences. For this reason, I added just the death toll (which is at 53 dead now), without specifying how many were civilians and how many were militants. Or at least, now we are specifying those confirmed to be civilians (the 14 children, the three women, the husband of one of the women, five farmers and other civilians killed in cars) and those confirmed to be militants (3 PIJ and 2 Hamas commanders). The identity of the rest of the victims is unknown so far. So we should just update the death toll without specifying the identity until they are proven. Gianluigi02 (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Another argument for waiting on events to actually have time to be investigated and reviewed before rushing a half-baked article into main space. Tiderolls 13:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it's not so simple Tide. Let me quote exactly what you said Gianluigi when you removed that Times of Israel source: "Also, I'm removing that false Israeli source". Anyone can see exactly what you meant. Whether the identity of others is known or not, I put 18 militants dead specifically as Israeli claim [43]. This presents it in a neutral fashion and claims by both sides are allowed, so I don't get why you removed it.

This is not content dispute as you clearly have a problem with Israeli claims. Your number of dead (53) is directly sourced from Gaza health ministry [44]: Gaza’s ministry of health said the overall death toll since the latest offensive began stood at 53, including 14 children. More than 300 others have been wounded.

So is Gaza health ministry correct for you but Israel is not? Also you have actually reverted more than once on that article in 24 hours. Compare [45] and [46], [47] and [48], [49] and [50], [51] and [52]. Yes partial reverts also count.

Admins please notice this guy is point blank breaking sanctions by reverting to previous versions. He's also cherry-picking which side to use, siding with Gazans over Israelis when we should use both but cautiously. I hope you can punish him now. He has clearly violated the sanctions and rules despite being aware. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

But anyway let's believe your claim that you meant IDF and not Times of Israel. Why does IDF need to prove how many it killed? And how exactly will it prove? Do you expect it to release a list of names? Also why is that you're trusting Gaza ministry of health but not the IDF? You yourself said that the identities of many dead Gazans among the 53 is not known. They haven't clarified who they are. But how do you know they are speaking the truth when they haven't provided a list of everyone's names? This is clear open bias. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand what you aim to achieve with this, you are arguing about a source, so this seems like a discussion for WP:RSN. Perhaps make a post there and consensus will agree on whether the sources are reliable or not? Or are you arguing for sanctions because of a content dispute? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not think any of the sources are unreliable. I'm ready to use all sides but mark them as Israeli or Palestine in case they are Israeli or Palestinian government claims. Gianluigi however regards Palestinian claims as definitely true. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Could something please be done about Gianluigi02? He is now attacking other editors by calling their edits "false informations" [53], and has now (once again) removed neutral sources (that were discussed on the article's talk page [54]) in order to replace them with Al Jazeera [55], without giving any valid reason to do so. JBchrch (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Gianluigi is breaking rules, attacking edits of others, cherry-picking his own sources, while engaging in a clear edit-war. Can something be done or are we be to held hostage to what he wants? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That user removed the updated death toll of 65, which was confirmed by multiple sources. He said that between 30 and 50 people died, which was not true. Gianluigi02 (talk) , 14 May 2021

That's not what your edit had to do with [56]. It was about the number of children killed, changing it from 14 to 16. Another statement you changed it from "35 to 65" to 67 Palestinians killed, that statement wasn't added by JBchrch. You're referring to a previous edit [57] where you changed the Palestinian death to 67, after JBchrch changed death toll from 65 to 53 and of children from 16 to 14, removed Al Jazeera as source [58] because he thinks it's unreliable?

However, he did clearly cite neutral sources for his edit. This 53 death toll was reported by other sources too [59] and dead children as 14 [60]. I'm sure you were aware that was the death toll at one point. A few other sources did refer to the death toll as 65 and dead childdren to 16 [61], but it's much more likely he missed it and didn't check up the latest news. So you trying to claim you called a person who at most committed a mistake or disputing the number of dead children (which it was actually about) as "false" is a bad-faith behaviour. Why are you attacking people and their edits? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia page not extremely suspect? The content's framing and the mono-centric editorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by El-Baba (talk • contribs) 13:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does come off as slanted towards one side given how Israeli casualties are far more focused upon, even if that may not be the intention. It would need re-editing plus more sourcing for its claims. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin LéKashmiriSocialiste, first, please be more concise. Second, please be more precise. Instead of long and vague arguments, post diffs showing policy violations. In the absence of such different, I doubt any admin will want to take any action. Jeppiz (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz I've tried to be as concise while explaining properly. Second I did show diffs, many of them. So I don't know what you're referring to. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, at that time it was a false information. At that time, 67 Palestinians were killed, and it was confirmed by multiple sources which I added. Those sources were removed by users who then added a lower death toll, which was not true at that time. So, I'm not in the wrong position. I was adding the correct toll with sources. Then, you are saying that I'm saying that other users are intentionally spreading false news. I never said that, I just said that those informations were false, meaning that they were wrong.Then you are saying that those users didn't saw the updated sources. However I added them and were removed. Gianluigi02 (talk) , 14 May 2021

Out-of-date information is not "false" information because it was made using reliable sources. You used something that is often seen as an unreliable source in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (Al Jazeera). And that said false is incendiary since it can imply deceivement. Btw you don't know how many Palestinians were killed because it could be higher than what was reported. So if you fail to use reliable sources, that's on you. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment I don't want to cause offense but I suggest that this be hashed out on the talk page in the usual way. All of the above has been overtaken by events.Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I tried hashing it out with you, but the moment you started misleading was when I shouldn't have proceeded more. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned my name here in your original post. I am still waiting to hear details of any legitimate complaint. Do you have one? If so, please provide appropriate diffs. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I think repeatedly being biased against Israeli sources, misleading and claiming a source isn't attributing a claim to IsGov when it is, counts as one. Don't you think? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So no diffs?Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Look at my first comment that started this, you'll find the diffs there: "Even if we disregard JPost as unreliable, Selfstudier still ridiculously claimed that Times of Israel had made a false claim and didn't attribute the number of dead Palestinian militants in its blog to Israeli government and it had been removed from the article by an editor (which was Gianluigi02 of course) multiple times, in order to discredit the website: [62], [63], [64], [65]." LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Those diffs are from the talk page. I did not claim that ToI had made a false claim, what I said was that an edit had been made by someone else claiming that ToI had made a false claim. You are insisting that you have a legitimate complaint against me, I dispute that you do. So please file a separate complaint at whatever board is appropriate for the complaint you want to make and I will respond to that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes because I was talking about your talk page behaviour only. But given how much you've misled on it, it's why you deserve to be banned from the article too since you cannot be trusted to maintain neutrality when you try to mislead people so much. You explicitly did claim ToI made a false claim: The false claim (ToI blog for militants killed). Not only that, you did you say you trust Gianluigi when he says it made a false claim you also ridiculously claimed it did not attribute its death toll IsGov. Then when I showed it did, you started claiming saying Israel is not n attribution. Want me to continue? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Please file a complaint as I asked, there is no substance to your statements.Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what are you talking about. The number of Palestinians can be higher, or maybe not. I add what is reported by realiable sources, which I added, not only with Al Jazeera source (which is a realiable source despite you are saying it's not), but I added BBC sources too. Then, when I said 'false, I didn't mean that the source were, but that number was not the real numbee at THAT time. The real death toll was of 65 dead and I added it with multiple sources which were removed for no reason. Gianluigi02 (talk) , 14 May 2021

Not reliable sources. You are reporting what is said by Gaza ministry of health. So you don't know what is correct and yet you claim the other is "false" because they merely read out-of-date information. You know the reason your edit was removed, Al Jazeera is not a reliable source for JBChrch [66]. What you're doing is bad faith. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm tired of repeating the same things over and over. You accused me of imposing my opinion, but you are the one who's imposing. You say that al jazeera is not a realiable source, while it is realiable. You can say that but I can't say that Times of Israel is not realiable. So what are you talking about exactly? And again, I also added the BBC source. That is not a realiable source too? You are the one who is saying what is realiable and what is not. Then, you are saying that the Gaza ministry of health is not a realiable source. He is the ministry of health of his country, who has those informations also by hospitals and doctors, so is a realiable source. While when I said that the IDF was not reporting any evidence about the toll of the militants killed (which doesen't mean that they were lying or that it was false, but that there were no confirmed evidences), you accused me. And I am the one who is imposing? Am I taking position? Probably, but you are taking position too. I wasted too much time repeating this over and over. Gianluigi02 (talk)

It is you who started this whole thing by dismissing Israel's claims as unreliable and Times of Israel as unreliable. But you are okay with Gazan health ministry's statements as a "fact" even though they can inflate death toll (yes it's not impossible) and it's not necessary they counted every death. You assume that the health ministry is reliable because it has access to its hospitals. How do you know that or know that they can't dress it up? Do you really think hospitals are just calling up with updates of dead or officials are running around in them to record them accurately? Because I've seen many countries fail to count the death toll properly, even the United States. Heck even in the COVID situation. Hamas has also indulged in propaganda before. There's a reason we avoid taking claims of both sides as true. Why would Israel provide you evidence? Did you check whether Gazan health ministry has evidence? No you assumed it is saying the truth. Simple as that. I didn't say though it's unreliable. You are biased, not me. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So, to you Gaza's health minister can inflate the death toll...but the IDF and Israel's government can't inflate the number of militants killed? Can they or not? Answer this. Probably you are taking a pro-Israel position, like if Israel is saying all right things and Palestine is lying. This is what are you saying. I report confirmed facts from both sides, not opinions, but facts. Also, the past day you said that I "don't know how many Palestinians were killed because it could be higher than what was reported", now you are saying that it can be inflate. Decide. Gianluigi02 (talk), 15 May 2021

Haven't you ever heard of propaganda and victimization? Yes they can. I never said IDF and Israel might not be lying if you ever cared to notice. Yes now Hamas and PIJ had confirmed that 20 militants died, but earlier they didn't give any numbers. Despite that you started making up your own militant casualty numbers, despite knowing yourself they had only confirmed deaths of their commanders and not every militant. Articles don't operate by your assumptions and demabds of evidence. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Children are dying, civilians are dying in the streets, and you are calling it propaganda and victimization? Are you serious? So now if we follow this thing that you said, we should not belive anything and anyone as everything can be 'inflate', which doesen't make any sense. Then nobody is saying that the Gaza's toll is the right one. This is the confirmed number of victims, it can be higher probably. However it is the confirmed one so far, and I added it. It is our job on Wikipedia. I call to a stop on this discussion as is sensless and we are discussing here from days of a thing that is closed. We are just wasting time. I have my positions, you have yours, and nobody will change his own ideas probably. Gianluigi02 (talk), 15 May 2021

You see there that's the evidence of your bias, you are editing with sympathy to Palestinians. Me on the other hand I'm unattached in editing and want both sides to live in peace. Btw it is known all the dead are not caught and the Gazan health ministry has been suspected as being unreliable about the civilian death toll even by international news agencies [67], [68]. Also get this, many of the dead are actually young men, they are disproportionately more in comparison to their population percentage. Also the ministry does not differentiate militants and civilians. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's perfectly alright for Wikipedia editors to be partisan, it's also alright to use biased sources, so I'm not sure why you are making it look like a problem when an editor feels more sympathy for one side of the conflict. Only, we need to abide by verifiability and balance, so as the different existing narratives are represented in articles.

I'm also not getting your comment about young men being killed more. Are you suggesting that it's more ok to kill young men than, say, young women?

A general comment: in any conflict, sides always resort to propaganda. For the IDF, most of those killed will be "terrorists"; for the Palestinian side, most will be "innocent civilians".

Another general comment: the term "militants" is the usual English translation of the Arabic term mujahid. However, this term has a broader meaning, esp. in the religious context, and often denotes all people who fight a just war (jihad), even if in an entirely non-violent manner (e.g., leaflet distribution). We need to keep it in mind when blindly copying "militant" casualties quoted by the media. I suggest that all the statements on casualty numbers are included as direct quotes and always attributed. Discrepancies can be highlighted, too, and the onus of reconciling contradictory reports from the battlefield should not lie with Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly! That's the thing. It looks like if I'm the monster, but I'm just adding what sources are saying. If Gaza reports a number of deaths, I add it, so I don't understand what is wrong in this. I also added information about casualties in Israel and I added the updated number there. I just said that the Times of Israel takes position, like when they call Palestinians militants as "terrorists", which is just their point of view and not the absolute truth. I'm adding pro-palestine sources like Al Jazeera? Probably, but I added BBC and The Guardian sources too, which were removed for no reason. Gianluigi02 (talk), 15 May 2021

Yes Kashmiri you can be a partisan in private life. But if you are a partisan it can affect your edits, that's obvious. We can't blindly blame every partisan of bias. For that we need to check the correlation with their editing pattern to see if they are biased. Gianluigi absolutely trusts Gaza health ministry run by Hamas and distrusts IDF. Besides I don't think IDF bombs are specifically going after young men. Or are they? 9% of population accounts for a third of casualties. Why is that?

It's obvious that either Gazan health ministry is not disclosing who is actually a militant or IDF for some reason is selectively committing a genocide disproportionately targeting young men.

Hamas and PIJ launch rockets on Israel without caring for civilian casualties, so does IDF on Gaza at times. I won't call them terrorist on Wikipedia articles as it's prohibited, but Hamas/PIJ and IDF are terrorists. It's the truth.

Besides I never removed Guardian or BBC in your edits. Others might have but they'll likely have their own reasons. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: You are making inexplicable and unsourced assumptions. Firstly, you are assuming that statistical distribution of sexes and ages is uniform across the entire Gaza territory. Which can be easily proven as false. For instance, the majority of warehouse workers are working-age males, so a bomb hitting an industrial estate will affect this category of people disproportionately. That was just an example. Here, a large proportion of Palestinian victims have been simply shot dead by IDF during street protests. Please take a look at who attends street protests in Gaza before you accuse the Palestinian authorities of faking data, or people will tell you that you simply don't grasp the realities on the ground.

Re. bias – as I wrote, there are no unbiased people; everyone has a certain point of view, and people editing in a specific area certainly do tend to have a view on the subject. We also use WP:BIASED sources without problems. What we strive for is to achieve WP:BALANCED coverage of the subject, taking into account the different points of view. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Can you tell me how exactly I've made inexplicable and unsourced assumptions when I've provided diffs and exact explanations for Gianluigi's and Selfstudier's behaviour, while also giving you independent sources that reflect the unreliability of Gazan health ministries? That and you yourself provide no sources. Your argument about warehouse workers would have been true if IDF was disproportionately targeting warehouses, but that's not true. The number of dead are mostly dure to airstrikes than IDF shooting them. But anyway, does Washington Post and New York Times doubting the reliability of Gazan health ministry data and plainly saying they don't separate militants, look like only my assumptions? [69], [70]

I don't agree with you on that there are no unbiased people, but anyway let's disregard that. Bias maybe present in many people, but isn't it equally true that many avoid letting it affect their edits? This is why it's said Wikipedia is not a place for your own opinions. We don't use biased sources without any problem, editors are required to check whether they are factual and reliable: When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"they'll likely have their own reasons." What are those reasons to you? What it can be the reason for removing realiable sources? Probably because they didn't liked what was written there and so, taking position. To you others can have their own positions and reasons but I can't have mine. I close the discussion with this, bye. Gianluigi02 (talk), 15 May 2021

Either they're mistaken or it can be due to your own edits being wrong and not what the sources claim. Or they themselves might be biased. Not difficult to guess. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You see there that's the evidence of your bias, you are editing with sympathy to Palestinians. Me on the other hand I'm unattached in editing and want both sides to live in peace.

