Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EEng (talk | contribs) at 13:51, 26 July 2021 (→"White-supremacist" term: a request for clarification: please preview before saving, and use any issues as learning opportunities, thereby saving others from having to fix things for you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

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

    Start a new discussion

    User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring

    (non-admin closure) No administrative actions are called for after 2 weeks of discussion, though Johnpacklambert should note there are legitimate concerns with some of his actions regarding categorizations. There is some sense that a discussion at WT:CFD could better establish when it is inappropriate to move articles out of categories that are (or will soon be) discussed at that forum. The issue with the 1431 establishments in Ukraine category is a red herring; consensus found that the one entry in the category was not established in 1431, and that (and not Johnpacklambert's actions) is why the category was deleted. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Johnpacklambert has nominated dozens of categories for deletion and merge. Before the nominations are closed, has started emptying some of them without any notice. When challenged, he refused to honour WP:BRD.

    There is no reason to remove these articles from the nominated categories during the merge discussion. If the proposal is accepted, then they would be removed as a matter of course. But if it is rejected, then these categories have been wrongfully removed. In my opinion he is doing so to stack the merge proposal by making it look like these categories are empty and unneeded. Perhaps he is also so sure that his rationale about the definition of “establishment” is the only possible correct view that he doesn’t need to wait for consensus to proceed.

    In several of his nominations I have provided alternative valid rationales for inclusion of places in “establishment by country” categories, and on his talk page (User talk:Johnpacklambert#Historical categories by period) suggested that a central discussion is needed to establish a guideline for these scores or hundreds of changes, but he has refused to accept my arguments, and refused to start a broader discussion on the category framework.

    As remedy, I suggest he revert all of his category changes under all of his nominations, including ones I may not have found, and make a note of this in each relevant discussion. The category discussions should remain open for a reasonable period afterwards. Perhaps discussion participants should be notified. —Michael Z. 23:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The relevant categories fall under discretionary sanctions per WP:AC/DS (Eastern Europe), and the user has been alerted.[13] —Michael Z. 23:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was reading the discussion as it developed. From what I could tell Mzajsc and few othwr people repeatedly copy and pasted the same (or extremely similar) bad faithed acusations that the whole thing was (is) due to imperalism/colonialism, instead of engaging the counter points other people (not just JPL) were making. So I highly doubt any resonable admin would close the duscussions in Mzajac's direction.
    Also, at one point JPL said someone (not him) had emptied out one of the catogries. So there should really be more of an investigation into who actually did what before the finger pointing/reverting takes place. Especially if he was just "following the crowd." Not that I think something being removed from a category matters that much during a discussion though. Who ever did it. Just like AfDs don't suddenly become invalid or are people normally chastized (let alone reported to ANI) if someone edits an article during one. Adamant1 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1: without comment on the detail of this case, I'd note that this seems more akin to someone blanking an article undergoing AfD, that would probably be viewed as rather more problematic. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the case, going by what Liz said it sounds like there is precedent to remove links from categories that are going through a CfD. There's zero precedent to blank pages that are going through AfD. That doesn't mean I personally agree that the links should be removed, but I don't think it's worth sanctioning JPL over since it's already going on either. There should really be a broader discussion about it at WT:CFD instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it reasonable to ask JPL to undo his revert-revert? Or am I just wasting everyone’s time at ANI when I could just push him to 3RR? Asking sincerely, since I tried to follow the advice at WP:WAR by coming here. —Michael Z. 02:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1: That is false. Please back up your accusation with evidence, if you expect anyone to take it as in good faith. —Michael Z. 16:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately it's a massive hassle to provide diffs when phone editing. Especially when they would be in the double digits. That said, the first thing I saw when I opened the link at the top of this complaint was Place Clichy saying "Oppose per Mzajac. In the age of imperialism, which is also the golden age of nationalism...Etc..Etc.." Which they copied and pasted like 9 times, without ever responding to anything JPL was saying. You also opposed the whole thing because "It is eliminating national and social history in favour of colonialism." Plus "it represents an extremely dated colonial WP:POV and WP:BIAS against the national histories of nations." So claims of imperialism, nationalism, and colonialism were being tossed around a lot and at the expensive of actually engaging in the discussion. Especially with Place Clichy. That was just from a quick glance to. I'm sure there's more, but that's all I feel like contributing. BTW, I wasn't saying that it's a problem that or Place Clichy brought those things up, just that doing so was/is extremely unlikely to result in the categories being kept. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not make bad-faith accusations. So someone else copy-pasted their own comment? I did not do that either (although it doesn’t seem unreasonable when several independent CFDs come off a production line making the same argument). Yes, there are historical (historiographical) views that are represented in current reliable sources, and others that come from the nineteenth century and Wikipedia should absolutely not uphold. —Michael Z. 02:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I copied and pasted your comments. They are bad faithed IMO because a CfD isn't the place to litigate wider historical (historiographical) views. Just like an AfD related to an ethnic minority isn't the place to discuss race relations in America. It's never productive. Also, since JPL was the one that initiated them, by claiming they have anything to do with imperalism/colonialism your associating him with those things. Even if you didn't directly say he was being imperialist. I'm not saying you know that or were intentionally trying to to derail the CfD discussion, just that it wasn't fair to JPL or other people to make the discussion about that. Especially at the cost of discussing the CfDs more directly. That's just my opinion though. It's more feedback on how to be more effective next time then anything else. Which your free to take or leave. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s my point that CFD is the wrong place. But JPL brought it to CFD when he decided to restructure dozens of categories to conform to his view, a change from the existing consensus that had interpreted categories “by country” broadly and variously. JPL declined to start the necessary conversation beforehand, and refused to consider it when I and others pointed out its necessity. He further committed to it by editing affected articles before his CFDs were concluded, and in fact after it was becoming clear that his view is not the consensus (you can read him complaining about opposition on his talk page). The result is likely to be a large random selection of categories changed out of thousands, and the issue no closer to a consensus or even a discussion. —Michael Z. 13:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your really not making any sense. If CfD was the wrong place to discuss colonialism/imperialism then why did you discuss them there? Also, your saying he should have started the necessary conversations when he literally took the categories to "Categories for Discussion." That's what it's there for. To discuss categories. Finally, how did JPL edit the categories after it was clear that "his view" was not consensus when the CfDs aren't concluded yet and even your saying there is no consensus? I just don't get it. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken if you thought I was saying it was okay to empty categories in the middle of a deletion discussion. I was just saying that I'm seeing it happen repeatedly and from CFD regulars. But I complain about it at WP:CFD all of the time. It is irritating because editors spend their time considering the merits of the deletion proposal and emptying out the categories prematurely is a waste of their time. It bypasses the consensus building process. It's one thing if a category has only one page in it or if the category doesn't fit into the existing category structure & is a mistaken creation but to do it on a regular and widespread basis is disruptive. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I miss-read or miss-represented your opinion. To me something is OK to do, as far as not being worth sanctioning any person over, if it's being done by a bunch of people already. Especially if there's no guideline against it. I don't think that means it "should" ultimately be done though and looking over your comment a second time (not on a cell phone) I can see that you weren't saying it was OK to do either. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have no comments about the Johnpacklambert's edits but as someone who regularly deals with empty categories, it's becoming more common for categories to be emptied prior to a CFD decision. I'm not pointing fingers, just pointing at a trend for categories to be emptied prior to a decision of whether to delete, merge or rename categories. It can sometimes be a challenge to determine who is emptying them. It might be a good discussion to happen at WT:CFD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of these entries fit in the category in question. Odessa was part of the area of the Ottoman Empire that as a unit was much further south. It was no more part of any logical Ukraine than anything in Bessarabia. In the case of the places in Austria-Hungary they cannot be placed in a category under the Russian Empire. In the first two cases there is not enough evidence to place them in a specific year. If something clearly does not belong in a category, it can be removed, even if it is the only entry. I even explained in depth about the first two having no evidence that was the year of their founding. There is no coherent way to say any of these things happened in Ukraine in those specific years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first example, the university in Lviv, was founded in what was then Lemberg. Which was in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Ukraine category for that year is a sub category of the Russian Empire category, so we cannot place in it things that clearly happened outside the Russian Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually that was in 1852, so it was in the Austrian Empire. There is no reason to allow categorization to be preserved in a case where it is so clearly wrong. Only a few years before the Polish nationalists in that area had insisted the very idea that there were Ukrainians was a ploy by the Austrian government to kill the asperations of Polish nationalists. National identities are very contested in the 19th century, but in Europe international boundaries at any given time are clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Johnpacklambert, please respect WP:BRD and discuss the specific category changes at the relevant articles’ talk pages, or better yet, wait for your CFD results before making changes. I filed this ANI because you refused to do that, there, and not to re-litigate the subject-specific questions here. —Michael Z. 16:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing in WP:BRD that dictates discussions have to occur on the articles talk pages when there's a dispute, otherwise there couldn't be RfCs or ANI complaints, and JPL was discussing the changes on the relevant CfD talk pages. Which is more then adequate. Or it would have needlessly created duplicate discussions with the same exact people and points being made. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnpacklambert should stop emptying categories he nominated (or plans to nominate) for deletion, as that influences and pre-empts the discussion badly. In many cases, his nominations for "obviously wrong" categories failed to get consensus, as there is serious disagreement about the best way to categorize such establishment by country / region / whatever entries (for JPL and some others, only one view is possible, the "historical" one, and the "current" point of view, that something in "current" country X was established in year Y, is unacceptable and should be eradicated by all means possible: the idea that a lot of readers might be more interested in what was established in what was established Ukraine throughout the ages, year by year, even at times when the country didn't exist, seems to be totally alien or unacceptable to them, as it is "wrong" from their point of view and no other point of view is acceptable). If they are not willing to stop this, I guess another editing restriction is in order. Fram (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember the exact details and I don't feel like bludgeoning, but there was an AfD recently for what was essentially a personal essay written by someone who thought Afghanistan (which was formed in like 1949) should somehow be credited for something done 2,000 years ago by Sumerians, just because it took place in what is now modern day Afghanistan. Not surprisingly the article wasn't kept. If allowed, such articles are a huge slippery slope that can lead to a lot of nationalist type edit warring, arguing, and nonsensical duplication of historical subjects.
    Whatever our personals beliefs about the issue are, it wouldn't be a maintainable, fair way of doing things. Especially when people start wanting to go the other way with it, where Sumerians are supposedly responsible for things currently taking place in Afghanistan because time/ownership are just imperialist/colonialist Western scientific notions and other views are possible, or whatever. At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article. There's zero precedence for it either. Let alone is it worth restricting JBL's editing abilities due to him keeping the slope from being slid down. Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which is hardly comparable to the current issue, i.e. that e.g. the Odessa University, a currently existing, major university in a major city in Ukraine, is removed from the "what things in Ukraine were established in what year" category tree[14] because it wasn't Ukraine in that year, and may only be included in the Category:1865 establishments in the Russian Empire. Now, Johnpacklambert may argue that at CfD (though he could do with turning down the hyperbole about how terrible and stuoid it is to have the "current country" cats as well), but emptying the category at the same time is not allowed. That's the behaviour problem for which a restriction may be needed, the other issue is the way he treats the content issue as if his PoV is the only possibly correct one and the opposite position, which would allow for both categories (one historical, one from the current situation) is an abomination. A tree of what is or would be currently located in country (or US state or whatever), by year of (dis)establishment, is of interest to readers, and informs clearly and succinctly about things that shaped the current country, even if the country didn't exist at all at the time of establishment. The dogmatism that only one tree is valid and the other needs to be erased is highly tiring. Fram (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point. From what I can tell it also lines up with how historical subjects are handled in Wikipedia more broadly. Maybe the Ukraine/Russian Empire thing is (or should be) an exception. I really don't know. Anyway, with your tree thing sure it would be of interest to readers, but what readers find interesting shouldn't come at the cost of accuracy. You can't really have a "current situation" category for things that are in the past. Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period. Just like Spain/Mexico City/Tenochtitlan aren't all the same thing and things related to them shouldn't all be in the same category just because the area that comprises modern day Mexico City switched between them (and likely other groups) multiple times. So what if readers would find it interesting or that there were trees during the Silurian period on the landmass that now makes up the United States? Also, emptying the categories is allowed. Otherwise, can you point to a guideline/RfC/anything that's not an essay that says it isn't? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I don't think it makes much sense to continue this discussion if you try to continue it with ridiculous examples, but without actually adressing the issues (simply "claiming" that it isn't accurate that e.g. the Odessa University is in Ukraine, and was established in 1855 or whetever year it is), and if you claim that something can't be someone's PoV if that position is shared by others as well (???). But to address your final point: the introduction of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion says "Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.". Which is exactly what they are doing, and what is being discussed here. Fram (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it a ridiculous example when fossilized trees from the Silurian period exist on the landmass that the United States currently occupies? It's literally the exact same thing as the University. Just because one is a tree and the other is a building/organization doesn't make the standard we should apply to them any different, or one ridiculous and the other not. I think Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine is a perfectly example of that. There was no Ukraine in 1431. When you do a Google search for "1431 Ukraine" all that comes up is the Wikipedia category. So 100% that's exactly the same as the tree example. If one is ridiculous, then both are and so is the category.
    With the CfDs being depopulated, the guideline says not to do it if doing so will be controversial. if it was clear that the CfDs were likely going to be closed as "not keep" (which seemed to be the case) then IMO it wasn't controversial to depopulate them. Unless I missed it I didn't see Mzajac ask JPL not to depopulate the categories in the CfDs themselves either. The fact that JPL, not Mzajac, brought up someone else doing it makes me think that Mzajac wasn't really that concerned about it at the time either. I'd hardly call one person taking issue with something in an ANI complaint after the fact a controversy. It's pretty clear that JPL is being singled out over it also. Since no one else that has done it is a part of this complaint. Plus, Mzajac went out of their way to specifically call out JPL and say he was doing it "to head off consensus." None of which should be encouraged. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did you get the "which seemed to be the case"? There have been plenty such discussions, and they nearly always are controversial. The issue of depopulating cats under discussion was already brought to their attention in 2011 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 2#Note), 2012 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 3#CfD a,d January 2021 (User talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive 7#Establishment in Taiwan categories) (the latter one makes it abundantly clear that they are aware that these nominations are controversial). And from his current talk page, we have User talk:Johnpacklambert#Russian Empire-categories. As for "ridiculous example", we are talking about the "established in" categories, and you discuss fossilized trees. If you consider that "literally the exact same thing", then our positions on what is reality are too far apart to have a meaningful discussion. Fram (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was talking about in the CfD. I don't think a discussion from 10 years ago on his talk page is that great of an example. With the one in 2021, it looks like what was said is that the categories shouldn't be emptied because it looks "like a sneaky attempt to circumvent the CfD process." In no way does that translate to "hey, maybe you shouldn't be emptying categories because it's controversial." Even if it did, one person saying something on a users talk page doesn't mean what they are saying has wider community support. Plus, you can't say the CfD rules are being broken if the categories were emptied before the CfD. Look at it this way, there's a tree on the landmass that the United States currently occupies. The tree (de)established before the United States was formed. Then there's a university in the Ukraine, that was started before the Ukraine was formed. How are those fundamentally different? If you think they are, cool. IMO figuring this out is fundamental both to if JPL did something or not and how to move forward the CfDs. Just saying they are different and that we can't have a meaningful discussion because of it doesn't help though. Pick a better example. I don't really care. What about Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine when there's literally nothing that connects Ukraine to that date? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to accent my point, it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started. So saying the category should not have been depopulated because of the CfD guidelines is wrong. Since there was no CfD at that point. Also, one of the articles he removed, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine (which was the only example I could find), clearly states that they don't know when the city was founded. So, it clearly shouldn't have been in the category anyway. I have nothing more to add. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Avoiding the "don't depopulate during the CfD" by depopulating right before the CfD is hardly any better, but is a nice example of wikilawyering. And examples of his emptying of cats during the CfDs have been given, e.g. on Odessa University he removed the cat on 23 June[15], 5 days after he has nominated it[16], and at a time when there were already three oppositions to the nomination (so the "didn't know it would be controversial" defense is again shown to be clearly invalid). Also this one, this one, this one... Fram (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point. It happens sometimes. I know I've done AfDs for articles that I edited beforehand because it turned out the sources weren't as solid as I originally thought they were. Specifically with Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine there doesn't have to be anything in the category for people to know that there wasn't such thing as the Ukraine in 1431. So nothing could have been established in the Ukraine at time. It doesn't matter to the CfD what's in the category or not, because it's literally a hoax. None of the keep "voters" ever addressed that fact either. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't know he was going to do the CfD ... 5 days after he started the CfD[17][18]??? Uh, bye, thanks for confirming my first impression that discussing this with you was a total waste of time. Fram (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD. Since that's what we were talking about. Either way, with your first example he said why he removed it in the changeset comment and it seems like a reasonable explanation. Same with the other one. There isn't a known establishment date for the city. Nothing says clear categorization errors can't be fixed while a CfD is going on. None of the edits that I've seen show a clear intent on his part to try and stake the CfD (or whatever claim Mzajac is making) either. Outside of that, I'm not going to litigate every single edit or discussion he's been involved in over the last 10 years just so I can read (IMO) non-existent bad intent into his actions. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD." Such an edit doesn't seem to exist, not in the one article you provided, and not in the other one I provided; both of these were already given in the opening post of this thread, so nothing new there. So it appears that not only did you not provide a single new element, you furthermore made, again and again and again, incorrect claims about these old elements. I hope you were simply mistaken and not trolling, but coupled with the "fossilized trees" attempt above it sure looks that way. Fram (talk) 12:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know we were required to add anything new to ANI complaints aside from our opinions about if action should be taken on them or not. Which I've clearly gone above and beyond. Also, I don't know what "incorrect claims about these old elements" that I've supposedly repeatedly made is in reference to. Outside of that I'm not engaging in this discussion anymore. Since I've said all I need to and it's pretty obvious that your just trying to provoke me. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So the view of some is I shopuld leave in a category articles that either A-were clearly created outside of Ukraine in that year if Ukraine is as our own category structure says it was a sub-units of the Russian Empire, ignoring that the Russian Empire recognized no sub-unit. B- articles that expressly state that the year the subject was established is unknown, so how exactly do we then categorize it in a specific year. There should be no precendent to leave such very clearly wrong categorizations in place just because they happen to be the only one in a specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Liz and Fram have provided sufficiently clear reasoning for why editors should not depopulate categories that they have nominated or plan to nominate for deletion. You don't seem to be engaging with those reasons. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What about things that took place in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth? Just put them in multiple categories or one for "Ukraine" stuff and call it good there? Also, how is it fair to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth or not robbing them of their history to credit stuff they did to the Ukraine just because both were in the same area at different times? Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is not the proper forum for debating the merits of the disputed categories. If a category is problematic, get it fixed or deleted at CfD. If the CfD results in a delete outcome, then the category can easily be removed from all pages at that point. But if consensus does not support such removals, they should not be carried out. In short, JPL needs to get consensus before he blanks the categories. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that in general. The problem is that this ANI complaint is about specific edits. One of which was him removing an article from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine because it doesn't have a known establishment date. I don't see how it can be determined if that was the right action to take or not if we can't discuss categories. Nor is it a given that there needs to be consensus before removing an article for something that doesn't have an establishment date from a category that's about places with establishment dates. There is zero consensus that someone can put whatever they want in establishment date categories and then there has to be a protracted, consensus building discussion to find out if the edit is OK before the articles can be removed. No one is out there asking permission on talk pages to remove irrelevant, off topic entries from categories. Even if it empties the category. A few people complaining about something on a user page doesn't represent the broader consensus of the community either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the angle from which one endeavors to view the situation, the bare fact remains that JPL has been emptying categories shortly before and after he has nominated them for deletion. Moreover, he appears to have disengaged from this thread without acknowledging the substance of the concerns raised by Liz, Fram, and co. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I agree that at the bare minimum JPL should acknowledge that a few people are concerned with him emptying categories. It's not like he's completely ignored that a couple of people think it's a problem though and in the meantime I'd still like to see the broader issue that led to this dealt with. It's not really helpful to the health of the platform (or editors) if everything ends in someone being blocked from editing because a few people took with their edits in an ANI complaint, without more being done to address the root cause of it. Totally, JPL should acknowledge that's it an issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (as participant) It's definitely best practice to leave the articles as is in categories so that other editors can evaluate them themselves in CFD. (I may have occasionally done this myself though when I thought I could save a cat before realizing that was hopeless and then nominating it for deletion.) There have also been a lot of other challenges with these CFD discussions with cutting and pasting, questioning motives, and especially WP:RGW. I don't think these nominations, including my edits, have brought us closer to a consensus about the categories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Conversely, there seems to be mass-populating of categories going on with regards to expatriates. Raised on Lambert's talkpage, to be met with a wall of rambling text. When another query is raised, it's met with this reply. Hopefully every single one of those categories added is supported in the article and they aren't BLP violations. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "A wall of rambling text" that the person he was writing it in response to enthusiastically thanked him for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was that long I gave up before getting that far! I read that reply has humouring Lambert. I may, of course, be wrong. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was raised by Lugnuts just above; is replying "THis is just plain stupidity on your part."[19] really acceptable? It again is a case of Johnpacklambert seeing his interpretation of a term as the only possible one, and rather vehemently denying that other interpretations are possible: but this time it doesn't attack the results, but the person asking a civil, logical question. If this is the stress caused to Johnpacklambert when his categorization edits are challenged, then it may be better to get him removed from discussing categorization. Fram (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of like you telling someone "I hope you were simply mistaken and not trolling" because you don't like their civil, logical questions? "If this is the stress caused to Fram when he's asked questions in ANI, then it may be better to get him removed from ANI discussions." --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can look for my comment in this discussion and judge whether it was a reply to a "civil logical question" or instead to yet another blatantly incorrect statement of fact. But feel free to raise my comment in a separate section or subsection if you think it was problematic: what I said to you doesn't really impact what a third person said to a fourth one. Fram (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How was me posing a hypothetical question about trees that are located in America a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact"? Hypothetical questions don't have correct answers and they aren't facts either. Anyway, what I think is problematic (or really just kind of odd) is that your saying he should be blocked for calling something stupid, an extremely minor thing. When your ignoring him not acknowledging his edits are a problem. Which is something that has consensus is an issue and can actually lead to sanctions. If you want him to be blocked, why not bandwagon around something that actually has a chance of leading to it? "It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "blatantly incorrect statement of fact", as I pointed out in that part of the discussion, was you claiming " it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started.", and in a next post "I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point", and in a third post "Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD.", even when it was pointed out again and again that all edits removing articles from categories were made after the CfD had started. I hope this is finally clear now? Fram (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though. Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." Your the one lacking clarity here because for whatever reason you keep reading non-existent bad intent into the mistake when there was none. Are we finally clear about it now or are you going to keep acting like I miss-read the edit histories on purpose? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have you said that already? I can't find it in the above discussion. Fram (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So he removed Beskydy Tunnel from Category:1886 establishments in Ukraine at 13:28, on 18 June 2021. He also removed Lviv National Agrarian University from Category:1852 establishments in Ukraine at 13:24 on 18 June 2021. The CfD for both wasn't started until 14:00, 18 June 2021. Which was half an hour after he removed the articles from the categories. Those are the edits I was originally talking about. Are we clear now? Next time you repeatedly accuse someone of making "blatantly incorrect statements again and again", maybe at least check first to make sure they are actually incorrect. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So "you were originally talking about" these examples you never gave then, and not about the examples you gave at that time? Furthermore, your claim in your previous post (that you misread the dates and had already said this) is apparently something you made up and now try to ignore? Finally, the Lviv National Agrarian University edit was made at 13.24[20], but the CfD nomination was started at 13.23[21]. In the next 40 minutes or so, he was adding cats to the nomination, and removing articles from the cats at the same time (e.g. the Beskydy edit at 13.28, and the cat nom at 13.29[22]). So, as has been said all this time, he wasn't first removing articles from categories and only then realising that deleting the cats altogether would be better: he was removing some articles from the categories during and after the nominations. As was clear from the very start of this discussion, and is clear from his edit list (here, edits starting at 13.06 on 18 June and ending at 14.01 the same day). Fram (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you continuing to accuse me of trolling and trying to hide the discussion? Weird thing to do if your right and I'm just trolling. Also, it's Interesting that this whole conversation suddenly became off topic and of zero benefit when it turned out you were wrong, not back when you repeatedly trying to instigate and perpetuate things lol. Anyway, I did miss-read the date of one of his edits, which was the example I originally provided you. That doesn't mean it was the only example I had or was going to give you though. I just decided not to provide the other ones because you started accusing me of trolling and I didn't want to feed into your bad faithed baiting. So there was really zero point. Plus, it's not like you couldn't have looked at his edits yourself anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to have been a bit de-railed somewhat. Notwithstanding, there are still some legitimate concerns still to be addressed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I have misgivings about whether this thread should be closed by a non-admin. Furthermore, I object to the claim that the 1431 CfD is a 'red herring'. If I understand correctly, it was JPL who emptied out the category, and the subsequent deletion was based on the emptiness of the category, so it seems that JPL's actions are absolutely the reason why that category was deleted. I urge @力: to reevaluate their close, especially in light of recent comments which suggest the discussion was not over. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you objecting because you think my close is wrong, or because I am not an admin? And I stand by (and will continue to stand by) my statement regarding the 1431 category; it is simply an observation of discussion on other pages. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both. I think this thread was murky enough that it required admin attention. Also, your statement on the 1431 category is incorrect. JPL emptied the category; the category was deleted because it was empty. So yes, that category was deleted because of JPL's actions and it is not at all a 'red herring'. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Catchpoke