Show me someone who claims to be without bias, and I'll show you a liar.

Right now, this appears to be a content dispute inflamed by the very real deaths happening in the region. But further claims of "they're biased but I'm not!" are likely to result in sanctions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You can call me biased if you want The Hand That Feeds You. I'm not going to the extra mile to convince you I'm not, I only said I'm unbiased to defend myself from accusations which is my right. That said you're not an admin. Please don't try to appropriate what'll get one sanctioned or not, that too without understanding the situation. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

"it can be due to your own edits being wrong and not what the sources claim". Nope, I added what the sources said. So, that users were taking position too. But you are just saying that my positions are wrong and that the positions of those users are good as you agree with them. But again, the topic is closed for me. Gianluigi02 (talk), 15 May 2021

You mean the sources which you use to make-up claims like 5 militants confirmed dead when Hamas and PIJ never confirmed the number of dead militants at that time (only dead commanders) and only believe Gaza's health ministry cited by sources like Al-Jazeera? LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

propose speedy close

I propose a speedy close of this matter. This appears to be solely a content dispute, no incidences of behaviour by Gianluigi02 and User:Selfstudier which might warrant sanctions or warnings have been given. ANI is surely the wrong place for this, the talkpage would seem to be the right one. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I support so too. If no admin is interested in taking any action, then it's just time wastage and I'd rather stop discussing this issue fruitlessly. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:SteveBenassi WP:NOTHERE: edit warring/intentionally disruptive edits

User:SteveBenassi made several disuptive edits in the past few days. He was blocked for 36 hours for edit warring, but has returned and claimed/admitted to have purposely broken Wikipedia policies to make a scene, with the intention of pushing a POV (stating that it was "worth it").

First he edit warred, adding disputed material (then under discussion at WP:RSN) at/to the Eran Elhaik, Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry, Genetic studies on Jews, and Jewish history pages while ignoring edit summaries and refusing to discuss. Initially, the first page (Eran Elhaik), SteveBenassi added material, from a source which I believed WP:UNDUE. I tried to explain my reasoning in edit summaries, but he repeatedly reverted me seemingly without engaging with my explanations (after I had asked that he discuss and not edit war and announced that I would start a discussion [[71]]). I then started a Talk discussion pinging him hoping to reach a resolution. He then reverted again. Though another user engaged me in the Talk page, SteveBenassi never did (the issue then went to be discussed at RSN, with me and several others participating, where it continues). He then added the disputed material to another page (Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry), without ever having engaged in the discussion regarding it (either on the article Talk page or at RSN). I reverted him once there explaining that it was disputed and under discussion and asked him again (as on the other page) to discuss and not edit war. He later added the same disputed material to two other pages, Genetic studies on Jews and Jewish history (along with other somewhat controversial material, to the leads), and misleadingly marked those additions on both pages as ("m") for "minor". I reverted those edits (once on each page, again with explanations), he continued to persistently ignore edit summaries and requests/invitations to discuss, despite being asked and warned more than once.

He then continued to edit war even more at Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry and was reverted and reported by User:Shrike at the edit warring noticeboard (I had made an earlier report here before that). He was blocked for 36 hours.

After SteveVenassi's temporary block, I thought my earlier ANI report was no longer necessary, and said as much. But User:NonReproBlue informed me that SteveBenassi, far from having erred from an innocent ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, as he claimed at WP:RSN (here [[72]]), had, by his own admission elewhere, used edit warring and refusal to discuss as a calculated tactic to push an agenda (by purposely "making a scene"). On his own Talk page, SteveBenassi admitted: "I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked, Huldra came to the rescue." [[73]], see it also here: [[74]]. That was in direct contradiction to another claim he made around the same time that his policy violations had been the of honest unfamiliarity (being "a newbie" and "not knowing how to use Wikipedia") (here again, as linked above [[75]]), which since he had been repeatedly warned while at that time, seemed unlikely, and given his admission quoted/linked above, now seems less than dishonest.

This is troubling and seems to show that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia. (knowingly breaking policy because the punishments were "worth it"). This seems to show that he entered Wikipedia (or at least that section of it) with a battleground mentality, a lack of good faith, and a WP:TENDENTIOUS orientation.

I initially filed a report here ([[76]] In response to the edit warring. Due to this new information, I am filing this new report.

Any attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

And now he has gone right back to re-adding the same edit with the same summary [77]. Hopefully an admin takes a look at this soon as there is no sign that he will stop the tendentious editing. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Ohnoitsjamie:, the admin who issued the block, they should probably be informed. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@NonReproBlue: and @Ohnoitsjamie:, I noticed here [[78]], though SteveBenassi claims he will no longer edit (because he accomplished what he wanted by "making a scene"). But also again states his WP:TENDENTIOUS/partisan/WP:BATTLEGROUND intentions, when he says, speaking of his earlier edit warring, that "I did this for you and Elhaik" (Elhaik being a highly controversial researcher). It is concerning. Not surprisingly he is edit warring again. Skllagyook (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shrike: @Tritomex: @NonReproBlue: @Ohnoitsjamie: @Skllagyook:

See ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User%3ASteveBenassi_persistent_disruptive_edits%3A_edit_warring%2C_refusing_to_discuss%2Fengage.

@Tritomex: I respectfully disagree. I haven't used Wikipedia in years. I felt I was being bullied unfairly, I fought back, went to Wiki-Jail for 36 hours. Openly admitted twice in public what I was doing. I apologized. And will not do it again. See bottom of this post, I asked @NonReproBlue to make an edit for me. I have learned from my mistakes. Note: 3 people are bullying me, twisting my comments and lying about me. Thank You SteveBenassi (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

See ... search Benassi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Eran_Elhaik

Also ... See ... search Benassi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eran_Elhaik

SteveBenassi (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@SteveBenassi: What you say above does not seem to be the case. Your statements and behavior speak for themselves. You clearly stated that you broke the rules to make a scene (despite saying the opposite at the WP:RSN noticeboard. No one (as far as I can see) is bullying you. You (in your own admission) knew what you were doing and intentionally broke rules for WP:TENDENTIOUS purposes. Your statement again was: "I intentionally made a scene to draw attention to the Ostrer issue, I knew I would be put in wiki-Jail for a day or two, I thought it was worth it, and it worked."

You had been warned about edit warring (by me and others) at Eran Elhaik and asked to use the Talk page and you refused/cobtinued to edit war. I don't see how any of it could have been an honest mistake. (In addition, you said you were not interested in editing again, right before reinstating the same disputed edit re Ostrer to the Elhaik page.)

Again, please see WP:TENDENTIOUS, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Skllagyook (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Stop bullying me, stop twisting my comments, stop lying about me, and stop repeating your lies over and over. Leave me alone. I have been on Wikipedia for about a week now, for the first time in years. I am still learning. I will not post again until someone tells me I can on the Palestine-Israel pages. I asked NonReproBlue to make an edit for me recently. Leave me alone, you are a Bully. SteveBenassi (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Your words are right there quoted (and here [[79]]). Nothing's being twisted. I'm not sure what lies you're referring to. It's there for anyone to see in the links I added above. Skllagyook (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: That was 3 days ago. You are Bullying me, twisting my comments, lying about me, and repeating your lies over and over. Leave me alone, you are a Bully SteveBenassi (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi, you are not being "bullied". You are being held accountable for your behaviour on an appropriate noticeboard, for the attention of admins such as myself. Your editing by your own admission was deliberately disruptive and you were rightly blocked for it. The block has expired, you have apologised, and you have not resumed disruptive editing, so I do not believe we need to take further action against you for now - but if similar problems resume then you may expect further sanctions. However, your accusations of others lying and bullying counts as WP:ASPERSIONS and you need to stop making such groundless assertions. Fences&Windows 14:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Thank you for your feedback, I agree with you 100%. Finally I get a third party opinion. I can't tell who is an Administrator or not. Is @Huldra or @Nishidani an Administrator. And why are Administrators also allowed to edit? An administrator can abuse a new user whose POV is anathema to them, which is happening here, and let slide those they agree with. They wave flags like ARBPIA and it is not clear to me if really does apply to me. So I will work to get 500 edits on other subjects, so no one can wave that flag at me ever again. I do two things really well, Israel and Archaeology. I am on Israeli news sites every day for the past 10-15 years. I am very knowledgeable on this subject. See ...

@Alaexis: Yardumian and Schurr are Reliable Sources for the Eran Elhaik Wikipedia page. I made two edits to the Eran Elhaik page, one on Ostrer "will not defame Jews" comment, and another on The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis paper, causing this debate. The point I am trying to make is, in layman's terms, are Jews a race or not a race. Ostrer and his camp say Jews are a race, they are more homogenous than not, they are closely related, and they are mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant. Elhaik, Yardumian and Schurr say no, Jews are not a race, they are more heterogenous than not, they are not closely related, they are not mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant, but are mostly the descendants of converts to Judaism outside of the the Levant. Elhaik is a Zionist but is not biased in his research, he says his intention was not to disprove a connection to biblical Jews, but rather "to eliminate the racist underpinnings of anti-Semitism in Europe". Elhaik's paper was highly cited, it created a firestorm, many articles were written about it, because it threatens one of the justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. I think we should modify this to reflect the above "Yardumian and Schurr have criticized both Elhaik's Khazar hypothesis and the mainstream model it challenged, on the grounds that, in their view, both assume the same homeland-diaspora expansion model. As opposed to this, they view Jewish ethnogenesis as one rooted in multiple heterogeneous populations which, often after conversion, coalesced to form modern day Jews. " SteveBenassi (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I have read the paper of Yardumian and Schurr. It is a secondary source by two qualified authors published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The authors openly disagree with the conclusions drawn by some of the papers they review and give reasons for their disagreement; this is how science works and it isn't our business to take sides. I don't want to comment on exactly how it is used in articles, but I don't see the slightest reason to prohibit its use. Zerotalk 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutral editors please note that the use of this perfectly normal academic article is being edited out of several pages: not only at the Eran Elhaik page, which is crammed with references hostile to the author (in violation of wiki bio's NPOV policy) but also at the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry here by Skllagyook, and then by User:Shrike (here and at Genetic studies on Jews here by Skllagyook, and at Jewish History here, again by Skllagyook.

It would appear in all four cases that Skllagyook has taken it upon himself to disallow a new perfectly normal piece of academic research to be cited for its conclusions anywhere on Wikipedia; That they do so because they are convinced the majority view is tantamount to the truth and not a contestable opinion. That is not only abusive POV pushing. It is outright censorship of any dissonant voice, one in this case, coming from perfectly respectable scholars. I.e. we have the extraordinary phenomenon of a peer-reviewed piece of scholarship suffering interdiction from appearing on Wikipedia because an editor has arrogated the right to step in an assume the mantle of ultimate judge on what can, and cannot be thought, about the topic. An editor of unknown background is acting as if they knew more about the topic of population statistics, genetics and Jewish history than the scholars who specialize in it or the peer-review committee who approved its publication on vetting it. Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank You Again. SteveBenassi (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

SteveBenassi, you can tell who an admin is via https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Fences%20and%20windows or equivalent. Neither Nishidani nor Huldra are admins. Admins are also editors, we just have community trust to use tools like blocks, protection, and deletion. However, admins may not use their tools or close discussions when they have been involved in a dispute. See WP:INVOLVED.

Please don't repost long extracts of talk page discussions - your point is unclear and this is not the venue to discuss article content.

ARBPIA is not a weapon used against editors, it is a formal restriction to prevent newer accounts, who tend to cause more disruption, from editing relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. ArbCom introduced this to reduce problem editing after years of disputes. You will have been made aware of this so you do not inadvertently edit contrary to these general sanctions, because you have edited in adjacent areas. Fences&Windows 19:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: It is not clear to me if I have violated ARBPIA. I can't find much about this topic on Wikipedia. The impression I get is that it is not so much the pages that are out of bounds, but what you say on the pages. For example, the Eran Elhaik Wikipedia page, is that a page I cannot edit on, or I can edit on it as long as I don't say specific words or phrases? What are the "adjacent areas" you mention. Is there a specific page that has all this information. The ones I am finding are useless. Thank You. SteveBenassi (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you have breached ARBPIA, SteveBenassi. The genetics of Jewish populations are not per se related to the Arab-Israeli conflict - but if it were to spill into which modern people has a claim to Israel and Palestine based on genetic ancestry then it would be related. The latest ruling from ArbCom is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Remedies. They say "the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing a) the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and b) edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")." It's intentionally vague as we can't possibly codify all such relevant articles and edits. Fences&Windows 20:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows:The parts that seemed to me to break ARBPIA are the edit summaries, which say "Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect" and talk page comments like "Ostrer's fake research says Jews are a "race", Elhaik, Yardumian, Schurr say Jews are not a "race", which threatens one of the major justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA". Just for clarification, are things like this really not covered by the ARBPIA sanctions? NonReproBlue (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: The edit war involved 5 people over 1 edit, @Huldra and myself vs two administrators @Skllagyook and @NonReproBlue and user @Shrike, over the following edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eran_Elhaik&type=revision&diff=1023216318&oldid=1023185193 . @Huldra asked @NonReproBlue to "Please take it to a RfC if you disagree", @NonReproBlue refused and continued to edit war, shutting down the debate, which is not allowed according to your words above. @NonReproBlue and @Skllagyook object to my edit comments "Using original quote from news article. Showing Ostrer is a Zionist and biased, and that his research is suspect. See ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Ostrer#Criticisms" Did I violate ARBPIA, and why am I solely blamed for this edit war? What we have here are two administrators with unknown backgrounds, objecting to a new paper, The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis, that goes against their POV, while also protecting Harry Ostrer who refuses to share his data with Eran Elhaik, because it endangers a major justification for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA. SteveBenassi (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, NonReproBlue.

So, SteveBenassi, you were indeed in breach of the ARBPIA general sanctions. I had missed that connection of your editing. You weren't aware then but you are aware now and yet you've literally just breached the ArbCom ruling again with your latest post here. You are not extended confirmed, so you do not get to discuss this here. You were already blocked for edit warring and we are not going to block anyone else for that dispute. Drop this now or I will block you again. Please read WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GREATWRONGS; we do not need this kind of approach to editing. You need to learn to be collaborative and not adversarial. You can consider this a final warning. Fences&Windows 12:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

46.97.170.0/24

Individual IPs:

• 46.97.170.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 46.97.170.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Range:

• 46.97.170.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous ANI report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78

• BLPN Discussion: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gina Carano

User appears to be here for the sole purpose of bludgeoning, picking fights and pushing a particular POV.