    Catchpoke is not to make any edit in any way involving the word "etymology" (or its variants: "etymological", "etymologically", etc.), nor any edit related to word or phrase meanings, denotations, connotations, implications, intimations, or origins, broadly construed. Drmies (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Broken off from another section

    I am unsure if this is relevant, but user:Firejuggler86 made a revert clearly in retaliation of my comment here. Catchpoke (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    These edits by Catchpoke were recently discussed at [23] There's a lot of IDHT involved in bringing it up here. Geogene (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My intent is not to bring up my behavior; my intent is to note user:Firejuggler86's behavior. Catchpoke (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BOOMERANG. EEng 00:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Catchpoke had the poor judgment to inject himself into ANI, I think it's time to find out whether they can show they understand the concerns expressed by other editors at the discussion linked by Geogene. If not, I think a very simply topic ban is in order: Catchpoke is not to make any edit in any way involving the word "etymology" (or its variants: "etymological", "etymologically", etc.), nor any edit related to word or phrase meanings, denotations, connotations, implications, intimations, or origins, broadly construed. EEng 00:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Pedantry against consensus is behavior that needs to be nipped in the bud. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I very much support EEng's suggestion. Catchpoke is on some sort of campaign, based on the sort of "faux precision" typical of non-native speakers, to replace anything about the origin of a name, expression, or anything else; of course "etymology" is a good word, but it has specific connotations of the lexical origin of a word through different languages. Much worse, Catchpoke is edit-warring against the opposing consensus, and engaging in other non-cooperative behavious like user talk page blanking. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I had intended that we observe the ritual waiting period, during which Catchpoke could express some mea culpa, before the tar-and-feathering got underway. EEng 09:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      But the tar will be cold by then. Levivich 12:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And let me guess: we're out of propane. EEng 21:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Been working late, used lots of gas lighting. Levivich 22:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Levivich, I mean it when I say that your wit is close on to Wildean. EEng 06:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." Levivich 13:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Great quote! I'm going to add it to my user page! EEng 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      hypocritesCatchpoke (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I've stopped making section name changes. I've used MOS:SECTIONSTYLE and MOS:NOBACKREF as edit summaries at times which I felt were appropriate. I disagree with user:Imaginatorium's definition of etymology. I consider it to cover all nouns and feel it is the appropriate word to use instead of "Origin of the term" or "Origin of the name". If people disagree, I am willing to reengage at [24]. Catchpoke (talk) 13:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      A little late for that; at this point you'll need to reeengage right here. Let's start with I consider it to cover all nouns and feel it is the appropriate word to use instead of "Origin of the term" or "Origin of the name". Do you recognize that a half-dozen experienced editors have told you that your campaign is inappropriate and disruptive, that at this point it does not matter what you think, and that if you do it again you're going to be blocked? Yes or no? EEng 20:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong and this is also wrong. I will in engage right here. All of the support votes right now are involved editors. I posted a request for an outside opinion at [25]. User:Kwamikagami opines that my behavior is pedantic even when he, User:Veverve, and User:Bermicourt all agree that "etymology" is correct. If you look at WP:RM, article titles are debated for accuracy's sake. A section's title is a "subarticle". Are you saying people who volunteer there are being pedantic? Because if you are, that would be hypocritical. This isn't pedantic, it's a matter of accuracy. "A section headed ==Origin of the term==, in the article Silver Age of Comic Books, does not "redundantly refer back to the subject of the article", as SECTIONSTYLE warns against, because the subject of that article is the Silver Age of Comic Books, not the phrase Silver Age of Comic Books. Now cut it out.": understood.Catchpoke (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not agree that 'etymology' is correct. At best it would seem to be pushing it. Words mean what they're used to mean, and AFAICT 'etymology' is not used for this meaning. I might change my mind if you were to provide evidence that the word "etymology" is commonly used for the history of proper names that are transparent phrases. (As far as I can see, you haven't provided any evidence. Correct me if I missed something.) But your claim that "etymology" should be used because it's "correct" is specious even if it is correct: "the origin of the name" is *also* correct. So this wouldn't be a matter of correcting an error, but of a stylistic preference. Even if 'etymology' is used as you claim it is, I suspect that most readers will find "the origin of the name" to be a more legible way of presenting the article. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are being pedantic. Gaslighting linked above uses "etymology". Both uses are correct. "Etymology" is correct and is a style issue. This should be discussed on WP:MOS so that we can standardize section names. Sorry for the trouble I've caused.Catchpoke (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite my fundamentally vicious and unforgiving nature, I'm actually feeling a bit sorry for you because I can see that you're really trying to contribute and don't get at all why this is happening. I earnestly hope you can find other areas ways to contribute to the project, and a year from now you'll understand what we've failed to make you understand over these past few days. I mean it when I say: good luck. EEng 04:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose three month restriction to articles containing the word entomology if consensus be reached. Otherwise...
    — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 17:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's where I either wait three days then say <sound of crickets>, or I point out that the entomology article opens with an etymology – Entomology (from Ancient Greek ἔντομον (entomon) 'insect', and -λογία (-logia) 'study of') – so I fear we'd be right back in the same boat. EEng 20:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, then, my final suggestion is eschatology. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 05:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When hell freezes over. EEng 21:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It did for Usenet fora, leaving a frozen lake of spam. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 04:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To paraphrase an aphorism, consensus is the worst possible way to build an encyclopedia, with the exception of all the other possibilities. Both approaches here seem reasonable to me, so I will go with consensus, and those who at least pay some sort of attention thereto. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, for now, they may. But I don't need to tell you a universal united union of uniformity and unapartment is on the horizon. We all see it coming already, together. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unapartment doesn't appear to be a word, which seems a shame, actually. EEng 18:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence my edit summary. Literally, deal with it. You, the reader! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I remain unable to digest your Inedible post. EEng 04:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Actually Catchpoke has misunderstood me in suggesting I unequivocally support his view. What I said (at Talk:Weser Renaissance was that "I'm inclined to agree given the definition of the etymology of a word (and surely by extension, a phrase) is 'its origin and development throughout history'". However, that was only an initial tentative conclusion prior to hearing the other side of the argument from the other editor involved (Johnbod as it happens). I'm more than happy to go with the consensus and I also agree that, unfortunately, the sanction proposed is needed in view of Catchpoke's apparent reluctance to engage constructively and accept the community consensus. Bermicourt (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per a pretty stark showing of disruption and inability to accept consensus. With due respect to IndelibleHulk's observations here, having an established consensus-based process here that cannot be simply short-circuited by one party by mere virtue of unwavering obstinance is far more important to "getting it right" across more articles than is the outcome of any one narrow, heavily pedantic debate about the best editorial approach to one descriptive/empirical term. This is clearly a WP:CIR call: editors who cannot WP:DROPTHESTICK in these kinds of circumstances will (almost invariably) consume increasingly an ever-larger proportion of time from the community, relative to the value of work hours implicit in their direct contributions. Snow let's rap 10:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from anything related to the topic of etymology broadly construed. I feel this is their best chance to remain on the project. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright then. Next time y'all just ping me on WP:ANI 2.0, OK? Drmies (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Chronic violations of MOS:COLOUR by User:Kannweame7961

    I recently encountered Kannweame7961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) creating a series of articles titled Country Name at major beauty pageants (all of which are linked on {{Countries at major beauty pageants}}, the tables of which violated the colour section of MOS:ACCESS. I discussed these with Firefly and changed Angola at major beauty pageants to a MOS compliant format. I then dropped a note to them at their talkpage (User talk:Kannweame7961#Country Name at major beauty pageants formatting) about the issue in the hope this would solve it. Unfortunately enough they haven't responded and have continued creating these articles, as well as reverting the changes on several of them. While I hoped to avoid having to make this formal the rate at which they are creating these means I can't fix them quickly enough. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 08:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Why does this sound familiar? Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure, except that tables violating MOS:COLOUR are probably more common than tables which don't -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 13:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The colour choice is a bit yucky (to use a technical term) too ...i am placing a few {{Overcoloured}} guiding notices on top of some of the articles today, hope that is ok. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Canterbury Tail, anyone specific in mind? I'll tell you already that I could not find anything, though I thought I saw a possible candidate in one of the articles. Asartea, thank you for reporting this and bringing this very important issue to this board--it is a good thing if more people start thinking about this. I propose that this post, following previous warnings and concerns, serve as a final warning to User:Kannweame7961, who seems loath to engage in discussion. The next violation of our accessibility guidelines should be met with a block. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I just could have sworn we had a thread in the last year or so on country colours in beauty pageants. Canterbury Tail talk 16:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) I don't remember that specific discussion, but I've come across any number of {{overcolored}} violations in things like reality shows, election results and genealogies (a non-exhaustive list) which hurt my eyes (and I have perfect colour vision). They need to be stamped on, very hard indeed, especially for the benefit of readers who don't have perfect colour vision. If I want to see what an explosion in a paint factory looks like, I'll try YouTube. Narky Blert (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on Belize at major beauty pageants it seems that Kannweame7961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has headed the messages and is now creating MOS:COLOUR compliant versions of the tables. Therefore I'd like to propose closing this thread as no action taken, but making it clear to Kannweame7961 that this is a final warning and further violations may be met with a block. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: it would also be appreciated if they could clean up the pages using the old colour scheme. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 16:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, I know I'm getting to be a broken record on this, but why oh why do we host such pointless compilations as Belize at major beauty pageants, complete with small-type disclaimer reading
      The criteria for the Big Four inclusion is based on specific standards such as the pageants global prominence and prestige approved by worldwide media, the quality and quantity of crowned delegates recognized by international franchisees and pageant aficionados, the winner's post pageant activities; the pageants longevity, consistency, and history; the sincerity of the pageant's specific cause, platform, and advocacy; the overall pre-pageant activities, production quality and global telecast; the enormity of internet traffic; and the extent of popularity amongst pageant fans across the globe.
    –? See Category:Nations_at_beauty_pageants. It's just absurd. There seems to be a knot of editors whose hobby is maintaining these endless lists no one looks at (complete with notes about who got "dethroned"), and the rest of us are roped into their battles over table colors and whatnot. I really feel that volunteer time is being wasted in the service of promoting the beauty-pageant industry, much the same way so much editor time has been hijacked for the refereeing of disputes over an elaborate walled garden of in-universe pro-wrestling storytelling. EEng 17:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean if you want to AFD these I won't stop you (I'm personally not convinced of their use either), but as long as we have them we should ensure they remain complaint with our accessibility guidelines. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 17:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What I want is for pretty much all beauty pageant coverage sunk to the bottom of the sea. EEng 05:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as usual Eeng, I'm not sure if you are being stylistically hyperbolic or sincere, but let's not try to shoot the moon here when I think your initial comments merit serious consideration: I think you are probably right that these particular 'Country X at Beauty Pageants' articles almost certainly violate WP:NOT along numerous parallel lines of the policy (WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE at the least as well as more basic arguments regarding a very WP:SYNTH-based approach to WP:NOTABILITY. WP:NOT makes it clear that these kinds of bare bones stat tracking pages (which do not features as a WP:NOTABLE topic of independent discussion in WP:RELIABLE, independent and WP:SECONDARY sources) are not appropriate for the encyclopedia, but we would have to come to that conclusion anyway, even if not for that short-hand rule, since the lack of non-superficial detail covered in sources raises problems with meeting the burdens of pillar policies.
    So by all means, let's not discount the possibility of dumping these articles in their entirety. With respect to Asartea's observation, we might as well start with the more basic existential questions about the articles before we nit-pick details. If a community discussion holds that we should not have the articles in the first place, it will save a lot of time on protracted style disputes, such as whether the colours being used in these charts are garish--or more to the point of our purposes here, whether they problematically fail to align with standard community consensus (limited as it is) with regard to the pragmatics of colour design. Of course, the answer to both is surely an unqualified "yes--they are and do." It seems like there probably are some dedicated contributors with a lot invested in these articles who will make every effort to oppose this clean-up, earnestly believing these articles make all the sense in the world for Wikipedia, but we've pushed back against these kind of fan culture myopic article sprawl before in recent years, with topics like Dungeons and Dragons and professional wrestling. We can do it again here, if consensus among general non-involved editors suggests it is advisable. But you'll want to host the main discussion in the only appropriate space given the breadth of articles and need for a high level of community engagement: WP:VPP. Snow let's rap 09:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm moderately hostile to the numbing meaninglessness of beauty pageant coverage, what you see above was to a large extent spillover from my very real belief that most pro wrestling coverage should be eliminated, because most of what masquerages as sources is, in fact, in-universe kayfabe, and WP has been hijacked as an extension of that. EEng 22:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wanted to add EEng that I have some sympathy. The creeping "Wikia/Fandom" side to certain corners of Wikipedia has been something I've passed comment on before, but it's not that easy to deal with I suspect without causing a very messy discussion page. I will say that the beauty pagent wikigophers are perhaps less useful to the wider community than, say, the airport destination gophers, so let's try to tackle one fringe editor faction at a time! doktorb wordsdeeds 22:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Next time. For now let's just kill all the lawyers. EEng 01:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng, when I grow up, I wanna be a LAWLyer just like you... El_C 00:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Belize at major beauty pageants tagged for deletion. JBchrch talk 01:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Trolling by User:Adamant1

    Can some uninvolved people pleasego through the above interactions between myself and User:Adamant1 (in the thread "User: Johnpacklambert emptying categories prematurely; edit warring"), and see whether my feeling that all they are doing is simply trolling is correct or not? I'm way beyond the end of my patience. It started with my edit of 16:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC), and I hoped it would have finished with Adamant1s edit from 13:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC) where they seemed to say that they would disengage from the discussion.[reply]

    However, when I today posted (08:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)), Adamant1 continued where they stopped the last time. Basically, they simply make up stuff to be able to contradict, and when challenged on this move on to another made-up thing, with some other bizarre asides thrown in for good measure. Diffs are no use to illustrate this, the best thing is to read thowe two subsections to get an idea of the discussion.

    Please just make them stop and hat the two sections which do nothing to help the discussion forward. Fram (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A few things,

    1. I didn't continue the back and forth. Nor did I start it. Fram did by responding to me on 1676_establishments_in_Ukraine when I asked Michael Z where they got their population numbers from after I said I was done talking to him. He did the same thing on the ANI board, where he originally started the discussion by responding to something I said to someone else. He was also repeatedly critical of my messages in the same discussions. Otherwise, I wouldn't have continued talking to him. It's rather weird to repeatedly start and continue conversations with someone, even after they say their done, and then blame them for it.

    2. He was pretty disparaging from the start about my participation in the ANI complaint and the other conversations related to it. He accused me of trolling (including "incessant trolling" on my talk page) and lying multiple times. Without providing any evidence of either. He also said a lot of rather uncivil combative things when I was making a good faith effort to figure out what his problem was. Like "discussing it with me was a total waste of time", "our positions on what is reality are too far apart to have a meaningful discussion," "Acknowledging such errors would really make these discussions with you easier," "If you would start by reading what people are actually writing, and not what you think happened or was said, we may get some progress." None of that is civil or good faithed.

    3. Fram say's that I'm repeatedly making stuff up and then moving on to other things. Since he didn't provide an example I assume it's in reference to me saying that JPL removed articles from the categories before he started the CfDs. Which I provided him examples of. Instead of accepting them, he just hid the discussion, continued accusing me of trolling, and opened this report when I unhid the discussion. Probably because he was trying to hide him being wrong and the evidence that JPL didn't remove the categories after he created the CfDs.