• "it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments"[80]
• "There is no "left" on wikipedia. But if right wingers want to win more edit wars, they should care more about objective facts."[81]
• "look at the kind of people who make it their business to regugularly defend him. You will notice that all of them are either republican pundits, or alt-right/alt-lite influencers. "[82]
• "This is what I meant when I said that Babylon Bee is no different from any other right wing disinfo site. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Bounding into Comics, you name it, they're all the same."[83]
• "Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable."[84]
• "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is."[85]
• "Also, no mention that her holocaust comments were interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany"[86]
• "The point is that putting Peterson's words into the mouth of a skull faced nazi character makes them sound like a villain monologue. But Peterson apologists are too devoid of self awareness to realize that."[87]
• "We're talking about a newspaper that FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Wikipedia's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags."[88] (He is talking about the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
• "I only brought up Trump because like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society. Yes, one had actual political power, and nearly destroyed the country. But people like Peterson are part of the reason there are people dumb enough to actually vote for trump. Their carreer's are uncomparable, but they represent the same toxic far right ideology."[89]
• "The first paragraph of the section is nothing but right wing pundits flapping their mouths and spouting right wing punditry, and should be deleted entirely."[90]

Also:

• Deleting other user's talk page comments.[91] (The deleted comment was right-wing stupidity, but no worse than what 46.97.170.0/24 regularly posts.)
• Removing sources because "they are agenda driven"[92]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Two things before I address the broader issue: Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control, so there's no point leaving a notification on one I'm no longer using - it's not likely I will be assigned that particular IP again. Second, I find the last two claims to be unfair. The talk page in question has had several similar comments removed by other users, on the grounds that they are off topic and have nothing to do with the subject. I apologize if I got the wrong impression that this is standard practice. Regarding the sources I removed from How_to_Be_an_Antiracist, other contributors CONFIRMED that I had the right idea. You can read it on the talk page.

The vast majority of problem lines, quite honestly confuse me. I tried to avoid picking fights ever since last year's incidents. I'd be the first to admit fault if it turns out I wasn't always entirely successful in that regard, but many of my lines presented here don't seem to make sense. My comment on the Gina Carano talk page, regarding her holocaust comments expecially strikes me as out of place, because it's just a near word for word reference to content from the article itself. Some of the stronger opinions are no worse than what registered contributors, including some admins have said. I've read essays on wikipedia that use stronger language. The last ANI report was most certainly justified, seeing as I made baseless accusations of vandalism, and made some rather inappropriate comments. The only thing presented here that comes anywhere near that, when looket at in context, appears to be my comments on the Post-Gazette, which, looking back, definitely feels like something I should not have said. Maybe the trump comment too - that's was a pointless tangent, and the Ben Shapiro one is definitely a BLP violation. I'm going to redact these immediately. There's also that long off-topic argument on Jordan Peterson's talk page, that carried on far too long, but I was not the sole responsible party there, and it was not my intention to go off topic.

That's three comments, that are inappropriate, maybe two where I used harsher language than I should have, and one that was probably put here by mistake, because it's a sentence fragment from the article - not my words. I'm not seeing the problem with the rest, however. I wasn't trying to pick fights. I received two warnings in april which I tried to discuss and clarify, but unfortunately I didn't get any responses. Still, it is true that wikipedia isn't a forum, and some of the discussions I involved myself in, did unfortunately go in that direction, which was not my intent. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my opinion, even if you are unfailingly polite towards other users, expressing your POV with phrases like "far right grifter", "trump bootlicker", "the same cancer that's destroying modern society" and "nearly destroyed the country" shows me that you are more interested in promoting your political ideology than in building an encyclopedia. I am actually sympathetic because I shore many of your opinions about certain recent politicians, but I mostly keep those opinions to myself because they are out of place here.

The other problem I see is WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't just express your political opinions. You keep expressing your political opinions again and again even when it has become clear that the consensus is against you. What I am not seeing is any hint of compromise or cooperation.

In my opinion, you should be topic banned from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The unregistered editor wrote: "Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control". No. That is under your control, in that you can register an account. It is only outside your control if you insist on not registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is.[93]

Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame. [94] redacted by another editor

Link to open BLP/N thread

I've only had extensive experience with this editor on the Gina Carano article, and in general it hasn't been very pleasant. They have no issue with making BLP violating comments on the talk page, or accusing editors of having an agenda. The two quotes above give, I think, a reasonable distillation of what discussions with them are like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been watching this IP editor for a month or so (since they joined the Peterson article). I raised a concern with their talk page comments on their talk page here [[95]]. I share Guy Macon's concerns. I do think it is a positive sign that they have, after posting here, started removing some of their offending comments (example [[96]]). I also will say I don't see disruption of the article's themselves, just frustrating talk page behavior. My feeling is they are on a fence. If they recognize the issue and are willing to fix the problem I think any additional sanctions would be punitive. However, if they continue I would support some type of Tban. It might have to be an IP range block due to the lack of a named account. It also would be good if they created an account. The combination of aggressive comments and shifting IPs is a problem. Several of the talk pages have similar warnings. Springee (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• As with Springee above, I am willing to grant a very short length of WP:ROPE given that the user in question appears to be willing to redact their earlier offensive comments and commit to being better behaved moving forward. I'd have considered a ban had they not just done so, and would be willing to consider a formal ban of some sort if the shenanigans continue, however. --Jayron32 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• My initial tendency on this one was to also go for a warning given my assumption this was a new editor and WP is a different environment than most others. However, I'm not sure I agree anymore. Now that I've seen this behavior has gone on for a while and only seems to change when ANI gets involved. I would recommend reading the previous incident report and noting that IP was already on a short rope. I might also be a bit more supportive if the user was making constructive edits otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. This feels very much like a user who wants a forum and to POV push and thinks they can walk the line on behavior, backing off just shy of getting banned. I'd recommend a Tban as well, but can support a warning if we think that is more prudent. Just a note to future ANI administrators in case this comes up again. Squatch347 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Having just reviewed the earlier ANI, I'm going to suggest a short rope strategy that might not be technically possible. I would suggest range blocking the IP but offering the option to create an account that isn't blocked (is that possible?). If they mess up the account gets blocked and future IP edits can be blocked per EVADE. However, they still have ROPE so they can show that they were listening. Springee (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Guy Macon for the comprehensive report. I've also seen this IP tendentiously attack BLPs and other editors, so I wasn't surprised when someone reported them to WP:BLP/N. They eerily remind me of the sock who was harassing me when I first started editing. The IP has been warned more than enough times from plenty of experienced editors, so I don't think offering them anymore chances will do any good. I included some additional diffs in case anyone wants to take a peak. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Additional Diffs

. Calling a BLP a "white supremacist" in mainspace without a source [97] "Volokh is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good."[98] " Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character"[99] " The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid"[100] " Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame." [101] "Not only is Musk not a scientist, his dangerous lies about COVID-19 has proven that he's a science-denier."[102] "None of these nameless idiots are notable enough to deserve even the slightest mention."[103] "Sanger isn't anyone important. He's just some chud who had ties with wikipedias founders at one point, yet his fellow trumptards are using him like he was an authoritative source on all things wikipedia, when he's little more than a parasite, trying to use the works of pthers to become relevant.his opinion on wikipedia, couldn't matter any less."[104] "Barr's opinion is of course bullshit"[105] "Now, do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just going to talk out of your ass? Everybody with a brain knows what the Alternative Influencer Network means by Red Pill"[106] " Read Mr Ernie's mosta on this talk page. His intention is very obviously to downplay the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh"[107] "Unsigned comment by a trump supporter, not worthy oc consideration"[108] "This is a fluff piece of a right wing pundit. The entire article is promotional in nature, and presents Sowell's views and ideologies without the slightest effort to present the objections of his critics. Considering how contentious his claims about politics, race and ethnicity are (there's even a mention of the race and IQ corellation, a well known white supremacist talking point), it's preposterous to pretend he never got any pushback from high profile academics. Nor is there any mention of his less popular views, such as his climate change denialism."[109] " Mr Ernie has stated ON THIS VERY TALK PAGE, several paragraphs above that he does not believe the allegations against Kavanaugh and claims that they have been proven false. His edit attempted to trim down the section on the allegations, which would've diminished Wikipedia's coverage of them. It is obvious that he has an agenda here, and that his edit was in line with thay agenda"[110] "This is wikipedia, not some alt right propaganda outlet. We don't cover irrelevant, politically motivated rumors. I don't understand how anyone could even consider this. On a sidenote, user: Mr Ernie has a history or making politically motivated edits to whitewash the GOP. Maybe some of the moderators should investigate him"[111]

I oppose giving this IP more rope, based upon:

1. The promises given in the previous ANI report and the rope they were given at that time.
2. Their heartfelt belief that anything other than demonizing any person and any source that shows the slightest trace of conservatism is a NPOV violation that must be fought tooth and nail no matter what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to agree with Guy Macon here. They were given a chance in the previous AN/I thread and they've gone right back to the behaviour that got them reported in the first place. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I am going to try and address as much of this as possible. I will say this first, I don't have any objections to a topic ban if it's decided that's necessary. The arguments for it do sound convincing. That being said, some of the claims here appear unfair to me.

• To start off, many of the offending comments being brought up here, are from last year, and have already been a subject of an ANI. I have admitted to wrongdoing then, redacted many of the offending comments, and refrained from further activity on the site for the rest of the year. The comments I made then included actual potentially libellous statements on BLP subjects, personal attacks on other users, including unfair accusations of vandalism, and a couple of minor edits that could be considered vandalism. I do not think any of my recent comments are of that nature, or even close. I have tried to refrain from that behavior, keeping last year's ANI in mind. I don't see the point in bringing those up again.
• Some of the specific accusations are simply wrong. I have been accused multiple times of calling Coleman Hughes an "alt right grifter", which I did not do. And due to unfortunate wording, my comment to clarify that I was referring to Ben Shapiro, not Hughes, was just used to incriminate me further. Dr Swag Lord brings that point up against me in the above BLP Noticeboard discussion (of which I received no notification for some reason), along with the claim that I also called Jordan Peterson a "nazi supervillain", which is also not true, as was pointed out to him. He began bringing up last years incidents after he and several others with BLP violation complaints against me were told that they don't have a strong case against me. He also seems to suspect me of being someone he had a previous conflict with - I don't know what the basis of this assumption is.
• On the Jordan Peterson talk page, aside from the one comment I redacted, the only real objectionable thing I did is getting involved in a long thread derailment, when another user tried to debate the contents of two sources, arguing that they were using guilt by association. I understand that wikipedia is not a forum, and I shouldn't have gotten into that argument as far as I did, but I was not the sole responsible party.
• The assessment that I find anything less than demonization of anyone even remotely associated with conservatism to be NPOV, and that I fight tooth and nail against consensus, strikes me as unfair. Especially seeing as my comments on the Thomas Sowell article seem to be the impetus - correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that my choice of words was far from neutral, but to say I was fighting tooth and nail against consensus, so the article would demonize the subject is an exxagerration. Thomas Sowell is a controversial figure, but his article doesn't reflect that at all. I have also argued that over a quarter of sources are primary and come from the subject himself. If I'm wrong about that, that's due to me misinterpreting WP:ABOUTSELF, not the desire to "demonize".
• Similarly, on the Gina Carano talk page, where I've been the most active, and where the "tooth and nail" remark does apply, I wasn't fighting for the demonization of the subject but over the inclusion of information that was already in the existing sources. I objected to the use of a specific wording, which is only used by one source, and asked for the inclusion of relevant information that was in multiple sources, and was previously part of the article. The only comments I made about on the subject herself, had to do with her notability, and the relative notability of the social media controversy. My comments about users "pushing an agenda" was referring to contributors supporting the exclusion of information based on their own personal interpretation of primary sources, rather than what reliable sources say. This has been already covered in the BLP noticeboard discussion above. Morbidthoughts made correct observations about my comments without me having to defend myself, so I don't see why ScottishFinnishRaddish keep insisting that my only goal is to throw insults.
• Regarding Squatch347's comments I think it's fair to point out that I have made constructive edits in the past. I know I used a lot of politically charged language, and sometimes go off into unnecessary tangents when giving my reasoning but a lot of the content I have removed have been justified. On How to Be and Antiracist, the consensus was ultimately on my side, and multiple attempts to restore my deletions have been reverted by registered users. I also nominated the article on Dan Fraga for deletion due to the self-promotional nature of it. I had a rather long and exhausting dispute on the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials regarding the reliablility of some of the sources in the "academic commentary" section. I'm also involved in the discussion on the talk page of the upcoming The Little Mermaid film, regarding an alleged casting controversy, which I don't believe is notable enough to warrant mentioning. I also removed a guilt by association claim from Ibram X. Kendi and warned of incoming vandalism on that article and on Heidi Heitkamp. I know this is overshadowed by my annoying habit of getting into unnecessarily long arguments and using language that is oftentimes unwarranted, I just felt the need to point out that I did make constructive edits.

Now, this is mostly my response to the nature of the claims made against me, not really to the core issue (i.e. frustrating talk page behavior), which I don't dispute. Like I said, if a topic ban is found to be appropriate, I'm not going to object to it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where I've said your only goal is to throw insults. Do you have a diff or two of that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. from the BLPN discussion. It's possible I'm misunderstanding. Notice that the words "racist" and "bootlicker" are in quotation marks. Those are not my words, those are from comments made about the subject as reported by the sources. My argument was that she was being criticised rather than bullied. I was trying to argue for the same wording I brought up again recently but I ended up dropping it because not enough sources justify it. In the case of many other comments I made about Gina Carano personally, I was arguing about how much coverage the controversy should receive in proportion to the rest of the article. I do admit some of it did sound insulting, and not at all neutral, but Morbidthoughts managed to get my intentions without me having to say a single word. Anyway, I'll probably be out for the weekend. I'll see what the decision is when I get back. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers.[112] was the diff I linked, which I was commenting on. You yourself said that the sources didn't touch on it and that she was not noteworthy for her political beliefs, then called her beliefs insane. I would say that that specific diff that I was describing was not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support the inclusion and that you were complaining about and insulting a BLP. It also wasn't a comment that your only goal was to throw insults, and to say so is disingenuous as there was clearly a diff attached. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. I can see why people would misunderstand that comment, but that wasn't referring to the controversy. It was referring specifically to her ties to Comicsgate, which indeed isn't covered by reliable sources. In the first couple of months when this was fresh news, I was expecting some kind of expose from the media, but it never happened. Point is, I was talking about an issue not directly related to the controversy as it was covered by reliable sources. So I wasn't admitting that the things I was arguing for weren't covered by reliable sources, I was talking about something else that I was initially hoping for eventually being included not being covered by reliable sources, if that makes sense. I know it's not obvious, and my wording certainly didn't help. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem, 46.97, is the use of rhetoric such as "as insane and nonsensical as they are" and "far right echo chamber". Your statement without those portions, The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs to be of any relevance. would have been a sufficient comment on the situation; the pejorative and disdainful rhetoric is actually distracting from what was otherwise a cogent and good point, and many people (including those of us who, in a less formal setting than Wikipedia like at a bar enjoying a few beverages together, would likely agree with your analysis) find such asides to be rude and distracting. Regardless of our opinions on the politics of others (such as other users, or the people of subjects we are writing about on Wikipedia and discussing), we're still expected to maintain a level of decorum and grant those people (and those around us) a certain level of dignity. Comments like "insane and nonsensical" have no place in such discussions at Wikipedia, and people tire of them when you keep using rhetoric like that. THAT is the crux of the problem. --Jayron32 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

A relevant comment[113] from User:Nil Einne from the last time ANI was ashed to deal with this:

"Needing to be brought to ANI before you recognise your fault is often not a good sign. Of course it does depend on what attempts were made to discuss this with first so I checked out your talk page and found [114] where you already agreed you got carried away. Which would be great if you hadn't caused major issues since then. But the unsupported wikipedia vandal claim is after that acknowledgement [115] and as Pudeo said you got challenged yet doubled down once [116]. The best solution by far would be if this doesn't happen again. If you keep finding yourself getting carried away or irrational, you need to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve problem edits and then fixing them when people complain enough. Either take a break before posting, or stop editing in the subject areas where you're finding it difficult to control yourself."