    4. I would have liked it if Fram had of stopped accusing me of trolling and inserting themselves in conversations I was having with other people. If they had of, the conversation they are now taking issue with wouldn't have occurred. It did because Fram continued it. Also, I don't think the two sections should be hidden because they contain examples of JPL removing the categories before he did the CfDs. which IMO are important to the ANI complaint. Overall, I think I've been pretty civil about the whole thing. I sure don't see anything "trollish" about my behavior. Let alone incessantly so. I was just giving my opinion about why I thought JPL shouldn't be blocked from editing. Which for whatever reason was responded to by Fram with uncivility. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't plan on responding to your continually-edited post, but "He did the same thing on the ANI board, where he originally started the discussion by responding to something I said to someone else."? Diff please. My first post to the JPL discussion was this, a reply to the opening post, not to you. Then followed your reply, and a back-and-forth. I then stopped posting to the thread, until this morning, when I posted this, which again is not a reply to you or about you at all. You then again started responding, and eventually here we are. Your claim should be easy to support with a diff of what you mean, or easy to retract if it is a mistake. Fram (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "My first post to the JPL discussion was a reply to the opening post, not to you" My post below that (which you responded to) was in general and had nothing particular to do with you or what you said. I just didn't indent it probably. Something that for some dumb reason I routinely have issues with. That's why I said "Whatever our personals beliefs about the issue are", instead of "whatever Fram's personal beliefs are." I was talking about the wider participates of the complaint, including myself. I guess your included in that, but it wasn't directed at you or your comment above it. Otherwise, I would have said so. I can see why you'd think it was though since I screwed up the indent. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving aside the dubious claim that their reply to my first post wasn't actually a reply, we can at least agree that, contrary to #1 above, I didn't start at ANI by responding to "what you said to someone else" (which now turns out to have been a "general" post to no one in particular apparently). so let's move on to claim #2: "without providing any evidence of either" (i.e. of trolling or lying).
    Their first reply to me (sorry, comment to someone else) was a post about some unnamed, unlinked AfD about some essay that got deleted. It then turned into claims that using my reasoning, "At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article.".[30]. I tried to get the discussion back on topic[31], only to be replied to with another ridiculous example[32] ("Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period."), and other elements that didn't make sense at all ("I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point."???)
    Adamant then started their claims that there was no problem with JPL's removing of articles from categories at CfD: at first[33] because "if it was clear that the CfDs were likely going to be closed as "not keep" (which seemed to be the case) then IMO it wasn't controversial to depopulate them." I pointed out that such CfDs often have been controversial, that JPL knew this, and that he had been informed about the issues, both long ago and very recently[34].
    Adamant's then changed tack, and started to claim that "Plus, you can't say the CfD rules are being broken if the categories were emptied before the CfD." They repeated that point in another post soon after[35]: "it appears that JPL removed articles from Category:1431 establishments in Ukraine before the CfD was started.", coupled with "one of the articles he removed, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine (which was the only example I could find)"... Now, Khmelnytskyi, which was already posted in the opening post of the thread, was removed from the cat on 23 June[36], while the CfD was started on 18 June. So the only example "they could find" was completely incorrect. When I pointed out, with examples, that the depopulations were done after the CfD started, the reply was "I'm assuming good faith that he didn't know he was going to do the CfD at that point.", another example of trolling.
    I replied with "He didn't know he was going to do the CfD ... 5 days after he started the CfD???" again with diffs, but Adamant replied "Obviously I was talking about the edit made before he started the CfD." As it had now been pointed out repeatedly that no such edit existed, I had to conclude that I was dealing with either someone lacking the necessary competence to even look at diffs, never mind have an ANI discussion about them, or someone who was trolling. The evidence pointed strongly in the second direction. When their incorrect claims were pointed out, they suddenly changed to "Also, I don't know what "incorrect claims about these old elements" that I've supposedly repeatedly made is in reference to." as if that wasn't clear.
    The discussion one week later simply continued in the same vein, with Adamant changing their story multiple times, and providing examples which turned out to contradict his own claims. So yes, I fully stand by my claims that they are trolling and were making up things along the way. But contrary to what they claim, I provided evidence for this all along the way. Which also refutes their point 3, of course. They haven't provided a single example of JPL emptying categories, and only later deciding to CfD them. Their first examples were of category removals five days after the CfD started: their latest examples were of category removals during the time he created the CfD (literally). Inbetween, they claimed "Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." " but when asked to provide the diff of where they did this, they changed the subject, probably because no such edit existed. Fram (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was nothing dubious about the claim that I screwed up the indenting of my comment. I do it all the time. If you want other examples I just did a similar thing in this diff from awhile ago. Same here and here. This diff where I over indented it. This diff where I under indented. There's also this diff where I did the same thing. I also did it in this diff. Etc. Etc. That's just in the last week or two. Your really looking for things to have an issue with. Your probably going to just hide this message, call it trolling, and then claim in your next message that I never provided any evidence like you did before. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the contents of that first reply, yes, it seems very obvious that it was a reply to me (I start about content, you reply about content: I finish with a call for a sanction, your reply ends while addressing that point). Looking at your many other claims which turned out to be false, I have no reason to believe you own your word on this one. In either case, it shows that your point 1 was wrong. As were points 2, 3 and 4. Fram (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by "content" (every message is content and most of what everyone was saying had to with it), but the whole point in an ANI complaint is to decide if someone should be sanctioned for their behavior or not. I don't see how me bringing up something that is literally the point in the ANI complaint shows I was responding to you. Like five messages above that I said I didn't think it was worth sanctioning JPL and it had nothing to do with you. So can you point to anything I said that was directly responding to your message and not just a couple of vaguely related words that we both used? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Content" as different from, or in addition to, just "timing", "placement", "indentation". You acted as if only the indentation of your post was an indication of it being a reply to me, so I discussed its contents. No idea what's so hard to understand about this. Anyway, any news on your claim from 11:33, 19 July 2021 about that other mistake, "as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. "? Any post from before that time were you had actually said this? Fram (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes sense now. It's still not evidence of anything, but whatever. So you can't provide an example of anything I said that was directly responding to your message then? And here I thought you were all about diffs or it's just a false claim. Yet, weirdly you really haven't provided that many (if any). Let alone to show my message was responding to yours. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your whole message was a direct reply to my post, which you deny. What other diff can be presented for this than the one for your post[37][38]? (a diff I already presented among the many posted above, which you apparently all missed?) I read this, due to the indentation and content, as a reply to my post, you deny this. In any case, it clearly indicates that your claim that my first post to the discussion was a reply to you, was false, as my first post was the one to which you "seemed to" reply. Meanwhile, you still haven't given an answer to support your claim from 11.33 from 19 July. Fram (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to close. Is this back and forth going anywhere? This is a discussion about a discussion on ANI? How about both sides stop discussing and back off?--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a discussion about editor behaviour, with one side making one false claim after another, interspersed with alot of ridiculous or baffling statements. Their "defense" so far has been shown to be of the same calibre, and I'm trying to get them to respond to another claim they made which should be very easy to substantiate (or to simply admit that it was wrong), but where three requests so far have not produced any result. Of course you or anyone are free to close it, but I don't believe that letting people state whatever falsehoods they like in discussions is in any way acceptable or productive, and editors should be held accountable for such things. Closing this down simply because they try to wriggle out of it all the time and no one else is willing to wade into this is a rather sad state of affairs. The basis for discussions (at ANI and elsewhere) should be that we can trust each other to tell the truth (with occasional mistakes, but not with multiple endlessly repeated falsehoods) and that we can try to resolve differences of opinion on that basis. With this editor, that trust is completely lacking, as they seem much more interested in trolling again, and again, and again. I see here that they got a two week block late last year for "bludgeoning, condescending, talking down to people, misconstruing and misrepresenting comments, and so forth". Only a few weeks ago, multiple editors were calling for an "indef and move on" block for Adamant1[39] for continuation of the same behaviour. Fram (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A call for an "indef and move on" that went nowhere because the majority of the people who commented thought the complaint was either completely meritless or didn't warrant a block. So what's your point? From my perspective the basis for discussions (at ANI and elsewhere) should be that we will assume good faith and take people at their word when they say who their messages are written to, or editors who are unwilling to should be held accountable for such things. From my side I've been more then willing to explain my actions and provided evidence for everything you accused me of. You've just been unwilling to assume good faith and accept my explanations. Instead, you keep baselessly repeating that I'm trying to "wriggle out of it all" and you keep wrongly saying I'm endlessly repeating falsehoods. Despite that, I'm more then willing to call this a wash if you are. I highly doubt anyone wants this to continue. Why not humor them? -Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, coupled with all other falsehoods, "mistakes", and ridiculous asides they proclaimed, I've now three times asked them to substantiate one simple thing they claimed, that what I claimed was a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact" was in fact Adamant1 misreading things, which they had already said at the time I repeated my claims.[40] I asked them then to provide a diff of where they did this, and did so in this discussion again two times. Either they indeed did this, but I kept on banging on about it, in which case providing evidence of it would be a very good thing for them to do and would seriously weaken all my claims. Or they made another mistake, but they have had plenty of time to acknowledge this by now. Or, as was clear a long time ago, they are simply trolling. Despite this, they claim right above that they "provided evidence for everything you accused me of." An editor who makes up such stuff is not an editor we can trust, and not an editor I think we should keep around. Fram (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Lets see, so far you've been wrong that I lied about JPL removing articles from the categories before he did the CfDs and you were wrong that my message was in response to yours. Not only that, but you've continued calling me a liar about both even after it was clear that you were wrong. Instead of just admitting that you were wrong. An editor who does such stuff is not an editor we can trust, and not an editor I think we should keep around. Or, you could can just take the L since your currently 1 to 2 and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: indef block Adamant1