I don't think we can trust any further promises from 46.97.170.0/24 to stop the objectionable behavior and I do not believe that at this time 46.97.170.0/24 has the ability to contribute productively in the area of post-1992 politics of the United States. I say we should impose a topic ban and invite them to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer to appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I tend to agree with you, especially after seeing the attempts already made to address the issue with them and their responses above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

One final thought (written for the average editor: admins know all of this already); we traditionally only block IPs for shortish periods because the ISP could assign the IP to someone else tomorrow. Blocks from editing certain pages can be longer; the odds of that second person using the same IP not only editing Wikipedia but editing the same page are very small. But in this case I am thinking that no actual block is needed. Just tell 46.97.170.0/24 that they are topic banned from post-1992 politics of the United States broadly construed, give them a clear explanation of what Wikipedia:Broadly construed means, and I think they will obey the restriction. This will also give them a good argument when and if they later request that the topic ban be lifted: "I spent X months without a topic ban violation". The ultimate goal is not to stop people from editing. The ultimate goal is to convert them to productive and valuable editors. Back in 2006 I was an extremely disruptive IP editor, but when a veteran editor calmly explained to me how Wikipedia is different from your average social media website, I learned how to be a good editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest including a BLP tban just in case. I also think if they agree to create an account we should give them a very small amount of rope. I would hope that Jayron32 (talk · contribs)'s later post was sufficient to illustrate the sort of talk page comments that are not helpful. Springee (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Have they ever caused any disruption on BLP pages or talk pages not related to post-1992 politics of the United States? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Most disruption has been focused on WP:AMPOL related BLP pages. But they also caused disruption on BLPs like Mark Waid [117], Joe Rogan[118], Elon Musk[119], Larry Sanger[120], and Jacob Gardner[121]. Joe Rogan may fall under AP2, but I don't think the other ones do. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You make a strong case. That Mark Waid edit, for example, was a serious BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we entertained the IP editor long enough. If someone calls a leading First Amendment scholar "a right wing hack" and so on, the editor is either trolling or incompetent to edit BLPs. Or at least the area of American Politics. Ban them and let them appeal if they learn to adhere to core policies and guidelines. Politrukki (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Call for close ( 46.97.170.0/24 )

It is unlikely that further discussion will change the result of this discussion. May we have an uninvolved administrator evaluate the consensus, write up a summary, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

108.167.78.36

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

---

Could I get a bot or an admin (if there is a tool for that) to do a "mass revert" of this user's edits, please? They are all vandalism, as they have now been blocked 4 seperate times for "vandalism" and "disruptive editing". Their edits, though, remain due to just how many of them there are. Some admin or bot assistance would be greatly appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:43 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I'm placing a lot of trust in you, Neutralhomer! I haven't looked at all the edits, obviously, but I have now rolled back all the ones that were the last in the histories (there's a tool for that), thereby seriously bloating my own contribs history. Bishonen | tålk 09:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: I appreciate that trust, I wouldn't have asked for something this major without just cause and a LOT of research on my end. I understand the pain in the butt that caused you and I appreciate your help. :) Thanks! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:11 on May 14, 2021 (UTC)

• @Neutralhomer and Bishonen: While a good number of edits were little more than link additions, some of the edits were legitimate, like XHFL-FM (Guanajuato) where the listed URL was replaced with the current one or KXPM-LP where the reliable source cited notes the station mostly airs Relevant Radio programs. Much more sifting through is needed, and I have already had to restore several reversions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, Sammi Brie. See, I was worried this would happen. Still, on balance, considering the number of blocks for vandalism the IP has — most recently, a three-month block — and also considering Neutralhomer's research, the most realistic option seemed to be to use the mass rollback script. I've seen your reverts — I get notifications for them — and I was just thinking of posting on your page, to thank you for taking care of the no-good reverts you found, and to discuss the situation generally. Bishonen | tålk 18:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC).

• A lot of them removed very useful information from the pages, for example (the former broke code within the page the user didn't bother fixing). Most made no sense, like here where the anon left the branding in the lede (almost standard in most radio station pages) and would remove them from many other pages. While I'll concede that there may have been a dozen (maybe!) legit edits, the vandalism edits far outweighed anything legit the user added to the project since they got into this editing spree of theirs back in December 2020. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58 on May 15, 2021 (UTC)

• I know I may be affiliated with 108.167.78.36, but I do somewhat agree with Sammie Brie’s point. I know it may look like vandalism when actually it is improving the pages so they look the same as all of the other radio station pages. So I do notice some red flags showing that some of the pages are inaccurate again. Some of the edits are updates on station formats when they change when I don’t see 24.116.55.139 or whoever else making the change at the time. Some of these edits are from the information of the FCC websites and updating the technical information which now includes the frequency pages of the stations on that frequency from edits provided by DJV11181988. 16:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:adbb:e200:955:ecc7:9433:9750 (talk)

Well, per this and this, the above edit from 2605:A601:ADBB:E200:955:ECC7:9433:9750 is a self-admitted sock of 108.167.78.36. Just mad that they got blocked, for the fourth time, by an admin for vandalism, and their edits all reverted. Block evasion isn't the way to go about this. Any comments could be made in the form of a unblock request on their original talk page.

But the unblock request would have to be about how they won't vandalize the project. This user is talking about how things are "inaccurate" and there are "red flags" and things need "change[d]". That's what got them blocked in the first place....for vandalism. They don't seem to understand that this is the behavior that needs to be curtailed.

Regardless though, breaking block, using a sock, and doing what they are doing will just drag out the original block time, plus add a block to this sock account, which I am requesting. Until the user understands this is something they can not do and "red flags" and "change[s]" are things that got them in trouble in the first place, them editing here isn't a viable option. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Scratch the block request. I did request one via Izno (though I wasn't sure if he was available, hence my request here), but he did block the user for 3 months. Which is fine with me. He did, however, bring to my attention, that the anon user has been using this IPv6 range to circumvent their blocks for awhile now. A CU may be needed to check for further sockpuppets and sleepers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Temp block of User:Quantupediholic

I've temporarily blocked Quantupediholic following an out of character edit by in which they dumped several megabytes of signature text into that page together with an intemperate edit comment. They seem to have been a constructive editor until this edit, so I've only blocked them for a short time, with a request for clarification on their talk page. I'm wondering if this might be an account compromise? -- The Anome (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The Anome Should've asked the user first what was going on before you made the block, and the edit you are talking about I assume was the one made at Wikipedia talk:Sandbox. That's a test page which was going to be reset by a bot anyway. Even though the block is short, I think it was the wrong action to take. Jerm (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Just want add that a ANI notice needs to be sent out once you file a report, even if you did ping them. I've sent one to Quantupediholic. Jerm (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

My mobile phone froze for 2 minutes when I tried open that diff. One of the LTAs has a habit of spamming extremely large edits to the Sandbox, so I won't blame The Anome in this case for thinking something is fishy. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just discussed it with Quantupediholic, explaining why I made the block. It doesn't look like they've lost control of their account, so I've unblocked them now. -- The Anome (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jerm: Thank you; apologies for forgetting to do it. -- The Anome (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• If the problem was that the large edit might've potentially rendered the sandbox page inaccessible to some, the way to go was to politely explain it to the user; blocking him/her was unnecessary. @The Anome: "discussed with editor" isn't good enough; reading Quantupediholic's block log right now gives one the false impression that the block was justified even though it was anything but, and I suggest that you fix it to prevent your rash actions from eroding the editor's morale any further. Iaritmioawp (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User:KrishnaVastav

KrishnaVastav (talk · contribs · count) – Continuous disruptive editing on a mass scale (over 90 articles and counting). Keeps sticking "Delhi NCR" everywhere or other location-focused nonsense. Warnings left unheeded, including level-4 warnings. Does not engage in discussion. Temporary block requested. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

He/she always leaves the edit summary "added content" irrespective of what he/she did. For example, 07:40, 14 May 2021 to Delhi Metro where he/she deleted wikilinks and added a mistake to the punctuation. As far as I can see, the only point to his/her edits is an attempt to build up an edit history in the hopes of becoming as extended confirmed user.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree their contributions are highly problematic, but they haven't edited since the latest warnings, so I guess we'll wait and see. I'll try to keep an eye out. Feel free to alert me on my page if I miss any more disruption. Bishonen | tålk 16:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC).

Blocked for one month. Bishonen | tålk 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC).

Cheryl Fullerton

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

---

Cheryl Fullerton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Cheryl has mainly been focused on editing Craig Chaquico and Jefferson Starship, and caused various disputes, which I summarised in this thread. Since then, we've tried to resolve things, including a COI noticeboard thread. To cut a long story short, we can't prove Cheryl has a COI with Craig Chaquico, but there seems to be continual disruption, ignoring other people's advice, and just trying to insert a POV into these articles that I can't see anyone else wants.

I have said before that Cheryl is civil and polite and has tried to learn policies and guidelines, but she has taken up so much administrator time now, than I think our collective patience has run out and we need to do something else. So I am proposing that Cheryl Fullerton is topic banned from Craig Chaquico, broadly construed. Discuss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support as I stated at the COIN discussion, I just am not seeing CF as being able to edit neutrally surrounding Craig Chaquico, and based on her interactions with other editors at various talks and noticeboards, I think Ritchie is quite right. Enough is enough. This has been a time sink for too many editors at too many articles surrounding Chaquico for four years now. —valereee (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This has gone on way too long, and it is crystal clear that Cheryl Fullerton is 100% devoted to inserting Craig Chaquico's idiosyncratic view of the history of Jefferson Starship into Wikipedia articles, instead of neutrally summarizing what reliable independent sources say. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support because the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource and Cheryl Fullerton is squandering that resource. I noticed in particular Ritchie333 writing at the COI noticeboard yesterday that he "ended up dropping out of the discussion through sheer exhaustion".[122] I've never noticed Ritchie being particularly prone to exhaustion, and he could have used the same amount of Wikipedia time and energy for so many much better things. It's totally unacceptable to wear out editors through sheer stubbornness and bludgeoning. Bishonen | tålk 15:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC).
• Support. I missed the recent COIN discussion but I already knew from contending with her in 2017 that Cheryl Fullerton is here only to promote Chaquico. Before Fullerton was PilotRock61 in 2015 who signed as Chaquico's "artist manager"[123] "Dara Crockett".[124] Cheryl Fullerton has been active at Commons uploading a bunch of photos taken by Dara Crockett, and citing a book by Crockett and spouse, so it appears Fullerton has been hired as an assistant to Crockett. At any rate, both of these people worked very hard to represent Chaquico's point of view which is not the way he has been described by independent sources. Classic WP:NOTHERE. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  (Redacted) —valereee (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. I’ve been banging my head against this wall for four years regarding Jefferson Starship. I feel like it’s taken up all my available editing time. I think this is the best course of action. AbleGus (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support It doesn't natter exactly why this person is acting like this, it is clear that lesser measures have been tried and have had basically no affect. A tban is a way to try and keep the editor while getting rid of the disruption, I hope they come to understand that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Note to closer: Cheryl Fullerton has indicated she wants to respond. —valereee (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Editors, since this may be the last opportunity for me to make my case here on Wikipedia, I will give it my best shot and defense and go on record with this:

All I can say is not guilty on all charges, including the latest by someone going by Binksternet. I’m repeating myself, but I have edited the articles according to the guidelines of Wikipedia and have respectfully followed the advice of other editors and administrators. I have supported my edits with the best available sourcing. I have reached out to Dispute Resolution, as is suggested, after repeatedly and consistently not being allowed by AbleGus to edit the Jefferson Starship-related articles with good facts and verifiable sourcing. I do not have a COI—including not having been hired as anyone’s assistant. These accusations are going beyond the pale at this point. I am not the one with a conflict of interest. I believe further investigation of other’s motives is warranted. I haven’t done anything wrong.

I have done my best to add to the quality of the articles I have edited over the years. When I first started editing, I helped clarify the difference between Starship and Starship featuring Mickey Thomas; I worked diligently to get permissions from photographers to use their concert photos and edited the articles with facts for more NPOV and balance and attempted to include all members instead of a select few. I have fought to establish that, while having some band members in common, that Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship, and Starship were separate bands, with their own musical catalogues, histories and eras, and have backed this up with verifiable sourcing going back to the 1970s. If that constitutes COI, then I misunderstood.

In the Jefferson Starship article, it now states that the band evolved from solo albums, which simply is not true and the source cited has nothing at all to do with this edit, but it has, so far, been allowed to stand? And in reference to the Craig Chaquico article, the article has recently been edited so that important notable facts have been deleted such as that Chaquico was a founding member of Jefferson Starship ( note that I provided reliable sourcing at Valeree’s request which she refused to read) and adding inaccuracies such as that he “joined the band” in 1974 when he was actually a founding member, along with others. While invalidating her edit, Valereee inadvertently attached a source to it which verified Chaquico as being a founding member; it’s an article by an Airplane and Starship historian named Jeff Tamarkin. Here it is in the first sentence; https://bestclassicbands.com/craig-chaquico-jefferson-starship-lawsuit-5-4-17/ if you are interested. The article now says “In 1993 he started a solo career,” when, in fact, he has had a solo career in an entirely different genre since 1993 which includes a Grammy-nomination. Are these facts not notable and interesting enough to be included in the lead, let alone the article itself? The fact that as a guitarist he has had two signature guitars is notable but has also been removed.

Someone refers to me as argumentative or taking too much time; however, I believe I have been simply honoring and respecting Wikipedia as an important reference and that these errors and omissions should be corrected, or at least added in balance with other reputably sourced points of view in these articles. I also recommend that editors with no interest or familiarity with music should not attempt to edit articles about music and its creators. That would be like me trying to edit an article on quantum physics. :Thanks to Vivimanti for trying to correct the errors. I think it’s important that I continue to edit these articles about which I have knowledge and interest. I provide a valuable resource.Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) —valereee (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why yes, Valereee, I am. I used to work for Guitar Player magazine, several decades ago, and Ms. Crockett is the daughter of the owner/publisher of that magazine in the '70's and '80's. I do know Miss Crockett though we are not close personal friends. This is how I am interested in guitar and music, in general, and in factual journalism. I have had contact with Crockett, and others, to ask for help in getting permissions from photographers for historical photos to enhance and balance the articles I've worked on, but I'm not working for Miss Crockett, nor am I paid by her, nor is this a conflict of interest. Now, please stop these personal attacks and attempts to 'out me' in some way which is against Wikipedia policies. If I had something to hide, why would I use my real name? No, I would hide behind a pseudonym like others do. Thanks Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support time-limited topic ban – If Cheryl Fullerton can get more experience collaborating on Wikipedia, while avoiding topics that she is too close to, she might get the experience and editing behaviors to work better with these editors. If she keeps thinking she can have it her way without actually convincing others, that could be a problem. Six months? Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Dicklyon, there's a problem with time-limited topic bans: people can wait them out and then continue as before, having learned nothing. The advantage of indefinite bans is that the user has to appeal them (coincidentally, waiting six months to appeal is usually recommended), and that appeal needs to contain examples of good editing in other areas and/or other projects, and what they undertake for the future, or else they won't be granted. IOW they have to demonstrate that they get it. Very relevant here, I think. Where do you see the advantage of CF not needing to get it? Bishonen | tålk 08:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

Cheryl, I'll redact that and get it oversighted (which removes it altogether), but I'm not sure I outed you. Person A, who has the same name as a person mentioned in a book by person B, who once represented person C, who is also in the book, starts coming into the articles about person C and changing what they say to what person B and person C prefer, using the book as a reference. You've been systematically denying you had any relationship to Chaquico other than being a fan of his music when your behavior for the past four years has been that of a person with a COI. —valereee (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Revision-deleting the two edits where you added information you no longer wish to be visible (deletion log) doesn't accomplish anything when the content still exists in the dozens of revisions after it (up to the point where you remove it). Anyone can still easily see the edits ([125], [126]). And I don't really see the point of rev-del if you don't also redact Cheryl Fullerton's statements plainly saying the same thing... Modulus12 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

doh! —valereee (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"I also recommend that editors with no interest or familiarity with music should not attempt to edit articles about music and its creators." I sympathise with this point to some extent, and in my case you can judge my knowledge of 60s and 70s music by the articles I have taken to good article status listed here, including The Who, Genesis and Blind Faith. However, as I have said before, the amount of time and attention I have taken to try and get this dispute resolved so all parties walk away satisfied, or at least coming to terms with differences, has been extraordinary.

The problem is, I seem the same questions coming up again and again. For instance, the history between Jefferson Airplane and Jefferson Starship is complicated, in as much the first band didn't simply split up, and then the second one was formed. So, you cannot say there is a consensus for saying that Craig Chaquico was a founding member as presented by reliable sources. And if you keep saying that there is a consensus, people will start to tune out and ignore you.

Again, I've got to emphasise that nobody is doing this to be mean to you - we just think you're spending far too much time on this topic, and people are urging you to just write about something else for a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support Time-limited TBAN: Per Dicklyon, except the TBAN should be longer than 6 months, maybe 3⁄4 or 7⁄8 of a year? 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

I think now that she should be Indef TBANed per Bishonen and Valereee. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

• I agree with Bishonen that a time-limited t-ban isn't helpful. This is low-level but chronic. It has been going on for four years, and Cheryl averages only a couple of dozen edits a month, sometimes going for several months with no edits. A time-limited t-ban isn't going to solve this problem, as Cheryl can just wait it out and pick up right where she left off. We need to require an appeal. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I was unfamiliar with this situation, but after looking it over, I think Richie333's proposal is necessary and justified. (Note: I was big fan of the Airplane, and then -- decreasingly so over time -- of Starship. I've been familiar with Chaquico's work -- as a fan -- since his time with Jack Traylor and Steelwind.)Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder issues

The user in question here now has a very substantial sock history at this point, continuing to stalk/harass me across other Wikis.

For reference...

Wikipedia:

• confirmed
• suspected

Wikimedia Commons:

• Caidin-Johnsohn29912forrest
• Grap e29912
• Forrest29912
• CaidinJohnsohn
• Cadinnn Johhnson
• Caidddin Johhnson

Simple English Wikipedia:

• Zoom29912

Wikidata:

• Mjforrest29912

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki:

• Messiah Forrest
• The Forrest 29912
• Tessssticle keep going up and down up and down - May 17

Wikiquote:

• Mjforrest 448484 - May 17
• Tessssticle keep going up and down up and down - May 17
• Forrestisback29912 - May 17

There may be some others I'm forgetting right now. At this point it seems like there won't be any stop to this. I've now just recently realized I can disable talk page notifications on those other Wikis, so I've turned that off. Other than that, what would the best solution here be? I'm familiar with SPI and stuff but don't really have much knowledge in the LTA area... would an LTA report be justified at this point?... Magitroopa (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Still currently going at it. Anything at all that can be done??? Also updated with the new accounts from today... Magitroopa (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Magitroopa, the cross-wiki activity should be reported to meta:Steward requests/Global. Fences&Windows 12:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The definite article

User:Mardus has gotten it into their head that cars (or electronics or other things) with a number in their name do not use the definite article. I.e., they believe that the iPhone 6 does not deserve a "the", nor does the Mercedes 220 or, in the case in question, the GAZ-24. They refer to themselves as an en-3 user but still fully believe that every applicable article on Wikipedia has been grammatically incorrect until they discovered this last week. Please can someone come and weigh in? I just noticed that they started a conversation of sorts HERE, maybe that's the best place to engage. Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I pointed him at a more appropriate venue for that proposal. Why are you at AN/I with this? Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure where to go. RFC? Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

AN/I is for incidents that need an admin intervention, generally. This sounds more like a simple content dispute. Talk to him first. Then look at WP:DR. If an RFC is needed, then yes, do that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This actually has become a behavioral issue and has become disruptive. I've asked Mardus to stop. —valereee (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This one's really gotten under your skin, V. EEng 13:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That's The V to you. —valereee (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

V for vivacious. EEng 17:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Or just vicious. I can do both. —valereee (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The Definite Article would be a great name for a Wikipedia newsletter. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Flag icon topic ban user:Pyrope

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

---

Pyrope began a discussion on my talk page about removing flag icons from some motorsport articles and the documentation of {{Infobox racing driver}}[127][128] Rocknrollmancer contributed and I replied. Pyrope replied. So far so good.

As I was writing a response, addressing the substance of the issues, I ran into an edit conflict because Pyrope had added personal attacks and wild accusations: "I take your threat of bullying quite seriously here, Dennis" accusing me of saying "we can raise more unthinking MoS fundamentalists than you can find people who know what they are talking about" as well as adding "your argument is not only intellectually and morally bankrupt".

These accusations are because I said if they want to propose giving all motorsports an exemption from MOS:FLAG, the WP:Snowball clause likely applies.

This is so bizarre that I decided it was pointless to continue to engage with this person, particularly on my own talk page. I removed their comments from my talk page, with the edit summary "I was going to reply to that first posts but you went and had to add something rude and insulting. Personal attacks are not acceptable. Get off my talk page and don't come back."

Pyrope reverted, with the edit summar "point out the rude bit", which verifies they read my edit summary telling them to stop posting on my talk page. This made it necessary to remove their comments again, and post a warning pointing out they had violated WP:TALK by returning to my talk page after they were aware I had banned them from posting there. What followed was a discussion of civility and talk page rules where Pyrope made several more personal attacks and confirmed that it was pointless to attempt to reason with them. First I was accused of making "threats" when I predicted a dozen editors would oppose an RfC to exempt motorsports from the MOS:FLAG rules.

After a couple days I proceeded with an RfC to clarify whether or not the motorsport WikiProjects wanted an exemption from MOS:FLAG. I was surprised that, at least at first, they said they didn't. Instead they said motorsports in fact met the criteria, which is very hard for me to understand.

After a very lengthy discussion, one editor, Tvx1, seemed to be on the verge of realizing that they really did want an exemption so that motorsports topics didn't have to show direct evidence that competitors are official representatives of a country. Which is actually fine. Their argument seems to be to be guided by the practice of most reliable sources, rather than strictly adhere to the standard of being an official representative.

In any case, this set Pyrope off again, causing them to post as series of insults, accusations and personal attacks, calling me "underhand and disingenuous", accusing me of "saying one thing and trying to do another" and of having "an axe to grind rather than a genuine intention to improve this encyclopedia."

Before coming here, I posted a final warning, asking them to remove the insults and attacks, and focus on content. Unfortunately, they stuck to their accusations.

An order to remove their personal attacks and sin no more might be enough. Or a topic ban on flag icon related issues might be necessary. A ban on motorsports would work but is probably overly broad based on what I've seen. All I'm asking for is to not have to wade through personal attacks while dealing with an already contentious topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I invite anyone who wants to get involved here to please go and actually read all the discussion already entered into, as the description above is littered with misrepresentations and straight falsehoods, as were his previous comments in the discussions in question. In complaining about this behaviour I appear to have irritated Dennis, and his response was to go on the attack. Hey ho, another day at Wikipedia. Pyrope 03:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I also note that his setting up of this AIN as a request for a topic ban (of pretty much the only topic I edit within... nice) rather than a simple complaint about behaviour is rather consistent with the bullying and aggressive manner in which Dennis has so far conducted himself. Pyrope 03:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

If you hate the idea of a topic ban so much, how about "delete the personal attacks and don't post any more personal attacks"? You could implement that right now and we'd be done. You're insisting everyone at ANI has to invest their time in this because you won't do that. Why? What's the point? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

As I haven't made any personal attacks (justified criticism is not a personal attack) there is nothing to delete. You've had quite a lengthy say in this ANI already, please now leave it for others to take an independent look. Pyrope 04:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) At first, this seems like an ordinary content dispute, but [Dennis Bratland's] argument is not only intellectually and morally bankrupt (diff) and kevball dingbats (Special:Diff/1022465852) are personal attacks, so Pyrope (talk · contribs) has definitely been uncivil in this discussion.

But Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) has also demonstrated a lack of understanding of motorsports, as judged by their comments on Template_talk:Infobox_racing_driver and replies by Tvx1 (talk · contribs). Bratland has repeatedly asserted, based on their interpretation of the official rules, that racing drivers do not officially represent a country in international motorsports, and thus that national flags cannot be assigned to racing drivers per MOS:FLAG. Other users have pointed out that these arguments are incorrect, and I note that Bratland has never used a secondary source to back their argument, so I wouldn't be surprised if Bratland ended up topic-banned from motorsports. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Saying that an argument is “intellectually and morally bankrupt” isn’t the same as saying Dennis Bratland is intellectually and morally bankrupt. One of those isn’t a personal attack, whatever else it is. I’m not sure what “kevball dingbats” are but even on the assumption that it’s not complimentary, the context doesn’t appear to be that they are calling Dennis Bratland a “kevball dingbat”. Not commenting on the rest of this - except it looks a bit trivial for ANI. DeCausa (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed to a topic ban. I'm pretty appalled that this request was even posted. The accused editor has not made any controversial edits concerning flags so imposing a topic ban would be laughable. This is merely a disagreement over mutual civility. The OP is really overreacting though. I agree with DeCausa that Pyrope's comments relate to the argument, no the person.Tvx1 12:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. What is this even doing here? Criticising someone's argument is not a personal attack, and as above, I'm not sure what kevball dingbats are, but it doesn't sound particularly egregious to me. Not only is Bratland's claim that racing drivers do not represent their countries in international motor racing incorrect, it proves that he has never read any of the acres of discussion about the topic. How on earth any of this merits a discussion about a topic ban, I have no idea. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Now SSSB is changing key words that are the crux of an open RfC about MOS:FLAG. Seems legit. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• I was reverting an major, yet undiscussed, change of wording, so it is legit.
  SSSB (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

After disingenuously moving the goal posts, you go on insulting me, calling me a hypocrite. I directly quoted the MOS in this simple, one-sentence RfC question. Everyone read it. Tvx1 doubled down again and again on that wording[129][130][131]. They insisted drivers are official representatives. For days I was harangued with taunts from blowhards mansplaining racing to me. I was called names, accused of bad faith and underhanded ulterior motives, and belittled because I don't get motorsports lke they do.[132][133]

Pyrope insisted "International motorsports drivers are just as officially representatives of their nations".

And now, all of a sudden today, you guys realize I was right: motorsports doesn't adhere to the "official representative" standard. Very simple, and we all knew it. I expected you to !vote opposed to the RfC for that simple reason and then we could all proceed to sort this out after making clear where we stood. You're trying to gaslight me.[134] Pretending what you've been saying all along was a whole different standard, proving once more what an ignorant fool I am.

At a minimum, Pyrope, Tvx1 and SSSB need to withdraw their numerous insults and attacks on me, and admit my point from Day 1 was legitimate. They need to admit they were wrong trying to claim drivers officially represent countries, no good sources verify they are official representatives, and what they really want is to either exempt motorsports from MOS:FLAG, or write a different standard altogether.

If these editors refuse to own up to their gaslighting, bullying, dishonest behavior, I think a topic ban from the subject of flag icons is appropriate.

Now that we all agree drivers aren't official representatives (though some of us are unwilling to be honest about it) I think a good solution is possible with a new RfC that gets to the heart of the matter: User:Dennis Bratland/Draft MOS:SPORTFLAG RfC. From what I can tell, editors from across many sports-related WikiProjects will support the not-strictly-official option, because that's the de facto standard they follow anyway. It's what they want and they should be happy.

But I don't want to have to continue to deal with the bad faith, disruptive behavior of Pyrope, Tvx1, and SSSB. If they won't retract and admit what they've done, they need to be topic banned so everyone else can resolve this in a civl manner. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Indian YouTuber CarryMinati and suspected UPE

Two SPAs, U.G sam (talk · contribs) and Krish121 (talk · contribs) are repeatedly adding promotional content and spammy sources to the article CarryMinati, occasionally trying to whitewash the article [135], and name-dropping the subject in other articles, e.g. [136], [137]. The article is about an Indian YouTuber called Ajey Nagar (nicknamed CarryMinati), who has been promoted on Wikipedia by various users over a number of years – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carry Minati and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:CarryMinati for some previous discussion of this. The article CarryMinati has now existed since December 2019. Since then it has been edited by sockpuppets of prolific UPE sockmaster Swarup Kumar Solanki (e.g. Vikas.bikaneri, VrajBMT), by Trusha.daware and Abhaas singh, both of whom have been blocked for advertising/UPE, and also by Roopika.n, a Trusha.daware sock. In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trusha.daware/Archive, Trusha.daware was connected to the marketing outfit One Digital Entertainment, and CarryMinati is one of their clients, according to One Digital's website.