    They were blocked for 2 weeks last year, and narrowly escaped another block just weeks ago. They are now constantly trolling (see above). Enough is enough, this isn't an editor we need to keep around any longer. Please read the above and the previous two ANI discussions about them. Without trust, we can't build a collaborative encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Originally, you asked someone to read through the discussion and give their opinion about if I was trolling or not. Dumuzid did and wrote me a message on my talk page that I wasn't trolling. Yet, you've ignored it and are continuing to accuse me of constantly trolling and your trying to get me blocked for something I didn't even do. How exactly is that a way to build a collaborative encyclopedia? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I have been invoked, I figure I had better chime in. I wrote on your talk page, Adamant1, because I wanted to offer advice rather than weigh in on an AN/I matter. I take no position on this proposal, but I will say even with my assumption of good faith, there is a lot of tendentious editing and bludgeoning here. If you are not blocked, I would again advise you to try to be a bit more succinct and that not every slight--imagined or otherwise--demands an elaborate response. As ever, just the way I see things, and you are more than welcome to disregard. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for chimming in and the advice. It's always welcome when given in good faith. I've been a lot more succient in this complaint then past ones and its something I plan on continuing to work on. Reminders in the meantime don't hurt though. Cheers. Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (see above) - The above thread in turn points to another long thread, which points to various other threads. Proposing an indef based on such a "see above" seems like a big ask that would make it hard for people to evaluate without having already been involved. Is it clear-cut enough that there are specific diffs of trolling? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW this may or may not be relevant (I think it may be, looking through some of this, so I'm just going to leave it here in case anyone finds it useful). I remember some years ago talking with DGG about heated discussions on Wikipedia in general. He said -- and I think he won't mind my paraphrasing here -- that he really tries to set a hard two-reply limit for himself in any particular thread. That way he thinks more about those replies and doesn't get dragged into a long, fruitless, and perhaps escalating back-and-forth. While I don't personally keep a number in mind, it's something I remember when I ask myself "do I really need to reply again." Jury's out whether I'm successful :) but I found it to be a simple and interesting approach to a common challenge. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try, but it is more of an accumulation of stuff than one or two very clear diffs.
    • Ridiculous comparisons: in a discussion about whether e.g. Odessa University may be in a category for establishments in Ukraine in 1685, they posted this as a reply: "Category:Trees of the United States (dis)establishment during the Silurian period or whatever just wouldn't make sense because the United States wasn't around during the Silurian period." A previous reply already included "At that point the big bang/god/Neanderthals should be mentioned in every article."
    • Making false claims: they repeatedly claimed that JohnPackLambert had removed categories from articles before nominating these for CfD (instead of during the CfD), e.g. here, here, here and here (another good example of a trolling post as well). Each time, I pointed out that no such edits were made, that even in the example Adamant1 provided, the category removal in the article was done 5 days after the CfD started (and when multiple people had already opposed it), but then suddenly they didn't understand what I was talking about[41]
    • When the discussion restarted 6 days later, I confronted him with the above false statements, only to again be met with a lack of understanding what I meant[42]
    • He then suddenly changed direction, and claimed that they had already acknowledged their mistake[43]: "It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though. Since as I've already said I miss read the dates of the edit and CfD. Accidentally Miss-reading something isn't a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact." " Fine, it shouldn't be too hard to provide a diff of where this happened then, surely? But despite four requests so far, no diff of where this happened has been provided.
    This is just a summary of some points, there are other examples (e.g. when I talk about the POV of JohnPackLambert, the reply I get starts with "First of all, I fail to see how it's JPLs PoV when he wasn't the only one in the CfDs with that view point." Apparently, when there are others with the same PoV, it is no longer correct somehow to call this the POV of the one that started the CfD?) It's all these small and larger issues which make having a meaningful discussion impossible. Fram (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With your first point, in hindsight I probably could have used a better example. I'd hardly call it trolling though. With your second, I provided the date and times of when JPL made the edits and they were done half an hour before he started the CfDs. So in no way was that trolling or making false claims. It's ridiculous that you keep saying it was. On your third, I'm pretty sure I had already said I miss-read the date of one of his edits. Maybe I said it to someone else though. I don't have the time or urge to look through a weeks worth of messages to figure it out. Someone forgetting what they said or who they said it to isn't trolling anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For people reading this, just look at this diff[44] and the two edits preceding it (included in the diff). First post is Adamant1 stating or pretending that "How was me posing a hypothetical question about trees that are located in America a "blatantly incorrect statement of fact"?" I then explained again that the incorrect statements were about the dates of JPL's edits, not about that tree thing. The reply (see diff): "It's been clear this whole time. At least it has been for me. Apparently it's not clear on your side though.", and then followed the claim which they now can't remember any details about and is unwilling to look for. Despite claiming in this very section "From my side I've been more then willing to explain my actions and provided evidence for everything you accused me of." And all that isn't trolling? Fram (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it isn't trolling, but if not then it's very definitely a case of WP:CIR. The fact that this editor comprehensively fails that has been obvious ever since he started editing. Why has everyone let him carry on, despite several trips here? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll admit I'm pretty incompetent about how to indent messages. I have like an 88% success rate on AfDs though. So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower. Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1, no no no you don’t talk to Phil Bridger in that manner, even though you struck it out, you never should have made such statement. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Its wierd how when I provided the details of JPLs edits I was trolling, but if I don't provide the details of something else I'm still trolling. Is there anything that Fram is not going to say is trolling? At this point I really doubt it. And then he wonders why I'm not in a hurry to figure out who I said what to. There's really zero point when its trolling all the way down either way. Adamant1 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support indef ugh. We have a comment thread about trolling (and that you shouldn't be trolling), and Adamant makes this edit, which is pretty obviously trolling. There is absolutely no need for My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower., and I don't want to hear more explanations of how they didn't know it was inappropriate. I would suggest a project-space ban, but Adamant1 doesn't seem to be editing articles either. I don't see any good reason to give them another chance which would just waste more time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on. I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels. Especially when it has nothing to do with the ANI complaint. More so because Phil Bridger is always saying stuff about my edits in AfDs. That said, I struck it out because I probably shouldn't have said it anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have given this advice several times at AN/I, and it has never been followed (somewhat understandably), but I will try again. I think by far the best thing you could do to avoid a sanction at this point is to say "I'm sorry, I understand why what I did is problematic, and I'll do my best to avoid it in the future," and then to completely ignore this thread forevermore. I don't know if I could do it myself, but I genuinely think it's the best course of action. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the comment that I made to Phil Bridger sure. I'm sorry that I said it. I shouldn't have made the comment. Clearly it's problematic to say anything even remotely trolling in an ANI complaint about trolling. I was more then civil up until then though, way more then I have been in the past, and I'm not going to undermine the progress I've made by apologizing for things I didn't do. Whatever the outcome of this I feel like I let myself down with the comment to Phil Bridger though. It was wrong of me to say. I should have just ignored him instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not just look at the facts rather than make such wildly wrong guesses? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger: I couldn't find the link. Why assume incompetence is the reason people are having issues? Its kind of hurtful to be accused of incompetence considering how much time and effort I put into my AfDs votes to make sure they are fair. Adamant1 (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You seemed to be perfectly capable of finding your own AfD stats, but you then go on to say that you can't find mine, which show that I disagree with the outcome less that half as often as you? And it's OK for you to base further discussion on your wild inaccurate guess? Sorry, but that can only be incompetence or trolling. If you have no idea about something then you simply don't talk about it rather than making things up. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone said what my stats were a few weeks ago. That's where I got them from. I know though, everything is trolling. At this point I'm not going to be that surprised if I get blocked considering the bar for what's wrong, trollish behavior is apparently literally anything. Adamant1 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are, as so often, missing the point. You said above, "I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels. Especially when it has nothing to do with the ANI complaint." You were talking about me in the first sentence, and it is a bare-faced lie. You did not know anything about how often my opinions agree with closures, but you chose to base a whole sub-thread on this lie. As for the second sentence, who brought up AfD statistics to start with? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. I thought you were talking about me saying mine was 85% or whatever it is. I never claimed to know what yours is. That's why I said I imagine its low in the crossed out comment. True, you didn't bring up AfDs, but its the only place we have ever interacted and I don't work on much else. So naturally I figured that's what you were saying I lack competence in. No harm, no foul. Adamant1 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1: You never claimed to know what Phil Bridger's AFD correct rate is, yet felt it necessary to insinuate his rate was a lot lower than yours? Why? WP:NPA quite clearly says in the very opening statement of that policy "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." I seriously doubt there is any part of this that is unclear to you, most especially given that three different threads in the last eight months regarding your behavior (November 2020, December 2020, July 2021) concluded that you were out of line in your behavior towards other people. Saying "So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower." is deliberately antagonistic and is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. You are insulting him by way of insinuating he is incompetent. You can either choose to stop attacking and bludgeoning people on this project or you can find yourself not on this project anymore. Great, you struck out the comment. Make comments like this again, stricken or not, and I'm very confident you WILL be banned from this project,* even if this thread doesn't conclude to ban you. It's your choice. Either be nice, or be gone. Full stop. Is there any part of this that is unclear to you? Please acknowledge you read this, even if you have nothing to say in response. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (* - just to be clear, I'm not stating it would be me doing the blocking, but I would be making a strong case why it would be necessary)[reply]
    For the record; Adamant1 responded to my comment by way of thanking the edit [45]. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't normally insert myself into discussions of this kind, but the indef support above had me take a look at your contribs and your habit of continually copy-editing your discussion comments... well, it's certainly something. This alone could justifiably be called disruptive, even if (possibly?) unintentionally so. I don't think your Wikipedia career is necessarily beyond saving yet, and I don't mean to be patronizing – however, if you do get through this, maybe you really should consider taking a second look that obscure article namespace from time to time, instead of getting bogged down in whatever exactly this is. AngryHarpy‍talk 20:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a disability that makes it hard to write messages that don't contain errors. Dealing with that by editing my comments multiple times after the fact probably isn't the best way to deal with it though. I use to copy messages to Word so I could proof read them before posting. I'll probably go to back if I'm not blocked since how I'm doing it now clearly isn't effective. Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That does seem reasonable. If nothing else, you could take it as another reason to keep it a little more concise in the future. AngryHarpy‍talk 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Adamant1: I have a similar problem and sometimes copy paste as well. The typos are maddening. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I note for the record that while making and revising remarks over the course of an hour may cause problems on high-volume administrative pages such as WP:ANI, it is almost always fine and unremarkable when writing non-controversial articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the meantime I deleted my watch list and unsubscribed from notifications. Since I've found it helps on other Wikimedia projects if I'm not getting emails or other notifications about every minutia that's going on. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef per fram they were blocked for incivility for 2 weeks last year and recently dragged to ani few weeks ago for same issues and narrowly survived it, they have been given too many ropes and their behaviour at this report includes WP:BLUDGEONing, incivility and badgering of other users,there has been no improvements.Ratnahastin(t.c) 07:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry I let people know that I'm taking measures to curb the issues. My behavior has been a lot better then what I was blocked for and I'm doing things to make sure it doesn't happen again. In no way is what I'm being reported for this time comparably to my behavior when I was blocked either. People shouldn't get blocked just because of past blocks or reports. Especially if the behavior isn't even on the same level and they are actively taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. Otherwise, it would be a punishment. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm doing things to make sure it doesn't happen again. What things? Levivich 14:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I opted out of notifications and deleted my watch list so I want have an immediate urge to respond to things anything. I'm not going to write important or long messages on my phone anymore either so I can proof read them in word first and send them the second they are written. Also, if I'm not indefed I'm going to request an extended block ( right now I'm thinking six months) so I can have some time to reflect, deal with things IRL that are stressing me out, and work on other projects. When I come back id like to do other things besides just AFDs. Since the toxicity involved in them really gets to me. I had looked into doing article review. Maybe I'll do some of that. Over focusing on AfDs has been to much of a stresser though. If you have suggestions of other things I can do or where else to put my efforts I'll look into them. Oh yeah, I think the whole "only write two responses" is a good idea to. Adamant1 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That all sound like good ideas, but the question I have is: when will you begin implementing them? This is not the first or second or third time... even just drilling down on a small issue, the "success rate" comments in this thread ("I have like an 88% success rate on AfDs though. So at least I'm competent where it matters. My guess is that your AfD success is a lot lower." and "Oh come on. I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels."), this isn't the first time you've made such allegations: you also did it here, here, and here. These are repeated, chronic issues that are being raised. The time for change is now. You don't need to be blocked; if you want to take a break, just take a break. Stop publishing edits. If you disappear for six months, I believe this thread will eventually archive unclosed, and the issue will die and be forgotten, and when you come back, as long as you don't cause new problems, no one will object. If instead of taking a break, you edit productively for six months, basically same result. What's keeping this alive--what's keeping you on the track to being sitebanned--is that you keep posting to ANI. You are demonstrating that you cannot walk away. The time for change is now. Levivich 15:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a little unfair to ask me a question and then malign me a few messages down about how unable I am to walk away from this. Outside of responding to direct questions and pings I'm done with this. I already implemented 99% of what I said I'm going to do and I requested a six month block a while ago. It didn't happen though. So I'm going to request one again when this closes if I'm not indefed. I'm done with it otherwise, but don't be upset if I answer a question or ping. Also, I struck out the rude comment I made to Phil Bridger and apologized without hedging on it. 100% that's not something I would have done when I was blocked before. So changing now is exactly what I'm doing. Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      More lies. You struck the first comment that you made about my AfD stats, but you then went on to repeat it by saying, "I just don't think people with low AfD success rates should be criticizing other people's competence levels", which you did not strike but have continued to make excuses for your behaviour that would shame a three-year-old. What weird universe are we in where you claime that you "apologized without hedging on it"? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'm not seeing an indef here. Not before trying something else. I'm not sold that what's been called trolling is something other than a mixture of two parts poor communication, one part confusion, one part too many replies, and a soupçon of WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's not great, and is really difficult/exhausting to try to work with, but but it's also not jump-to-indef problematic yet IMO. Adamant, given there are clearly many people who find your behavior problematic here and in the previous thread, I think it would be a good idea to think about some kind of voluntary commitment to put people at ease. One thing that immediately comes to mind is voluntarily taking a break from deletion-related discussions for [3? 6?] months. Thoughts? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure. I'm willing to commit to that. Which ever. Like I said, if I'm not indef blocked I want to be blocked for a while anyway to cool down and work on other things. I'd be fine with a 3 or 6 month block as part of that. Which would include not participating in deletion-related discussions. Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not indef, but FINAL WARNING; We've had three different threads in the last eight months that concluded that Adamant1 was out of line in their behavior (November 2020, December 2020, July 2021). I said in the July 2021 thread that we'd be back here again [46]. Just two weeks later, and we're here again. I'm not really interested in a cool down block, even if self imposed by Adamant1. The necessary behavior changes do not appear to be happening, despite several requests for such changes. We'll be back here again when the cool down block expires. Adamant1's been directed to our policies regarding these issues multiples times. This comment given by Adamant1 in a thread regarding his behavior is frankly unconscionable. There is no justification for it. It's an outright attack. In isolation, maybe not much. Given the prior threads regarding Adamant1's behavior, and given the comment was made in this very thread? Wow. Just .... WOW. Ok, Adamant1 struck it out, but if you look further down in that diff it feels like Adamant1 is doubling down on the accusation. For the record, Phil Bridger's AfD correct rate is just shy of 95% [47]. That said, his AfD correct rate shouldn't be pertinent to the discussion anyway. So, why not indef? A site ban is a serious thing. Yes, Adamant1 has seriously violated WP:5P4. But, I believe in final warnings. Whether the person who closes this thread issues such a final warning (assuming there's no site ban) or not, Adamant1 needs to understand there are no more chances. This is it. Adamant1 needs to avoid making any negative comments about other editors, bludgeoning, or otherwise being incivil, broadly construed. Either they improve their behavior or they are permanently gone from this site. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologized after I said the second part. Sure I didn't strike it out, because I didn't think to and I assumed it was part of the apology because I said I was sorry after the comment. What was I supposed to do, apologize for what I said before I said it? Also, I meant I didn't double down on the apology. I just apologized and left it at that without using it as another chance to take a dig at Phil Bridger. Which I would have done in the past. Adamant1 (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were you, I would strike out both comments, in total, not just the bit you struck out, and issue a frank, and honest apology to Phil Bridger for calling their competence into question and doubling down on that accusation. You were completely, utterly, and unconscionably out of line. There is no excuse. Ok, you apologized before [48], but the part of that comment were you said "Clearly it's problematic to say anything even remotely trolling in an ANI complaint about trolling." can be construed as decidedly snarky given the context in which you said it. This is one of the problems I have with your behavior. You do not appear to be understanding the impact your words have. I echo the advise given by User:Dumuzid above ([49]). WP:JUSTDROPIT. This might seem counterintuitive. Your righteous ire might balk against it. But, the best thing you can do for yourself is to just drop it. Let this thread play out on its own. You might consider not even reading it anymore. Just walk away from it. Go back to doing productive things on the project and avoid (at ALL costs) making any uncivil comments anywhere on the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as a time sink who is clearly more interested in trolling/nonsense, then building an encyclopedia. [I came here from his AN thread requesting a self block, which shows the continued lack of Clue.] Star Mississippi 18:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef and move on (again) Seriously, not just my vote, but everything else I said before remains completely relevant. Grandpallama (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef after reviewing this thread and the thread from earlier this month, I think it's clear that Adamant1 needs a community-imposed indefinite break from editing. Ideally, they will be able to come back in a year and demonstrate that they have made the necessary adjustments, but for the time being their battleground behavior is simply too disruptive to continue. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef and move on Enough is enough. The aspersions, trolling and the false claims have to stop. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — both Fram and Adamant1 are friends of mine and I have worked with both of them separately and say FWIW, can you both be mature about this, close this thread and settle your differences like men? Adamant1 does good job here although have their shortcomings, I don’t know if it’s possible, but Fram is it possible for you to close this thread and try and settle your differences, one which wouldn’t scar Adamant1? Celestina007 (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering that they have now repeatedly called this complaint "meritless", I don't really see how it would be possible to settle this. Our positions are too different to find a middle ground, and the issues in my opinion to serious to simply let it drop (as they are recurring ones). Fram (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef – the behavior above is precisely the conduct for which Adamant1 was warned not two weeks ago. The fact that it's continuing shows that he has not heeding the warnings given to him, and that's sufficient reason for a block. An indef isn't intended to be permanent, and I genuinely hope that Adamant1 is eventually able to return and contribute constructively. But until he's able to truly understand that incivility, aspersions, and battleground-type behavior aren't acceptable, his continued participation does the project more harm than good. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Promises of improvement are well and good, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. At this point, given repeated issues, some compulsory time off is necessary. Then, the burden of proof will be on Adamant1 to demonstrate a real commitment to change rather than simply promising it until the next ANI appearance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as too harsh and out of proportion. A final warning seems more appropriate. I also sympathize with editors with a disability. Adamant1, sometimes saying less is more, especially at AfD and here on the drama boards. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While I have no time or the patience to read through these walls of text, I do recall this thread from last year (followed by this) where Adamant1 was confronted over persistent disruptive behaviours. Bludgeoning (replying to every single comment in the thread that they disagreed with), battleground mentalities, making broad unprovable generalisations about groups of users, walking back previous statements in dubious ways (which trolling would explain), deflecting blame, and generally not getting the point. I am both disappointed and not surprised that they are currently facing an indef proposal that's gaining traction. I was hoping they would improve after being talked to, but that didn't happen. Darkknight2149 08:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- Permablocking someone over an argument that either participant could have walked away from seems overkill to me. And if we permablocked people just for making long-winded, difficult to follow arguments it seems like we'd have to cull half the ANI regulars. Reyk YO! 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Final warning. As per the observations of Hammersoft, Isaidnoway, and Reyk, above. But this is a close call, no doubt: the present circumstances simply do not add up to anything for which any sanction (let alone an indef) seems appropriate and proportionate, but there is a compelling body of evidence here that this is just the latest salvo in a substantial pattern of disruption for which the user has received more than adequate feedback and more than generous WP:ROPE, and at this point they ought to understand that they need to be scrupulously courteous and above-aboard in their interactions with other editors in respect of that patience and clear community consensus on their previous conduct. That understanding is clearly not being internalized, and the context of the fact that this thread was probably unnecessary is not enough to erase the weight of even minor civility/PA infractions at this juncture. Adamant1 needs to recognize that they only still have their privileges by virtue of express indulgence from the community and thus if they so much as do the textual equivalent of harumphing at another editor in the next year, I would support an indef. Snow let's rap 00:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SiddhaAS