U.G sam is the more prolific user, with 230 edits of which I think two are not directly related to CarryMinati. Examples of U.G sam's edits include [138] and [139]. Krish121's edits include [140] and [141]. Some of their edits are OK seen in isolation, but the consistent pattern of adding as much trivia as possible, multiple sources that praise the subject, and the latest hype the minute it has been published is telling. I don't think they are sockpuppets since their styles are not quite similar enough, but they are certainly working together: Krish121 made this edit and reverted it again, and five minutes later (literally five minutes, not an exaggeration), U.G sam made this edit.

Both U.G sam and Krish121 have denied being paid, [142], [143], and [144]. They have been warned repeatedly against promotional editing; U.G sam has received three final warnings, Krish121 one, and both of them have edited since. On 15 April I asked both editors to use edit requests, [145] and [146], see also [147] and [148]. They have not done that – U.G. sam occasionally posts to Talk:CarryMinati but also edits the article directly. Today, U.G sam asked me and CptViral to create an article about a song performed by CarryMinati.

I suggest that both accounts should be blocked for UPE/advertising. --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

After posting the above, I saw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krish121, where the CU result was "possible", different devices but similar geolocation. I think that tallies with what I say above. --bonadea contributions talk 10:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with this very complete report. Done. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC).

• I reported them to AIV, RFPP'd the page and opened a SPI... but I didn't think to make an AN/I thread about it! Anyway, I'm glad they are dealt with; someone ought to keep an eye on that article going forward because it looks like there have been lots of shenanigans with it lately. jp×g 21:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Lcha2011 and creating hoaxes

• Lcha2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone please have a look at the contributions of this user and decide if a block is required please? This editor has been here since January, but almost every single article and draft they have created since joining has been G3 speedy deleted as a hoax (one was G1'd as incomprehensible nonsense). Most of this user's contributions have been focused around writing articles on flags that they made up and drawn in MS-paint, but they have also created pages on a non-existent disease, a non-existent territory and a nonsensical addition to the manual of style. This editor doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia (i.e. it's not a host for stuff they've made up) and they seem to lack the competence to edit here constructively. There's also a load of hoax flags by this user uploaded to commons which will need cleaning up. Thanks, 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

They've had loads of warnings, so a block is appropriate. I'll put a temporary one on for disruptive editing and see if that does the trick. Deb (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

They didn't get the message after the earlier deletions and my welcome/warning. Fences&Windows 14:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Pmffl reported by Alexander Davronov

User being reported: Pmffl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User reporting: Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Alexander Davronov

Reviving this from the archive as Pmffl continues to remove my replies without due justification. ANI NOTICE DIFF

WP:TPO/WP:UNCIVIL violation

Page: Browser engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
Page: User talk:Pmffl (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

• 16:06, May 8, 2021) "Notable engines as subsections (remove bullets): removing weird @me with unrelated link. Just simply propose what you want without weird crap."

• 16:07, May 8, 2021: "Flow engine: removing non-sequitor - there is a template and Comparisons article for this"
• 20:25, May 8, 2021 — Me requesting on his talk page to stop editing my replies
• 20:27, May 8, 2021 "No, for reasons in my commit comments there. Stop @ing me with really sloppy crap. in the talkpage. I cleaned it up to be sensible"

• 20:55, May 8, 2021 — "restore AXO comment that I shouldn't have removed, plus more info in my response"

WP:TPO/WP:EDITING/WP:ZEAL breach

Page: JavaScript (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
In the past (2020) Pmffl has made various questionable, unWP:PRESERVEing or simply WP:SNEAKY-bordering edits to a legitimate content which might have been otherwise kept under WP:IMPERFECT provision, or get improved otherwise:

• 20:58, February 6, 2020 "remove redundant sidebar" — There is no sidebar listing the same information.
• 21:25, February 6, 2020 "almost entirely obsolete + largely self-promotional" - Cut out a list of books of mostly historical value from the Read further subsection .
• 17:33, February 7, 2020"Development tools: rewrite to be concise and remove the obsolete" — Cutting out some (legitimately?) sourced details on JS debuggers software.
• 20:58, February 8, 2020 "more concise and polished, remove tangents)" - Removing sourced information

Here they remove my replies on the talk page:

• 14:28, May 9, 2021 "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind"
• 16:37, May 10, 2021 "exactly, MrOllie, which is why I'm removing this garbage"
• 12:38, May 16, 2021 - «‎Latest changes by Pmffl: removing the smear, as stated before; keep the specific items»
• 17:27, May 17, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023467424 by Alexander Davronov talk) No, not okay to say this as others have told you.»

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Request

• Warn Pmffl of his misbehavior and direct him to WP:HTBC essay and WP:EDITING (WP:PRESERVE/WP:DON'T PRESERVE) policy and impose WP:IBAN. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

There's a reason you got no comments last time Alexander Davronov: no admin thought there was any action to take. Someone using mild curse words in edit summaries is not the kind of dispute that needs admin attention. You don't need all the structure btw, this isn't Arbitration Enforcement. You need to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and that does not involve trawling your opponent's old edits for supposed wrongdoing. Fences&Windows 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Am I correct that you're saying that I can remove other's comments, including yours? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

No, Alexander Davronov. Pmffl restored your talk page comment, which is what I was aware of. However, this today was not OK. Pmffl, you must not remove others' article talk page comments. You must also follow correct talk page archiving rather than just removing old comments as done here for example. Pmfll, please promise not to repeat the removal of others' article talk comments unless you are strictly following WP:TPO and please correct your incorrect removals without archiving. Fences&Windows 20:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. His vaguely-worded post is merely a smear of me. As MrOllie and others have pointed out, it doesn't belong on the Javascript talkpage. So I keep removing it. -Pmffl (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pmffl: Letting everyone to know that I disagree with your edits isn't a "smear" of you. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide, Pmffl. Let others do it: don’t edit war with someone who is critiquing you. You didn't reply about your inappropriate removal of old talk page comments without archiving. Will you clean up after your earlier inappropriate edits to create an archive? Fences&Windows 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you mean restore Alexander's original post, in which he literally added a support line to his own idea? No, it's better to not have ridiculous stuff like that in a talkpage. -Pmffl (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Second sentence of WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. From my reading, the parts you highlighted in yellow are indeed Pmfll commenting on content, with some mild language like "sloppy", "crap", "weird", "garbage". The only thing that is nearing a personal attack might be "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind". Leijurv (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, when that comment is "I think the latest edits by Pmffl must be revised and amended. Feel free to notify me of proposals." It does indeed sound like someone who is just against another user's edits, because. Canterbury Tail talk 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I wasn't able to elaborate because Pmffl has removed it the same day it was posted. The same thing has happened two times a day earlier (8 May) so I decided to fill ANI complaint instead of explaining anything. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leijurv: In all three cases he was either editing or removing my replies. In very first diff above he's removed a diff link pointing out to his edit. That's what kind of "content" he has called a "weird crap". All these highlighted summaries are only about my replies. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, The way you format your talk page entries, with all the subsections and templated diffs and such, is fairly unusual. People who mostly read talk pages by looking at diffs are going to be confused, and it does tend to make for alerts that are difficult to understand. "weird crap" isn't a very charitable way to describe it, but I do understand what Pmffl means. MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The following should clarify why MrOllie is making remarks like that one above: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#Canvassing_in_Malassezia AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you do have a history of using ANI to try to win content disputes, thank you for pointing that out. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Request_to_enforce_WP:FOC_&_WP:NPA_in_Talk:Malassezia) However, the reason I'm commenting on this dispute (and on Talk:Javascript) is that I have had the Javascript article on my watchlist for years. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Just saying. I don't want to turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Davronov, bit late for that. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Kpmm198495

Kpmm198495 (talk · contribs) keeps violating the BLP policy at James Charles (Internet personality). I'm not saying that these events didn't happen as the article has them written in a neutral tone in the body. I'm saying that Kpmm198495 is deliberately calling Charles a "child predator" despite he was never arrested nor sentenced for such charges. What's even worse is that Kpmm198495 not only added the link of the "Photo taken by Charles and sent to minors on social media platforms", Kpmm198495 decided to upload it as "JailbirdJC" and leave it there ironically doing what Charles did in the first place, but instead of sending it to specific minors, Kpmm198495 decided that anyone reading the article had to be a spectator of his naked photograph. Kpmm198495 is not explaining his actions and as a fact, his account remained inactive for 18 months until they autoconfirmed it yesterday in order to edit the page. The inclusion of it in the lead is already being discussed here, where of course, has to be done in a neutral and due way. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Given their... response... here, an indef for disruption and BLP violations seems appropriate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Their contributions include a revdelled response to this AN/I section, so one can't help but wonder if they're WP:HERE. Much to think about. jp×g 02:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

p-blocked from the article in question as an emergency measure, no objection to anyone increasing the block to a complete block for blp vios, so consider this report not closed. —valereee (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs

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

---

What is our tolerance on ethnic slurs? The more I looked at this, the more I thought there should be zero tolerance.--- Possibly (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Certainly when used as part of a vandalistic edit they should not be tolerated. I suggest a block is in order, and rev-del. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I have revision deleted the linked diff and indefinitely blocked the editor per WP:NOTHERE. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well done! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Admin protecting own talk page pre-emptively

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

---

Favonian just misused their admin tools. Someone should come by and desysop them immediately. This is like blocking someone they’re involved with. --90.235.34.213 (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While, yes, no reason was given, I don't see how this amounts to anything approaching desysop territory. Regardless, our processes do not allow for someone to come by and desysop them immediately. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The report compared this to WP:INVOLVED, which contains a clause where an involved admin can take any obvious action that any other admin would take. In that light, semi-protecting their user talk page is an appropriate response to harassment by unregistered editors. —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That talk page has been the target of an inordinate amount of harassment lately (including from someone from the same country and cellular data provider as you [154]), so it is not purely preemptive. I would have protected the talk page myself, if they had asked me, and another good thing is that they're only protecting it for up to a few hours or one day at a time. Nothing to see here. Mz7 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

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

98.200.8.248 claim to engage in criminal activity

In this particular diff an IP editor 98.200.8.248 (talk · contribs) has claimed that he has engaged in an off-wiki criminal activity. While he has been reported to AIV, and I am sure that he will be blocked, I think his multiple claims of his crime should be rev-delled. Thank you. SunDawn (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a need to do more than revert and block for edit warring, as has been done. The IP is not saying they did it; they could be retelling some legendary story about the software (involving a hacker allegedly doing something at the request of a friend of the hacker). The material does not reveal anything that needs revision deletion IMHO although if someone wants to do, that's fine. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Check out all of the IP's contributions: they are indeed claiming ownership of the misdeeds. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Might want to check this one it may cross that line. NonReproBlue (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but it looks like a rant to me. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Other admins are welcome to have a look and rev-delete the IP's edits/comments if wanted but I don't see a need. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I revdelled two edits as serious BLP violations and the rest as purely disruptive: "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations...". Fences&Windows 13:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Mass deletions of operators

In a series of 3 edits User:FOX 52 has performed mass deletions of operators in the BN Islander article.
Of the previously listed 243 operators, a mere 36 were left in place in the current "List of Britten-Norman Islander operators", equalling a deletion of 85% of all operators.
Apparently, he feels that this might be justified by his "remove un-sourced content" comment.
However, it appears somewhat ridiculous to me to demand one source for every one to four words (= one operator) in a long standing article. Using this method, one could delete some 90% of the entire Wikipedia contents.
An attempt to solve the problem in Talk:List of Britten-Norman Islander operators has failed.
The previous content has to be restored, possibly by adding the note "citation needed", and efforts might be continued to raise the percentage of sourced material.
Wholesale deletions like those having been done cannot be tolerated, they would destroy a huge percentage of WP contents. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

PS: In the meantime, he has deleted the entire list as such and downgraded it to a section the main Britten-Norman Islander article. --Uli Elch (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Uli Elch, this is a content dispute. Please seek input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. The old list is still in the history for you and others to verify: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Britten-Norman_Islander_operators&oldid=1018241843. These are the relevant guidelines: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Fences&Windows 12:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Uli Elch: When you asked him to discuss the matter with you, what were the results of that discussion? --Jayron32 12:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

(I did respond on the talk page) I only removed the un-sourced content per: WP:PROVEIT, - further I added citations to others I could find - Also the list contained a huge amount of non-notable operators WP:GNG - Cheers FOX 52 ^talk! 13:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Fences and windows, this is fundamentally about content not behaviour. Uli Elich opened a discussion at Talk:List of Britten-Norman Islander operators#Mass deletions of operators, which is a redirect page's talk page - curious place, but never mind. Notifications have been posted to the odd associated WikiProject. FOX 52 and others have engaged in the discussion, including me. As far as I can see it is very much live and ongoing. I'd suggest closing this issue as far too soon for ANI involvement. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jr Tahun and repeated additions of unsourced content

Jr Tahun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been repeadtly warned for adding unsourced content to various articles related to the 2020 Summer Olympics. However, they continue to keep adding this information per WP:SYNTH and without adding any concrete sources. At this point, I cannot continue reverting this user's edits as that would violate the 3rr rule, but something needs to be done here to stop the addition of the unsourced content. The user has even admitted (on their talk page) to as such, I am lazy looking for it, but you can find it yourself on the BWF website and tomorrow, May 18th, the ranking will be published. Here are some examples [155], [156]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

User is not labelling reverted edits incorrectly as vandalism. [157] and [158] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY is an important part of Wikipedia, and this user seems to be blatantly ignoring that. And knowingly so, per the message highlighted on their talkpage- FWIW, I couldn't find it on the BWF website, which is the whole reason why we add sources on Wikipedia. They're a good faith editor, but they really need to agree to add sourcing to every edit they make. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 48 hours for persistently adding unsourced content. Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sychonic

• Sychonic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• J Hutton Pulitzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concerning the Republican "audit" of electoral votes in Maricopa County, Sychonic believes that Media sources, the exact ones you refer to, are no longer credible on this issue (and most to others), they have consistently shown bias in their reporting and this is further indicia of it. As distinct from the numerous elections before, they squelch any mention of possible fraudulent activity in the 2020 election even though there is voluminous material indicating possible malfeasance.. As a result he is edit-warring to a version of the article that treats the "audit" as a legitimate exercise, in defiance of sources including one of the sources he prefers, "Inside Arizona’s election audit, GOP fraud fantasies live on", but also reintroducing Vision Times, a Falun Gong newspaper indistinguishable from Epoch Times. diff, diff, diff, diff. Three editors - MjolnirPants (via MPants at work), MrOllie and I - have reverted.

Pulitzer is a colourful character (see CueCat) but the sources here appear unambiguous: his input in the Arizona "audit" is political activism, not a genuine contribution to electoral integrity. Sychonic sees it differently, and that seems to be a fringe view under the circumstances, and certainly not one supported by the sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on the diffs, I feel an AP2 topic-ban for Sychonic is necessary. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

____

The issue related to this article is not the subject involved, J. Pulitzer, but rather the characterization of the audit being conducted in Arizona by the State Legislature there. The contention is between my edit, which I believe is neutral, and the edit proposed by the person bringing this request. My edit proposes to use primarily information from the Wikipedia article on the 2020 election in Arizona as a general matter, and its reference to the audit being conducted while the that replaced it is pure partisan politics, using language such as "Big Lie" as if this were an appropriate and common term rather than a talking point. I believe that Wikipedia should remain above the fray in issues like this, and insist on strict impartiality on all aspects of politics and simply report as an encyclopedia should -- factual matter. It is being increasingly used by editors for their own personal agendas, seeking to change the world of their point of view, and Wikipedia should not allow itself to become that.

I have added references from sources that are both hostile to the audit (USA Today) and one that contained an interesting quote from the subject of the article -- purely as a reference for that quote, which is real. I do not particularly care for either publication in my personal reading, but neither is particularly reliable when it comes to reporting facts, and this has become a large problem, a broader problem when heretofore reliable news sources have clearly shed their impartial nature and litter their "news" section with unabashed opinions. One has to read everything with a grain of salt, and perhaps more, to get at the truth.

If Wikipedia becomes indistinguishable from the Huffington Post, or another of the online, low-brow political rags, then it will be a great loss to all concerned. This is a small matter about a minor figure, one who can best be called, in American idiom, "flaky". On this topic, though, the references to "big lie" and "partisan" and other rhetorical matters should be minimized, and I believe my edits have done that, and done so in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to arguments that minority or even fringe viewpoints be accurately described, but that isn't what we have here. We have one person making truly ludicrous claims that are being sourced to a site with severe credibility problems. When there is reliable commentary on ludicrous claims (looking for bamboo in ballots to detect a Chinese conspiracy), it may be worth discussing in some detail. When there is not such commentary, the details aren't relevant to any page on Wikipedia, as multiple editors who have reverted you have already stated. You cannot keep edit-warring and accusing everyone else of being biased. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

力, I think that sums it up well. The core of the issue here is that sources Wikipedia considers reliable, do not accord the Arizona fraudit any credibility at all, but Sychonic repudiates their reliability because they don't. I'm not sure there's anyway of forming a consensus between reality and what is described in reliable sources - including some of the sources he himself cites - as nonsense. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

While this conversation is ongoing, it is probably unwise for you to continue edit warring at the article, as you just did in this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Sychonic for 31 hours for edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, alas, I think he is unlikely to take the hint - but thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG, longer blocks are certainly possible if disruptive editing continues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to close an RFC

Hi. An RfC on article heading was opened at Talk:Roderic O'Gorman on 13 April, and it has had no additional input since 9 May. Could an uninvolved admin drop by and close it, please? Thanks in advance, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong venue. Please use WP:ANRFC and please request an uninvolved editor, not administrator, unless you have a specific reason why an admin is needed. Politrukki (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad - thanks. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Incivility By Admin User:JzG

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

---

According to WP:ADFAQ#CONDUCT "You can report problems with admins misusing their privileges at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents." To editor JzG: response to closing response to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol#When_WP:BLPCRIME_does_and_does_not_apply do not seem to appear to be consistent with WP:ADMINCOND and WP:CIVIL. The user's response was condescending, passive aggressive, and presumptive. Since "Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." this issue is more appropriately brought here as opposed to the normal course.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs for the behavior you're discussing? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

JzG is not currently an admin, and a link to the specific diff where the offending comment was added would be helpful. The comment I think you're referring to doesn't seem objectionable. The concern that Yousef Raz may be tendentiously ignoring consensus was a valid one. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:19, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yousef Raz, I've checked literally every post by Guy (JzG) currently there, and I'm not seeing a conduct issue, even if JzG were currently an admin. They might be a little short with people, and certainly I saw posts that were not neutral. Can you provide a diff to show us what you're complaining about? —valereee (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol&oldid=1023512666 Close please. This is tending towards bad temper as one editor doesn't seem to like the answer, so to summarise the above: consensus is that calling it an insurrection doesn't violate BLPCRIME, not least because it's a term in common use by so many reliable sources that even WP:ATT would look weird in context. To summarise the summary: insurrections have consequences, and one of them is being called an insurrectionist. Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Yousef Raz (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I accept a consensus with no objections. I'm an adult, if my view is not accepted I move on. Being uncivil is not appropriate. User:JzG page identifies him as an admin.Yousef Raz (talk)

More specifically Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way.20:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I get that I'm new here, but that is considered a civil response, a respectful response, of an administrator? If it is, then so be it. But it appears to be condescending, passive aggressive, and presumptive.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

They're not an admin. The userbox you've taken as saying they are links to Wikipedia:Rouge admin, which identifies itself as a humorous page that is not official policy. ◦ Trey Maturin 20:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Trey Maturin. That's a little misleading.Yousef Raz (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Even if he had been an admin, participating in a content discussion is not an admin action – admins have no special privileges or powers when it comes to content questions. In any case, I fail to see anything inappropriate in that response. Exasperated, yes, uncivil, no – apart from the fact that the part you quote specifically isn't even directed at any of the participants in the discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 21:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There's no incivility in the reported remark, simply a little justifiable sarcasm concerning recent American political events. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It is a little misleading. @JzG used to be an admin, and they probably put that userbox on their user page then and forgot to remove it when they resigned the bit. Guy, you probably should take that off your user page. —valereee (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe also the banner about reviews of your admin actions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And this (About Me paragraph): “... I sometimes, to my chagrin, mention that I have been an admin for a long time: some people think this is me invoking admin status in order to...” — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs) 06:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not think that Yousef Raz is an insurrectionist. I do think that many of the people who were sucked into the insurrection exhibit some or all of the qualities of cult victims - not an especially controversial view given the prevalence of QAnon belief in this group. I have sympathy with people who genuinely believed that they were going to save America from democracy, restore Trump to his throne, and be feted as heroes. It's easy to see how those who live entirely within the bubble of conservative media might come to that conclusion, delusional though it so very obviously is to those of us that consume a diet of facts and reality. I have sympathy. But that sympathy stops short of whitewashing the insurrection. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea does incivility need to be overtly directed at a specific person? My understanding of passive aggressiveness, which is inherently uncivil, is that it is commonly directed at a person or group in a manner that is not overt.Yousef Raz (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to call passive-aggressiveness "incivil", then I guess this report itself is an example of incivility. But Guy's remark? Not so much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've corrected the title of the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken nothing I have stated was sarcastic nor passive-aggressive. My statements have been concise and assertive. There were quite a few people that responded in that feed, and not one other person was mentioned in my statements because no one else was uncivil.Yousef Raz (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

"Please protect poor defenseless little me from the big bad admin who said something mildly critical about my political beliefs." Sounds pretty passive-aggressive to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

...and its uncivil, so I reported it here in accordance with the rules.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's uncivil. YR is a newish editor who is trying to figure out our ways. —valereee (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yousef Raz, I'm trying to understand your complaint here. IMO yes, incivility probably needs to be directed at a specific person? I'm open to your argument that it doesn't, but you need to convince me. What exactly are you complaining about? I see what you linked to above: Close please. This is tending towards bad temper as one editor doesn't seem to like the answer, so to summarise the above: consensus is that calling it an insurrection doesn't violate BLPCRIME, not least because it's a term in common use by so many reliable sources that even WP:ATT would look weird in context. To summarise the summary: insurrections have consequences, and one of them is being called an insurrectionist. Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way. While it's not particularly kind, I'm not sure I'm seeing uncivil. Are you talking about "one editor doesn't seem to like the answer"? What are you objecting to? —valereee (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@—valereee The comment, I interpret as directed at me with This is tending towards bad temper as one editor doesn't seem to like the answer...} and then Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way.. As if me wanting to use a legal standard set by WP:BLPCRIME puts me into a cult or that I'm disappointed in the results of the 2020 election. I view this as condescending, passive aggressive, and uncivil. I looked at his profile, and it appeared to be an admin. I felt this was inappropriate behavior for an admin.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yousef Raz, FWIW, I tend to err on demanding civility, and particularly from admins. That said, even if JzG were still an admin, I probably wouldn't see this post as uncivil. It's as I said not particularly kind, but it's not outside the standard of vigorous debate we engage in here on WP talk pages. I don't want to discourage a newish editor, but there's debate here, and it sometimes includes criticism of opposing viewpoints. IMO this would fall into that category. —valereee (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@—valereee Thank you.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• I came here looking for any incivility, no matter how mild, by "The Other Guy". We have a good working relationship, I would welcome it if he told me I was going too far, and I am sure that he feels the same about me. What I am not seeing is even a hint of actual incivility. "Yes, I understand that those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade. Cults are shitty that way" isn't incivility. It is an accurate description of a group of people without saying that any particular person is or is not in that group. Should I be punished for saying that people are idiots if they believe that Covid-19 can be cured by taking medicines full of poisonous mercury and lead after they have been "purified" by baking them in cow shit?

On the other hand, edits such as this one[159] make me think that a topic ban from US politics for Yousef Raz would be an appropriate solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, Care to elaborate why that one diff makes you think a AP topic ban is a well thought out and good choice? Because I am not seeing it. PackMecEng (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I wrote too hastily. I should have looked for a pattern of edits, which I have not done. One of QAnon's talking points is calling the riot/insurrection/sedition a "demonstration" but just because QAnon says that doesn't mean that all who say that are QAnon. My apologies for sloppy thinking. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon if you want to relitigate the discussion on that edit, then lets do it. My basis was in accordance with the US Attorney. The oppossing basis was largely based on pundits. Pundits won.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So, @Yousef Raz, if that edit was based on (maybe the language used in the court filings by the US attorney?), then that's not actually how we do it. That would be original research. We use what reliable sources say. And, yes, that means pundits, and yes, before you say it, many reliable sources do have a likely liberal bias. If you'd like to dive into why we follow them anyway, read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and all the links and "See also" links from that guideline. —valereee (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@—valereee My interpretation of WP:BLPCRIME is that if no one is convicted of the crime, then we should use more neutral language. Since the US Attorney did not indict anyone nor convict them of the crime of insurrection[[160]], then it would be improper to label people as insurrectionist.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yousef Raz, which is a fair question, based on how we refer to deaths (death/killing/murder) based on legal rulings. It's something you can argue at the article talk, but it's not something that is going to be decided here at ANI. We focus on behavior, not on content. —valereee (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@—valereee I wasn't trying to revive that discussion here. I presented my perspective in the talk page, the consensus wasn't with me, and that's ok. I came here to discuss the behavior of someone that appeared uncivil and I thought was an admin. You time is much appreciated, thank you.Yousef Raz (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries, and I thank you for your civility. —valereee (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason for any administrative action here directed at either party at this time. We've got one diff of a user phrasing something in a manner that only one user sees any problem with, and one diff of the OP making a POV edit that was reverted one minute later. For the record: you can see if a user is an admin by clicking "change user groups" in the left hand column. You won't actually be able to change them but you can see the logs. In this case we can see that Jzg voluntarily tunred in their admin tools five months ago, there's even a link to the request in the rights log. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox Thank you.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  You can also see them if you enable Nav Popups in Preferences>Gadgets. —valereee (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox: for us ordinary editors, that's "View user groups". Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I too believe that no administrative action in either direction is required, but I did want to express my view that Guy's comment (fully quoted above) was indeed uncivil. The statement that insurrections have consequences, and one of them is being called an insurrectionist [...] those involved are baffled at this, and thought they were going to have a special place in Trump's second inaugural parade is difficult to place in the context of the preceding discussion, since that very long discussion contains nothing at all about the insurrectionists themselves being baffled at being called that way. The comment is, in fact, very hard to understand in any other way than as an underhanded suggestion that the editors opposing the use of the word insurrection in the article are the ones protesting being called that way, which of course equates them with the insurrectionists. The comment also makes it personal by stating that one editor doesn't seem to like the answer, while there were at least two other editors taking Yousef Raz's position. Though I personally agree with those saying we should use the word insurrection in as much as RS are using it (and the underlying view that neutrality is to be determined by what sources say, not the other way around, which is basic WP:NPOV really but not often well-understood), I find Guy's comment completely unacceptable. I also feel that this comment was enabled by the other editors opposing Yousef Raz's position, who rather than explaining the intricacies of WP policy were being condescending from the very start (e.g., We are summarizing what sources say. If they said magical flying unicorns scaled the walls, we'd also include that). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 00:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Apaugasma, it was a general reflection on the numerous (indeed incessant) demands that we reframe our articles around the insurrection to support the Trumpist narrative that only Trump supporters were injured in the insurrection, that it was an exercise of free speech and not an insurrection, and so on. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is going to be the creationism de nos jours, I reckon. And I was here for the OG creationism disputes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 07:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Nobody said only Trump supporters were injured. A few correctly noted that the only person killed that day was a Trump supporter, as was the officer previously and baselessly said to have been killed. Hard to have an insurrection when the insurgents gave up in hours, having killed nobody, toppled nothing and captured nowhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Failed criminality is still criminality. EEng 08:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not even talking criminality, just the act itself. Insurrection did not occur. That's basically why nobody was charged with inciting, engaging in or assisting in one. Other crimes, sure, alleged in the hundreds. The guy from Iced Earth is already guilty of two. But nothing related to insurrection. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Just like failed attempt of uncivility is still uncivility. Politrukki (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Guy, I totally get that patience can wear thin in such circumstances, but behind every username on WP there's a different person, whose intents and motivations are always more complex than it is possible to imagine through the WP interface. In such situations, it's important to not lump people together, which can in part be achieved by structurally exaggerating the AGF-thing. When you find yourself incapable of doing so, it's probably a good idea to take it as a sign that a wikibreak may be in order. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

As a guy who's disagreed with Guy and been indirectly lumped in with a lot of allegedly bad types for it, I reiterate I'm thinking for myself, influenced by Hogan (as accepted in the '80s). I supported Trump (in spirit) over Clinton, but chose Harris the next time. There are pedophiles in high places and The American Dream has died of cancer, but QAnon didn't figure those ones out. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: Picture Ivanka and Hillary right now in a bar somewhere, sharing a tall cool glass of adrenochrome, with two straws. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what that is, so I replaced it with cocaine and pictured a well instead of a glass. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If it's a well they'll need hoses instead of straws. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• When I closed the discussion in question I reminded the participants to drop the stick. Disappointing to see that Yousef has instead picked up a bigger stick. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  So has Hulk. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Ninve67

• Ninve67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Owl House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Constant WP:DE behavior, also making an ongoing edit war to make others frustrated. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan, p-blocked from the article for 31 hours, but do take into account this is a very new editor who may have a language challenge, and be kind. Try to figure out what it is they're trying to do. They don't seem ill-intentioned. —valereee (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, this user wanted to make changes to article because he thinks that it would look cooler, but it is not the page users are used too, and is inserting WP:FAN. In fact, he was making inappropriate MOS:BOLD to the overall columns in the episode list. He did make discussion on the talk page, but shortly after, he continued to edit the article by adding a third season cell in the series overview, but no known episodes of that season was confirmed officially. This user was also discussing how he prefers the use of bold on overall columns to episode lists of any show, but he has to read WP:OTHER.