    SiddhaAS (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times (or just User_talk:SiddhaAS#June_2021), including final warnings this month [50], [51]. They have continued to add unsourced material [52], [53]. Desite 500+ edits, they have only edited a talk page when forced to because of ECP protection and never edited a user talk page. At this point, a block is needed. Two requests [54], [55] where left on AIV yesterday but both timed out. This editor is a time-sink for other editors, this needs to stop. Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just want to add, the editor does mobile editing but doesn’t use the Android app, so it should be much easier to respond to messages. Any thoughts on this? Even now, I’m using my phone to add this message but the desktop version of Wikipedia. Jerm (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PPP001 Will Not Listen

    I think this particular incident is wrapped up, for now. Blocked for 72 hours by Ohnoitsjamie. I warned the user against the user talk page notice, but since they kept restoring it, I've revoked TPA. If they still continue to do so once the block expires, an indef block is likely. El_C 18:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Now indeffed. El_C 07:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user talk page, User talk:PPP001, has an advance warning that I didn't hear that (because I have cotton in my ears). The talk page says:

    You aren't allow to add any discussion without my permission,thank you. PPP001$$ 05:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

    If anyone want to add ,please inform me. PPP001$$ 14:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

    If anyone add any discussion without my permission, I will clear the discussion. Thank you PPP001$$ 04:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

    There is no indication of how one obtains permission. Although it is a rule that an editor may state that certain editors may not post to their talk page, that has never been meant to mean that an editor can forbid their talk page from being used. (I will notify them of this post, and they will probably erase the notice, which is permitted.)

    I became aware of this after they created approximately twelve poorly sourced or unsourced stubs on Malaysian electoral districts in both draft space and article space. I was in the process of declining the drafts, tagging the articles for notability, and reviewing whether to nominate the stubs for deletion, and I noticed the strange talk page. This editor is not here to work on a team. (This is not a case of a mobile editor who does not know that they have a user talk page. This editor knows that they have it, because they have told us to go away.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a linguistic barrier? Or is it really a case of someone who thinks they can prevent others from posting on their talk? I honestly cannot tell. There are plenty of users who blank their talk pages continuously. I will say, in my experience, that is usually correlated with disruptive or tendentious editing, but I don't think it's against any rule. I would say that this user's statement certainly may serve to suppress speech and warnings against them, which are inherently necessary. And, in that way, it may be a good claim for TE/battlegrounding. I'm honestly puzzled by this one.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been bold about it and just cleared the section. Nobody can reinforce those rules on their talk pages here. Obviously there are exceptions with IBANs, and some people do tell specific editors to stay off their talk pages when conflicts arise, but this is simply not acceptable. Pinging PPP001 so they can see this explanation, too. Patient Zerotalk 00:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:UOWN, users are permitted to remove notices from their talk page, which carry an implicit acknowledgement of receiving the message; the exception to that is the removal of declined block requests from active blocks. I've blocked the user 72 hours for repeatedly redirecting drafts into article space despite those warnings. If the behavior resumes when that block expires, I'd recommend an indef block. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you’d be spot on there Ohnoitsjamie - would that apply to not letting anybody post to your user page without permission in the first place? That’s mainly what I took issue with, in all fairness. That, and the issue with drafts, which I wasn’t aware of before. Patient Zerotalk 01:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you can't preemptively forbid other users from, nor require permission for, posting notices on your talk page, provided that the messaging doesn't cross over into harassment.OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ohnoitsjamie, I'd like you to reconsider the block. While the user seems to lack some collaborative skills ... in two years and 250+ articles, as far as I can see, they have not produced anything which has been deleted [59]. Given the editor's history, and assuming good faith, I suspect the editor was expressing frustration at having a raft of pieces at AfC not approved (by me) and their talk page filled up with the rejections (and those pieces had been moved to draft space earlier). All their previous work has ultimately passed...and that the articles were then approved at NPP adds to the complexity (albeit they circumvented the AfC process...but I see that as a reflection of their frustration). Yes, there's behaviour there which is not collaborative, but they have not specifically targeted incivility at anyone, and the lack of verification is not an egregious breach ... seems to me further gentle engagement could be applied. Pinging two involved editors Onel5969 Mccapra. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. We’re here to work collaboratively. Refusal to have messages on your talk page, let alone work with other editors, pushing improperly sourced drafts into mainspace and expecting others to do the work of sourcing your creations isn’t working collaboratively. I have no view on what should best be done about it. Mccapra (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first block is temporary, and they now have a little bit of time to develop some collaborative skills; they could get the time reduced if they acknowledged the reason for the block, etc. Additionally, unilaterally redirecting rejected drafts to article space is disruptive. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohnoitsjamie, Fair enough and thanks for the quick reply. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I spent some time going through their article creations, both back in 2019 and this year. I've audited over 50, and not a single one of them has a valid source. 50. You click on the single link, do control F for the article subject, and nothing comes up. This editor appears to latch on to a single reference, which might be valid for one article, and then use it repeatedly. I'm not saying these entities don't exist. Mccapra did some digging and encountered sourcing to show that they do. The issue now is that you have a hundred or so articles without a single valid reference, if the trend my audit found continues throughout them. I'll give a few examples, such as his first article creation, Jalong (state constituency), Rim (state constituency), Lenggeng (state constituency) (2 refs, neither of which refer to it), although some now have permanently dead links, like Aulong (state constituency), Kota (state constituency), Kuala Sepetang (state constituency), Bercham (state constituency), Bukit Naning (state constituency). Take that last one as a perfect example, the ref is about the election in Johor, but the list of election results does not mention Bukit Naning. I don't want to list all the articles, but you just have to click on any in his article creation log. Not sure what to do, but I don't think a block from creating any new articles until they demonstrate that they understand notability and WP:VERIFY is out of line. And then something should be done about those they've already created. Onel5969 TT me 04:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Onel5969, the editor's behaviour certainly strains one's commitment to assuming good faith... :) Nevertheless, my reading is a mixture of carelessness and stubborness, rather than outright malintent. Yes, it is disruptive and can understand the reason for the block, but as far as I can see they have not mass created hoax articles. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Goldsztajn, my apologies if I gave the impression that I thought these were not valid article subjects. On the contrary, part of the issue is that they do appear to be valid article subjects, just with no sourcing to meet WP:VERIFY. I had thought my mentioning of Mccapra's research showed that. I'll try to be more specific in the future. Onel5969 TT me 13:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Onel5969: I'm still on wikibreak so won't investigation this further but just as a quick comment, I have not looked into the other referencing problems but you are mistaken about Bukit Naning. A quick check of this ref [60] confirms it is mentioned. Please note that Bukit Naning is a state constituency not a parliamentary one (as per the disambiguation) so you will need to click on state to show it in the ref as it defaults to parliamentary constituencies. An unfortunate but not uncommon problem with fancy sites. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a common problem with referencing since (federal) parliamentary constituencies are more important in Malaysia, so most will show them by default. Referencing could obviously do with improvement and I do not know the general notability requirements we impose for state constituencies in countries with federal election systems, so whether these should be considered automatically notable or what. But from what I've seen I strongly suspect these all did or do exist and you could find primary table/database sources and secondary table/database sources confirming their existence and actually most of the sources they used did or do mention these if you can work out how to navigate the site. I say "did" because some of them might have changed, and notably archive links especially on archive.org may not work properly and so be unable to show content that was there. If the site is in Malay look out for negeri (not negara!) or DUN. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Nil Einne, thank you. I had not realized that different button at the top of the source. I'm glad that those earlier articles will not need to be looked at. I realized after posting the above, that back in 2019 I must have discovered the same thing, since I reviewed several of them, like Membakut (state constituency), and Klias (state constituency). However, the most recent ones still have the referencing issue, unless I'm misreading those as well. Regarding notability, they will pass WP:GEOLAND, being populated legally recognized places. Onel5969 TT me 13:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: Maurice Mo Jordan

    NAC:Subject user Maurice Mo Jordan indeffed by Deepfriedokra. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Maurice Mo Jordan (talk · contribs)

    This user keeps trying to discuss a editing issue on my talk page. Despite me telling him/her what the issues are with their posts (and no matter how many times they get BLANKED) they keep coming back. At issue are edits made on the Three Tramps page:[61]. Forgetting the RS issues, this guy keeps trying to discuss this on my talk page (rather than the Tramps talk page), without signing their posts or even bothering to read about what things like RS are. If a admin could speak to them, I'd appreciate it. Regards.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    At least the editor is trying to discuss the issue. Rja13ww33 you should start a discussion at the articles talk page and ping the editor to discuss. Maybe that will get them off your talk page. Jerm (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is such a discussion on the Tramps page: [62]. This user is ignoring it. It's clear this person does not know how to edit. Here are some samples: [63] [64]. I mean come on....I am a tolerant guy but this is nuts. He/she isn't even trying to post properly.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And by the way, I've told the user several times on my talk page [65] where to post these issues. It's like I am talking to a brick wall with him/her.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn, there goes my ideal. You've tried to guide the editor, but the editor doesn't want to continue discussing the issue on the article talk page. Instead, Maurice Mo Jordan has bombarded your talk page. An admin should either send a warning to the editor for a possible block if they don't stick with the articles talk page or go straight for the block. Other than that, I see no other way to resolve this matter. Jerm (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully a warning (from a admin) will be sufficient to wake him/her up.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well as it stands I don't really know how to correctly post to Wiki, I posted something to the Zodiac channel and that one was fine but again, I honestly have no idea how to comment on these sites and I have zero idea how to add that little end tag I see on both your post. There is nothing I see that makes this easy or understand able. The issue I have is this which is clearly stated.

    In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that forensic anthropologists had again analyzed and compared the photographs of the "tramps" with those of Hunt and Sturgis, as well as with photographs of Thomas Vallee, Daniel Carswell, and Fred Lee Crisman.[8] According to the Committee, only Crisman resembled any of the tramps; but the same Committee determined that he was not in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination.[8]

    While I disagree with Hunt (cause I think it could be him) the committee states, "only Crisman resembled ANY of the tramps; but the same Committee determined that he was not in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination." So what does this mean? It means they didn't identify ANYONE, yet all those side by sides remain up, even though they were dismissed it would seem. So when I have an assumption that Roscoe White might be one of the 3 Tramps, it gets removed over and over and over again. Does this make sense or sound fair at all? Considering they clearly state they didn't identify anyone, yet those post remain up. I basically posted that Roscoe White might be one of the Tramps, it gets removed and I'm sorry but this doesn't seem right or fair at all. So yes, I got a little annoyed. Sorry about that.