This is what the user was trying to do, I understand that he maybe new here and isn't well-intentioned, but he needs to follow the guidelines. That is what I got so far, if you want more, I will try digging deeper. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

revdel needed for racial attacks

• 2603:8001:400:2:4032:DBCD:8A15:6999 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2603:8001:400:2:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

This person put terrible messages in their edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like it’s all been done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you, all done. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Shahaneh's persistent unsourced additions and edit warring

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

This user was blocked indefinitely on December 24, 2009 by NuclearWarfare. On April 16, 2021, Maxim unblocked them. Since April 17, 2021 (Special:Diff/1018352013), the account's edit are almost exclusivley related to 3D-film. Their whole list of contributions is a series of unsourced additions of a film being released in 3D and/or IMAX 3D. After being reverted, citing the unsourced nature of their edits and the lack of notability for the inclusion of the information in the lead section, they repeatedly edit warred with the different editor that reverted them.

The user was notoriously persistent at Black Widow (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Their first edit to this page (diff) was reverted by Adamstom.97 (diff). Shahaneh repeated their edit a total of seven times, some of those comprised of two or three consecutive edits ([161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168]). Another case was The Suicide Squad (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([169], [170], [171], https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Suicide_Squad_(film)&diff=1021506444&oldid=1021502658), but there's also Venom: Let There Be Carnage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([172]), Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([173]), and Mission: Impossible 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ([174]) to name a few. Virtually all their edits are like this.

After seeing the editor's actions nature, I consulted a fellow editor, the aforementioned Adamstom.97, on what to do about the editor (diff). The editor changed my comment, trading his own name for IronManCap (diff), who was the first one to place a warning at their talk page (diff). After InfiniteNexus put a final warning on their page (diff), only one last edit was performed by the user (diff).

Then, 64.183.125.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appeared, making identical edits to articles such as Mission: Impossible 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff) and West Side Story (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (Shahane diff, IP diff), where Shahaneh had also edited, and to many other pages where they hadn't, such as Untitled Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse sequel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff), Untitled third Fantastic Beasts film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff), and most recently Jackass 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (diff).

I guess that, being a recently unblocked user who almost immediately after being able to edit again started mass-adding unsourced information and edit warring, changed another editor's comment and then apparently resorted to sockpuppeting (WP:QUACK) after receiving a final warning, this editor should be blocked again. —El Millo (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is pretty bad. I have blocked the account indefinitely and the quacking IP for a month. Bishonen | tålk 11:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

  That's a reasonable approach. For the sake of context, the original block from 11 years back was for creating nonsense pages, although it was a Futurama-related page written in-universe and without actual reference to Futurama—not quite vandalism, but a nonsense page at first glance. We received an appeal at arbcom-en, and I unblocked as individual admin action on the grounds that 11 years is long enough for a second chance. Maxim_(talk) 12:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks to Facu-el Millo and Bishonen for sorting this, it is much appreciated. IronManCap (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Run n Fly have are connected with Khorkuto serial

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

---

I was observing Run n Fly since some days. And i have noticed one thing, when Run n Fly completed the article, Alivia Sarkar aded the wikipedia link in her instagram bio withing 5 minute. So after my observations i am sure Run n Fly have some connection with Alivia Sarkar. Apart from this Run n Fly is edition much about Khorkuto cast. So there is some connection with Run n Fly with Khorkuto Serial as well as Alivia Sarkar. Bengal Boy (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

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

User:JakeyPaul123456

• JakeyPaul123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a persistently—and now exclusively—disruptive user who ignores all warnings. The vast majority of their edits gets reverted—repeated unexplained content removal, adding wrong information, unsourced changes, repeated unconstructive changes that get repeatedly reverted, replacing valid images with their own dubious or obscene images that always get deleted for copyright violation (example). On top of that, the user also received a warning for username violation. The user refuses to communicate and keeps making disruptive edits after a final warning, after a 31-hour block and after yet another final warning after the block (like another copyright violation in Apple Inc.). The next block should be either much longer, or preferably indefinite.—J. M. (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why not ask an admin to indef block him, if he is so clearly a persistent vandal? You should probably report him to AIV and say that he is a vandalism only account and he will probably be indef'd. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

AIV is a place for reporting obvious vandalism. This case requires more than 5 seconds of examination.—J. M. (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

True, we should discuss more here. 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC).

We does not include you, as you are now blocked for using an IP to evade the blocks on your accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

P-blocked from article space. Maybe that'll get their attention. —valereee (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit War at The Voice (American TV series)

An edit war has been going on at The Voice (American TV series) for a few days and seems to be escalating. Is there something administrators can do to defuse the situation? Instant Comma (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why not report the users edit-warring to the Edit Warring Noticeboard and if that doesn't work, request page protection? 73.158.114.70 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC). sock chatter-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this about the colors in the table? Perhaps you should ask for help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear; I don't think protection is warranted at this time, the dispute seems to have moved from article space to the talk page, and could use more input from affected populations. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The edit war continued, so another admin blocked the two editors from editing that page. Instant Comma (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism: User:Umsunu Wabo

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

---

User:Umsunu Wabo Persistent vandalism. See talk page for repeated warnings, with this recent activity [[175]]. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Once again, the date-changing vandal from Poland

• 37.248.168.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Poland

Once again, the date-changing vandal from Poland has returned to disrupt music articles. Two IPs have been blocked recently: 37.248.171.152 and 37.248.168.89. As a preventative, can we block the /21 or /20 range containing these two? Lengthy rangeblocks have been made in the past, including a one year block of Special:Contributions/31.0.0.0/17. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Virulently racist comment at Talk:Black Lives Matter

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

---

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

The comment speaks for itself: [176]. Seems to be a clear candidate for revision deletion.

The account is apparently single-use, but could of course be blocked as a precaution. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Revdeled and indeffed. Nothing else to see here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Dehumanization/racial attack

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

---

Is this comment by BilCat really all that appropriate by Wikipedia standards even though it was written on a talk page? Notwithstanding the non-neutral point of view, this seems more than a baseless racist attack as compared to a valid criticism of a country's government, by assuming that everyone from China is a "skilled hacker", are "citizen-slaves", and when they make contributions to China-related topics, it's "shilling for their masters", and that do "they" really think "we can't tell", and ending with "LOLOL". I'm not Chinese but it did rubbed me the wrong away as such comments dehumanizes them. I'm sure there are many well-established Chinese Wikipedians who aren't any of this. Many civilians are not their government (or as BilCat considers them as "Chi-Com"), and they just have to make do with what they have. PluggedOzone (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with this complaint, which IMO misrepresents what BilCat said. Their comment isn't even a little about "everyone from China". It's explicitly about the "skilled hackers" which are (in BilCat's view) used by the Chinese government to 'shill for their masters'. I too am sure there are many well-established Chinese Wikipedians who aren't, and don't do, any of this. It doesn't look like you read BilCat very carefully, PluggedOzone. Bishonen | tålk 13:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC).

And I'll go one step further. Brand new account, who's first edit ever is to ANI. Who's sock are you? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I was just going to add that it was very clever of PluggedOzone to find Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with their first edit. Bishonen | tålk 13:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC).

Doesn't really matter whose sock, does it, RickinBaltimore? Blocked as a trolling-only sock. Bishonen | tålk 13:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC).

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

WP:CIVIL and personal attacks by IP

I was hoping to avoid coming here, but there's an IP who is insistent on getting the last word and engaging in uncivil behaviour and low-level personal attacks. At Talk:Scottish National Party there was a dispute about one of the sources (now resolved, mercifully) where 88.104.60.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) became fairly uncivil in his instance about how WP:BRD works. This didn't bother me too much; I tried to explain to him how it works and direct the conversation back on track, and fortunately it was resolved thanks to two other editors contributing. However, the IP took to a lengthy discussion on my talk page where he eventually made this post where he said, I realised you were an εejit and waited for better users to join in, thankfully they did. Please think about confining yourself to vandal swatting or something at your level, for the sake of the encyclopaedia. I wasn't wholly appreciative of this so I placed a warning on his talk page for personal attacks, and I removed this from my page. He then posted another uncivil comment on Talk:Scottish National Party here. By this point I simply wanted the arguing to end, as I could see he was more interested in having the last word and being belligerent despite my insistence that he WP:DROPIT. Consequently I removed his personal attack and hatted the discussion to prevent further useless arguments continuing. He posted on my talk page a few more times, even though the content dispute had long since finished [177][178][179], and then unhatted the discussion and re-added his uncivil comment, suggesting I bring an admin into this, so here I am. I'd appreciate if someone could restore my hatted version of the talk page (sans his uncivil comment) and maybe give him a talk about what WP:CIVIL behaviour looks like. — Czello 14:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk by the IP, in particular these comments: [180], [181], [182]. The IP is also giving off the vibe of an experienced user, not an IP, either evading scrutiny or a block.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

He does indeed claim in one edit that he has been a Wikipedia editor "for almost two decades" and also knew of certain policies (such as WP:BRD). So yes, I agree with your assessment. — Czello 15:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:IPs are human too. Too many users like yourself see anons as some sort of low level user on a MMORPG Wikipedia with yourselves just above, but anonymous editing since Wikipedia's dawn is just as legitimate as any other form of editing; there is no default requirement for anyone to edit under an account, and editing outside a registered account does not justify accusations of subversion. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I am glad Czello has brought this here, calling more attention to himself, I hope that if he every pursues adminship this thread leads to a thorough reconstruction of events, not as he chooses to represent them but as they were. My side, sorry don't care enough to go digging for diffs, I was randomly reading the article on the Scottish National Party a few days ago and I noticed that an organisation founded in the 1970s was being described as 'proto-fascist'. This is impossible as a historical description since they post-date fascism and thus can't be 'proto' in any historic sense, so I attempted to improve the entry. The page has restrictions on anons, and Czello used those to make improving the article on the point unnecessarily difficult. He ignored the semantic problem, insisted without knowledge of the references that they supported the offending text, insisted I didn't have any right to change the text and continually reverted any attempt I made to improve the article. I even investigated the reference in question (I own the book), supplied the page number, but even that was reverted despite his rhetorical commitment to a 'don't remove cited material' stance t. I brought the matter to the talk and he largely ignored the issue and focused on trying to explain his understanding of certain wikipedia guidelines and principles and how I hadn't been acting right. As I showed, the reference did not even support the offending description, and thanks to the assistance of two uninvolved users the issue was resolved. Talk between Czello and I then did continue due to his apparent wish to get the last word. His insistence on talking down to me as an anon, dropping phoney hypocritical 'warning' templates on my talk page, and explaining guidelines he doesn't really understand was extremely irritating. Based on my own experience he is obviously not an editor who is fit to make advanced content decisions, I would normally have kept a thought like that to myself as it is quite impolite and it's not as if he's going to take me seriously, but I had no incentive to build a relationship with him by that stage and I found his petty, repetitive ritualistic personality so annoying that I didn't care. I realise my comments will be taken as unnecessarily uncivil by some, but I actually don't think 'civility' is the be all and end all of behaviour, this is an encyclopedia, he was making it difficult to improve it and he was frankly trying to bully me because I was an anon. He combines edit-warring and policing of behaviour, does the latter when he is involved, hypocritically, without any awareness of the issue; he responded to my concerns about his 'warnings' by dropping another 'warning' template on my talk page, he then deleted a comment I made on the article talk page on the grounds that I had been rude to him and 'closed' the discussion; and now he shows up here pretending to be the straight-playing mature actor. One of you can explain the issues with his approach if you like, but I doubt it would be worth earning his enmity, just please file this down mentally in case he every tries for 'promotion'. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You are indeed correct, so far as the insertion of the term "proto-fascism" is concerned, as the sources did not so much as mention it. However, you have embellished certain aspects of this dispute, such as Czello's alleged administrative aspirations, disrespect towards you for being an I.P. editor and the extent to the value of civility. Had you not lobbed incessant insults at Czello, this would not have been brought up here and your sound reasoning on the article talk page would have stood. You weren't just tort with Czello; you took a series of unnecessary jabs that violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which is a policy and not a mere essay. You're obviously a good contributor, so I won't ask anything of you, other than perhaps keeping focused on the content dispute and not on amateur hour insults. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I explained the 'jabs' & I understand that not everyone will like them, but do you seriously think he would have reverted any of these changes if I weren't editing as an IP? I mean, it's counter-factual obviously, but when you edit as an IP for enough time you get a sense of when that's affecting someone's behaviour towards you. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

when you edit as an IP for enough time you get a sense of when that's affecting someone's behaviour towards you No, long-term editing as an IP does not grant superhuman powers that allow you to "know" the motivations of another editor. That is textbook bad-faith assumption. Grandpallama (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh gie's peace, I didn't either mention either knowledge or motivation. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This reading is, of course, very one-sided. I won't get into the nuances of the content dispute again, except to say that 1) During the talk page discussion I happily conceded that the first source was wrong (the IP neglects to mention that the "proto-fascist" label actually had two other sources attached to it, which they failed to address) and therefore could change, and I'm glad we found a good compromise for it; 2) contrary to what they say, I explained in careful detail how BRD and QUO work, but it is they who seems to have misunderstood them entirely to continue edit warring; 3) I find it rather ironic they accuses me of wanting to get the last word when I directly asked them to WP:DROPIT more than once, and so when they didn't I hatted the discussion to do it for them, which they undid (even though the discussion had ended). Furthermore, in their attempt to get the last word they even restored his uncivil comments, which I think demonstrates their rather poor attitude in this situation.

This could have ended very easily once the content dispute was over, but instead this IP seems insistent on wanting to WP:WIN the argument and engage in personal attacks. I really wish the'd have just let it end when we achieved a consensus, but they seems intent on continuing a pretty useless argument. — Czello 20:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Czello I'm not aware that the person behind the IP above has specified any gender preference. Please do not place emphasis on an editor while seeming to presume their gender. If they have indicated a gender preference, I apologise. Canterbury Tail talk 20:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair, changed to they/their — Czello 20:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense being spammed across multiple pages by User:Bubwater

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

I'm really a bit confused here, I'm not sure if this is intentional vandalism, CIR issues, or something else. They seem to be adding some story involving NFTs, scams, and harry potter (that I haven't quite worked out yet due to it being a bit incoherent) to every article they can find. Quick selection of diffs: Special:Diff/1024012470, Special:Diff/1024015815, Special:Diff/1024014668, etc. I think I've reverted all of it, but some help here regarding what the right course of action going forward for this user might be would be appreciated. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It is pretty incoherent, but going through the (actually quite long!) edit history, this looks like a near-SPA who edits about artist Hajime Sorayama and his legal dealings in the united states, particularly as regards to a company and website that seems to sell Sorayama prints in the US, "Artspace Company Y" / sorayama.net It looks to me like another company has been selling some Sorayama related NFT items in the US and there is some feuding between this new company and Artspace Company Y. I think it is a likely WP:COI with a side helping of CIR. - MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked this editor. I think 12 years of obsessive disruption is enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive user: Frank042316

Edit war created at: University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Continues to post information he originally posted in November 2019, even without a Talk consensus. Seems like Edit wars are something he engages in normally as he has been warned on his talk page before.