    Anyway, sorry I don't know how to put the end tag line on, it's kind of hard to understand. Not sure how to work Wiki. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Maurice Mo Jordan Once you've finished typing your response, type the four tiles "~~~~" then "Publish changes". That will develop your signature. Jerm (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks a bunch Jerm, that helped a lot... So what do you think of all this? Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Maurice Mo Jordan Before I elaborate, I just want you to know that this notice board (WP:ANI) is meant to report disruptive/inappropriate behaviour of an editor, not resolving content disputes. The issue is, you have been constantly messaging Rja13ww33 on their user talk page about content pertaining to Three tramps. User talk pages are not meant for discussing content of an article which is why Rja13ww33 was constantly removing your messages on their talk page and trying to point to you the appropriate talk page which is the article talk page, and in this particular case, it's Talk:Three tramps. You did start a discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Three_tramps#Carswell but left it and started continuously messaging Rja13ww33 on their talk page. Please, you need to return to the article talk page for discussing content. Do not continue to message Rja13ww33 about content on their talk page. That is all Rja13ww33 is asking for and it would be the appropriate thing for you to do. Jerm (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maurice Mo Jordan I also want to add that you need to fill out the edit summary every time you make a change to an article or any other page before you "Publish changes". Jerm (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks again Jerm, this helped. Maurice Mo Jordan (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is an admin going to act on this or what? This joker clearly doesn't have a clue what they are doing: [66]. Enough is enough.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Problem edits to Nepenthes species articles by User:Nrajah587

    BLOCKED
    Nrajah587 blocked indefinitely by Admin CambridgeBayWeather Jerm (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    Nrajah587 has made a recent series of edits to Nepenthes species articles (and a few others). Some of the edits are vandalism, for example: 1, 2, 3, 4. Another addition is likely a hoax with a made-up reference. Many Nepenthes are endangered, in one article the editor claims to be protecting their location. In another, which I won't post directly here, the location was withheld by the botanists concerned, but this editor added a location. A reference this editor has added to some edits is The Tropical Pitcher Plants (Vol. 2) by McPherson. However, according to the publisher's site, these books are currently available for pre-order and no page numbers are provided in such references.

    In summary, the contributions by this editor appear to be mainly a combination of vandalism and misinformation. In edit summaries, the editor often asserts that they are "correcting" existing content based on sources and information available to themselves. I'm not sure that such assertions can be accepted at face value given the high proportion of misleading and vandalising edits. Thanks, Declangi (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's certainly a very bizarre combination of subtle vandalism and outright trolling. They are doing a rather nuanced job of mimicking an editor who is simply pushing WP:OR in one edit, and then in the next, they are adding sophomoric "butt"/"gay" jokes to similar articles, and then in the next they are mixing the two types of disruption. It really is quite strange and technically involved vandalism, but ultimately I am inclined to agree with you: I think the whole body of the disruption is just one big convoluted effort at trolling. So, for what it's worth, I endorse a WP:NOTHERE block and suggest that even their non-disruptive-seeming edits should be reverted, where the assertions cannot be independently verified with sourcing by other editors. Snow let's rap 02:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to you both. @Snow Rise: I've now reviewed all of the editor's changes and almost all ended up needing to be reverted. I did this on an article-by-article basis with hopefully some useful details in the edit summaries. I notified WikiProject Plants and one editor there has already conducted their own, very useful review. Declangi (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wonderful work: thanks to you and the other editor for taking that chore on, Declangi. Snow let's rap 03:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:MfactDr, non engagement on the talk page, disruptive behaviour

    Hello, can you look into the behaviour of user User:MfactDr?

    • On july 16th i reverted him and mentioned WP:BRD [[71]], and asked him on the talk page to discuss the edits he made [72], since we reached consensus on the talk page and edit summaries not to include incidental claims of what happend in another region(Tigray Region) on Amhara Region article, this is the reference to the (cow incident) reinstated by user.
    • The User then ignored the call to discuss on the talk page, and reinstated the incidental claim on july the 17th [73], [74], [75], [76] over 4 edits, so i couldn't revert user. I saw it on the 20th of July and out of good faith asked User:MfactDr again to engage on talk page [77],
    • Another user saw it on July 21st what occured on the article and reverted User:MfactDr [78] and pointed him to the talk page to discuss. User:MfactDr then reverted the other user [79] and confirmed that he deliberatly ignored any calls for discussion on the talk page. User:MfactDr has ignored my calls for discussion twice, and the other user once, he ignored the calls for discussion 3 times total. User is also belligerent and accusatory in his edit summaries towards users.

    Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dawit S Gondaria, You have not engaged in the discuss. You removed war crime committed by Amhara militia. No one understand why you want to remove it. War crime included in the Amhara Region § During Tigray war section. if you are disputing reliability of the source, you are more than welcome to discuss. you deleted the the whole content and source here[80], However I am restored the contents and source here[81].MfactDr (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MfactDr Everyone can look at the talk page history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amhara_Region and see that MfactDr has contributed zilnch. The same edit i reverted and now mentioned here 3 times [82] clearly shows i said WP: BRD and said come to talk page. I reverted MfactDr because there was a consensus on the talk page, not to include incidental claim(cow incident), and the wordpress source. On my part after discussion with other editors i dropped that, TPLF attacked federal soldiers and that a TPLF official admitted the attack. MfactDr did not contribute to any discussion, after being called 3 times to do so. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And another article Oromo language just 2+ hours ago when i was posting this, MfactDr overturned all edits made on the article through consensus, not by reverting but through 5. The first 3 edits, [83], [84], [85], (look at the time of the edits), then came in the Notice on his talk page [86], then in an attempt to cover up MfactDr [87], [88]

    And while we are at it we can go further back, and see a history of ignoring talk page discussion on Oromo people article on the subject of Malik Ambar.

    @Dawit S Gondaria, I think you have problem of understanding how Wikipedia work. Still, I don’t understand your problem and accusation. If you believe the contents and sources I have added to article is wrong, let Admin judge!, wait for the response.MfactDr (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To notify you that I filed a similar ANI report here. Sorry for doubling the effort, but it seems that I was approaching this from a slightly different angle, and didn't know of this report when I started out. LandLing 11:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Landroving Linguist: I have moved your thread here, as a subsection. --JBL (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that will do! LandLing 15:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing POV editing by User:MfactDr

    This was originally created as a separate complaint, I have moved it here as a subsection. --JBL (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MfactDr created an account in early 2019. Since then he has performed almost 3000 edits on Wikipedia. I think it is fair to say that, judging from his lists of contributions so far, MfactDr only makes edits that either say good things about the Oromo people or that say bad things about other ethnic groups of Ethiopia, particularly the Amhara people. Of course that in itself is perfectly permissible on Wikipedia, as long as it happens in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. As a fresh editor, MfactDr of course didn't know these rules to begin with, but after being confronted by other editors, he made an effort to learn things like not marking substantial edits as minor, using edit summaries, citing sources, and, over time, only citing reliable sources. Initially, though, this could only be accomplished through a block at a time when the edits were becoming more and more disruptive.

    At the same time it cannot be denied that some of the editor's edits were indeed useful, and this raised hopes that the overall behavior would improve to a point where MfactDr would grow into a valuable contributor towards the Wikipedia project, once he learned all the rules and could bring himself to apply them, in spite of his strong ethnic nationalist motivation. But these hopes were several times disappointed when MfactDr would engage in edit wars (as on the pages Hachalu Hundessa and Hachalu Hundessa riots in July 2020) and going on editing sprees in which he apparently forgot or ignored all his newly learned skills; he would then spread questionable claims based on unsuitable sources across several pages (as in one case here, here and here). It was increasingly difficult to convince him desisting in these cases.

    In January 2021 I was asked by Keith_D to see what could be done on pages that were damaged by an edit war between MfactDr and another user (now blocked), and I took it on me to bring things into what I believed was a reasonable state. At that time I still had hopes for MfactDr's development and defended him against a proposed block (also here. But since then I did more clean-up work after POV edits by MfactDr and therefore had more and more run-ins with MfactDr, where he also became increasingly hostile and belligerent in his language, accusing me of POV editing, being an enemy of his people, and being engaged in edit warring.

    His talk-page history is full of warnings by other users (such as here, here, here, here, here, here and here), which he keeps deleting after some time, even being warned about doing this. In general, MfactDr pursues a WP:IDHT approach to receiving policy advice and warnings, as is evident in the recent discussion on sourced information being undue on the Oromia page.

    In the last few weeks MfactDr's reverts and disruptive edits without edit summaries have increased, and his recent behavior indicates he is currently not inclined to take steps to improve his behavior. I therefore request that a temporary block is imposed against him, hoping that it will have a similar effect as his first block two years ago, calming him down and reminding him that he needs to follow the rules of Wikipedia in order to stay a long-term contributor.

    During the writing of this I noticed that another editor today filed another ANI complaint against MfacDr. As this user has similar issues to those of MfactDr, I thought it worthwhile to continue with this filing, although I know that this is not ideal. LandLing 11:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated Personal Attack by LandLing

    Dear Admin,

    Allow me to explain what happened between me and the user I have mentioned above. truly speaking user joined Wikipedia 15 years ago , had contributed 2449 edit to wkipedia while I joined Wikipedia 2 years ago I Have made 2949 edit. I Have created several pages and edited improved several page more than user above in useful way. recently LandLing keep personally attack me on several occasion to prevent me from editing

    1. user rash to judge me as I edited article without even checked who exactly edited! calling me putting junk all over the pages of Wikipedia, repeatedly" User talk:Landroving Linguist § Regards Minilik Articles

    2. user excessively biased toward others language of Ethiopia except Amharic speakers as he introduced 2007 census for other speakers and Amharic speakers data from ethnologue. I was asking him to use same data for all and user attack me personally threats me from editing by saying "Honestly, don't you realize that the stuff you do makes Oromos look ridiculous by its sheer pettiness? Probably not what you want to accomplish. Why can't you reign in your nationalist feelings if they drive you to this kind of actions?" I felt not safe to contribute to Wikipedia and I have Invited User:Eostrix to intervene on here User talk:MfactDr § Languages of Ethiopia and LandLing finally changed the data for all groups language of Ethiopia to ethnlogue after User:Eostrix step in. deny his biased and calling me nationalist, petty ridiculous.

    3. user make fun of me by insulting indirectly calling me "ethnic nationalist", "Oromo firebrand" Again on here Talk:Oromia § History Section user biased toward other group except Amharic speakers even removed whole source and content from "war crime" of Amhara Militia here[93]

    Dear admin, I believe Wikipedia is community website not personal website. I believe Wikipedia has strict rule on personal attack. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans.

    I am genuinely don’t know why I am targeted by LandLing Over and over again while I am able to work with number of users not attack me at except LandLing.

    LandLing damaged my integrity, values by his remarks comment by attacking me rather than the ideas.

    Dear Admin, I am really getting sick because of this user. Please admin, Please stop LandLing from threatening and Verbal abuse again. Thank You MfactDr (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Coming at defense of LandLing, and highlighting MfactDr accusatory behaviour and bias(to the point of scary) against Amharas.
    • I have had heated discussions with LandLing on Amhara related articles such as on Talk:Amhara people, to suggest/accuse he is biased towards Amharic speakers as MfactDr did is flat out wrong.
    • MfactDr on the other hand no problem reinstating Original research on [97] just because it demonizes an Amhara figure
    • MfactDr uncivil behaviour of ignoring talk page discussions and filling the Amhara Region article with events happening in another region, contrary to consensus reached with other editors on Talk:Amhara_Region page, lead me to open this ANI against this user.
    • MfactDr hypocrasy about a 2007 census, has reinstated on the Amhara people article [98] while ofcourse having no issue with a updated source on the Oromo people article, updated by the same LandLing [99] & [100] he is accusing.
    Summary: MfactDr appear to have a resentment against a specific ethnic group to a point that is unhealthy for any human being and frankly is terrifying, and MfactDr is willing to combat other editors and ignore any discussions to force content he sees fit to that end. Although some terms used by LandLing to describe MfactDr edits is unfortunate, take notice of MfactDr behaviour and sense of (ethnic) victimhood in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oromia#History_Section and the generalization of a ethnic group Amhara people as criminals. No sense of NPOV here. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Non administrative commentary, but I recall reporting them in sockpuppet investigations of Hoaeter for similar behavior? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he is definitely not. The two have very different perspectives. LandLing 17:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting admin intervention

    Almost three days have passed since DSG filed his complaint against MfactDr, and so far, beyond a helpful clerical intervention by JBL, this case has not received any attention by non-involved people, not to speak of admins. But have a look at the accusations flying around here: DSG accuses MfactDr of persistent disruptive editing,[101] MfactDr assumes that DSG has WP:CIR-issues,[102] I accuse MfactDr of intractable POV editing,[103] and MfactDr states that my ongoing unjustified personal attacks caused emotional distress to his sensitive self, if not outright physical harm.[104] Surely at least one of us, if not two or even all three must have committed serious misconduct and ought to be sanctioned here. I can understand that admins want to avoid a thorny issue that requires digging into deep and year-old mud with many diffs. But something needs to happen here.

    In a more serious vein, the backdrop to these behavioral issues is the current conflict in much of the Horn of Arica, which is currently tearing the country of Ethiopia apart. Wikipedia created a discretionary sanctions notice that, as an example, admin Doug Weller recently placed in Mfactor's talk page[105] - a message he already received in January 2021 from Boud and deleted in April,[106] believing that it did not apply to the likes of him. The intention of the DSN is to keep the animosities that currently run between ethnic nationalists of the various groups, particularly the Amhara people, the Oromo people and the Tigrayans, off the pages of Wikipedia, and to ensure NPOV content on all related pages. This has been difficult enough over the last few years, but the increasing tensions attract more and more editors that want to tell the truth as they see it, and on as many pages as they can reach. MfactDr is one of them, giving us his version of the story from the Oromo nationalist perspective, with a currently strong anti-Amharic bias. If Wikipedia is really serious about the discretionary sanctions notice, it needs to act when people blatantly and repeatedly ignore it, in the face of several warnings. MfactDr, in spite of my earlier hopes, currently shows no signs of toning down his POV editing. If at the end of this process nothing happens, he will feel vindicated and even encouraged to continue as he did before. LandLing 21:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bludgeoning and WP:OWN by Andrew Lancaster

    For quite some time now, user:Andrew Lancaster has been bludgeoning discussions at talk:Germanic peoples and talk:Goths, posting huge walls of text and driving away most editors.

    Recently, Carlstak and myself have repeatedly reached out to Andrew to stop bludgeoning the process, but to no avail, (see [108], [109]). The issue of Andrew's wp:WALLSOFTEXT was also brought up by other editors, such as Bloodofox [110]. It is my belief that Andrew is at this point the main obstacle to ever getting anything done on the article, that he has some serious wp:OWN issues on the topic of early Germanic peoples. He's driving away other editors who simply don't want to deal with him - including myself, for a long while. I think that a topic ban is most probably in order.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging involved editors @Berig, Obenritter, Alcaios, Ealdgyth, Srnec, Avilich, Dynasteria, Yngvadottir, Austronesier, SMcCandlish, North8000, Krakkos, Bloodofox, and Carlstak:, my apologies if I missed anyone.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only concur with what Ermenrich writes above. It is a clear case of WP:OWN, by an editor who appears to have developed a method for bludgeoning away other editors. I don't know how many competent editors he has pushed away from these articles, but I am one of the editors who don't feel it is worth it to engage in interminable discussions.--Berig (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also concur. Unfortunately, Ermenrich's assessment is exactly what I have witnessed. Other editors have been very patient with Andrew but this has been going on for far too long. As editors, we can disagree on this or that—that's perfectly natural—but Andrew's consistent and extensive bludgeoning is a real problem. He's well aware of what he's doing. Several editors have mentioned it to him, including myself. At this point it's difficult to assume good faith about his approach. I think a topic ban is the only solution here. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must concur based on my observations as well. Andrew's lengthy and incessant walls of Talk Page discourse are simply too mentally exhausting for most editors, myself included. A topic ban seems the right solution in this case, as he is a valuable contributor otherwise. He simply cannot get out of his own way on this particular subject arena.--Obenritter (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My knowledge of the situation is from being a medium-close observer of the Goth article for almost 4 months and just a quick glance at the Germanic peoples article when I got the ping for this ANI, so I'm talking mostly about the Goth article. As a preface, on the Goths article, the situation is unusual. There are only minor differences of opinion there; the biggest challenge is that they are dealing with huge amounts of material there on a complex, multi-faceted topic and Andrew has been trying to use a very cautious Wikipedian process (including large drafts) to move it forward. And it's still mired down, again, with no real disputes. IMO partially because the main person trying to move it forward, Andrew has been too cautious and too thorough in his approach. And I think that there have been no complaints about his behavior. In short, the hard work on the article which Ermenrich noted should be cause to give Andrew a barnster not an ANI post. That said, the sheer quantity and complexity of material being discussed and the size and complexity of Andrew's proposals certainly is an in-advertant barrier for entry and participation; this could be a source of frustration including for Ermenrich, Berig, Obenritter and others. It needs a tough simplifier-facillitator for the conversation. I'd be willing to try to be that at the Goth article for 1-2 months if they wanted me. IMO there is no behavioral problem there.North8000 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm convinced that Andrew is acting in good faith, but this is true that those walls of text on talk pages are often exhausting. You should try to be more concise in your answers, or perhaps to open a blog if you like writing lengthy posts about Germanic studies. Alcaios (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the contributions of Andrew Lancaster in the talk page come in a length and speed that makes it hard to keep up with the discussion. Some editors react less voluminously, but just as quick. What happens is that people like me who prefer to read 100 pages of good sources first before writing a single paragraph in both mainspace and talkspace will just withdraw (and read sources instead). It is my dearest wish that Andrew Lancaster could "come to senses" without measures like TBAN, because I consider his input very valuable in principle. There's bludgeoning and there's bludgeoning: some people do senseless rants and rambling, but Andrew Lancaster talk contributions always convey a message; unfortunately however, too often repetitive, little to the point, and with a seeming intent to "convince" people instead of accepting each of our POVs as they are. –Austronesier (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Lancaster is certainly capable of contributing in a constructive way, but his extremely verbose talkpage commentary is a real obstacle for other editors who want to work on the Germanic peoples article. Whether he intends to be obstructive or not, his unending objections and suggestions wear out other editors who've been part of the conversation, and scare away knowledgable editors who would like to contribute but don't want to deal with the morass of commentary, most of it generated by Andrew Lancaster. His general response to admonitions to be more concise is to add another wall of text in response. Our crew of subject experts can't get anywhere because of his obtuse behavior, and one does begin to wonder after a while if his obstructionism is deliberate. I support a topic ban; he can contribute more productively on other articles—he's absolutely an impediment to progress on this one. Carlstak (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My personal experience has been that the length and frequency of Andrew Lancaster's posts have been off-putting and something of an obstruction to further contributions. My central objection may not be shared by others, that too great a reliance on the "consensus" of recognized academicians is not a strategy for arriving at the truth as best we can know it. But the demand for a consensus seems particularly to be AL's platform for deciding the entire thrust of the article. This shuts out divergent opinion through exercising authority by proxy. "It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes." Similarly, it's who chooses which scholar to give legitimacy to that determines which version of the truth is being put out there to the inquiring public. OTOH, I have found Andrew's contributions to be sincere and knowledgeable. Dynasteria (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Belatedly, yes, I agree. Andrew Lancaster is undoubtedly editing in good faith at both Talk:Goths and Talk:Germanic peoples, but his rigidity and aspects of his manner of argument—invoking names of scholars in a sometimes almost talismanic way, voluminous posts including at Talk:Goths a seemingly unending series of requests for comment, and sometimes personalization of discussion—caused me to walk away from Talk:Goths and I have several times been on the brink of doing the same at Talk:Germanic peoples. I am aware both that people of different academic backgrounds can have different assumptions, and that people can have very different reactions to the same style of argument. But for example I find this edit unduly personalizes the discussion, moreso toward Berig and Krakkos than me, while responding to my concerns over sources in a manner that I do find redolent of article ownership, hoping I don't mean he should rehash all the earlier discussions on the page. There and elsewhere, I consider his reference to "old and low-quality sources which equated large language families with ethnicity" to be reductionist. I'm not sure he realizes that such responses are intimidating; I'm pretty sure some would not find them so, but I was put off. At Talk:Germanic peoples, I tried to meet his argument partway by demonstrating awareness of the problematic history of the field under the Nazis (I thought it might as well be me taking the "Godwin" charge rather than someone else), and I pointed out what seemed to me to be a crucial difference of assumptions about the range of the article. Andrew Lancaster didn't bludgeon that discussion as much, and also came to my talk page and I think thought about what I said in response. But Ealdgyth stepped in at the article talk page as a neutral arbiter, and is both a highly experienced editor (and administrator) and a fine medievalist, and I do not think this article section where he interacts with her is polite. (@North8000: I think this illustrates the difference of perception; but I also want to stress that at least one highly qualified person has tried.) Andrew Lancaster rewrote the Germanic peoples article, and I can understand he feels invested in it and it must be hard to see agreement being reached on the talk page to start over with a version of the article prior to that rewrite. I can see why he found it impossible to stay away after I mentioned him on the talk page. As I say, he is undoubtedly editing in good faith. But someone can mean well and yet be intimidating and overly concerned with their own viewpoint and their own rights and insufficiently cognizant of others' rights or open to consideration of their points of view. And perhaps another factor is that this editor's style in the articles, particularly Germanic peoples, is long-winded and not very clear, similar to the style of the "walls of text" they have usually posted on the talk pages. (I am of course open to the same accusations, both with regard to argument and to length and lack of clarity in writing.) Yngvadottir (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reaction. IMHO the posts of Ermenrich and Carlstak are misleading and overdramatized, written when annoyed, though obviously I am not perfect, and can improve. We all have our different skill sets. But Goths is basically frozen and should have strange stats due to the admin decision pushing the main editors to RFC before any edit. The situation has changed again totally on Germanic peoples, so it is a bad time to judge it based on its past. Ermenrich has totally rewritten the article. No one blocked that or anything else. As can be seen in the calmer reactions above the only way I “block” or “own” discussions is by analyzing the pesky complexities which come from published sources. I find the advice of North, Austronesier, Alcaios, and Yngvadottir (and Ealdgyth) very useful and will try to follow it. Much less helpful, Carlstak writes increasingly about their impression of my character, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, but almost never about content and sources. Ermenrich has been an important on-and-off editor who was (like Austronesier and Srnec) an advisor to me when I drafted a new version in early 2020. That drafting period had a big impact on my talk page statistics. I had the time and energy to do it, and no one was stopping any imaginary team of experts from contributing more. That a rewrite was needed at that time was not controversial after several months of bold editing created a mess, and there were also RFCs which guided my work, and then later guided the way I answered complaints by visitors. I have often been involved in discussions about the article scope because that exact question has always been controversial on this article, long before I got involved. NOTE. The idea that the article structure was holding us up, and that we should return to the version of July 2019, which was NOT the version prior to mine but one from a half year earlier, was a recent proposal of Austronesier, and Ermenrich went and did it soon after. Now that Ermenrich has totally rewritten the article, the focus of POV complaints from editors with heterodox positions won’t be me anymore and that will naturally decrease calls upon me. As Dynasteria points out, I’ve been associated with the “POV” of using mainstream scholars, and in such discussions Ermenrich has often appeared as someone supporting my explanations. Why is Ermenrich now focussing mainly on discussions which happened in the past, which Ermenrich supported in the past, and which are now likely to stop naturally? IMHO the trigger has been normal BRD editing disagreements which should be resolvable and are not described as part of the complaint above. So we are in a new phase on this article, and we are all still adapting to it. A critical review of these articles would show a wide range of human imperfections, and no super heroes. Now is not a good time to be over-dramatizing or trying to exclude editors who've spent the last year looking at the sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose the singling out of Andrew Lancaster as the problem here. Here's some findings and comments to explain why.
    1. I'm new to this topic and so went to take a look at the article Germanic peoples. The first thing I notice as a reader is that it has two banner tags at the top: {{POV}} and {{cleanup rewrite}}. These indicate that these issues will be explained on the talk page but it's not obvious on the talk page which of the many sections relate to these tags.
    2. Looking at the history of those tags, we find that they were placed on 8 July 2021 by bloodofox. On that day, Bloodofox posted 32 times on the article's talk page but I can't find any posts which clearly explain or even mention these tags.
    3. The main section which bloofofox started on the talk page was instead a proposal to split the article. This is quite a radical suggestion but the process did not fully conform to the process described at WP:SPLIT. In particular, a {{split}} template was not placed on the article to notify the readership.
    4. It seems evident that Andrew Lancaster is not the only editor who is very active in this topic and so generating actions and discussions which are difficult to follow and keep up with. If you look at the article history, you can see a flurry of recent edits by other editors – many edits being made on the same day.
    5. In this situation of intense activity, it will naturally be difficult for editors to agree or even follow the details. WP:FAIT has a ruling from arbcom which states that "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." So, we should be expecting lots of discussion in such a case. Insofar as Andrew Lancaster is engaging in lots of discussion then he's doing the right thing.
    6. To resolve this complex dispute, the editors should be following our processes closely and carefully – processes such as WP:SPLIT and WP:RFC. If there isn't a clear process then naturally the result will be chaos and confusion. The onus is on all editors to do this, not just one of them.
    7. It's not clear that any admin action is required yet. Perhaps editors need to slow down a bit and so a WP:1RR regime might be appropriate.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 09:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson: Just on that last bullet, according to me we are in a new situation and actually the high volume is mainly positive right now. (Many of Ermenrich's examples are from the past and quite different situations.) I think we'd all like Ermenrich to continue re-writing the article, and 1R would mainly affect them right now (or it might make others scared to contribute). In the background, there is a chance this article scope topic might hit a wall again. (The fact it got mentioned by me - "hand wringing" - is apparently what frustrated Ermenrich and led to this case.) But Ermenrich's idea of editing for a while and then reviewing this probably makes the most sense so far. I think other editors concerned in how to eventually handle this probably agree. See Austronesier and Srnec here. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing complex about this situation at all. All we have to do is report on what scholars say. Without POV-pushing, that's quite easy. Anyone can produce a straw poll at any time. The issue here is Andrew Lancaster's constant WP:BLUDGEON tactics to get his way and that's not going to stop unless someone does something about it. Remove Andrew Lancaster from the picture and these articles will be FA-quality in no time. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I'm an uninvolved observer, here on this page for different business, but I had a look at the Germanic peoples page, and now I wonder what is going on here. Everybody seems to agree that AL is a good-faith editor with lots of merits. As far as I understand the accusations thrown at him consist mostly of a) slowing down the process by insisting on more discussion, and b) being wordy. These two things are thrown together into a WP:OWN violation, and now based on this people here are getting out of their way with demands for topic bans for the pages named and even every other page having the word German in them. Have you actually looked at the page WP:OWN? Nobody there makes a suggestion of responding with topic bans, which I consider one of the harshest sanctions available on Wikipedia, amounting to a block for those people where the topic ban basically covers the area of main expertise. Okay, I can talk easily here, as I'm not affected by AL's actions, but surely there must be other ways of moving the article forward than banning a good-faith editor in good standing and undoubted expertise. Please don't go this way. LandLing 11:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had many long and always fruitless discussions with Andrew Lancaster on those topics, over a long period of time, opposing his blatant POV, including basing articles almost entirely on an utterly fringe source with a self-declared agenda: removing the Germanic peoples and their languages, and even the word Germanic, from history. Describing his tactics as bludgeoning is spot-on, because that's what he's doing, in an attempt to drive all other editors away from all articles that has anything to do with Germanic, so that he can rewrite them all to fit in with his fantasy world. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Observation. As far as I can tell my "POV" on various related topics (which has developed as I've learned and read, because it is basically source-based) has, over the last year or more, generally been quite close, at least as far as what we think WP should say, to those of Ermenrich, Austronesier, Alcaios, and Srnec. That makes it indeed ironic that Ermenrich threw POV in the above complaint, but could only find examples where Ermenrich was also in the same discussion, but agreeing with me. Editors on Germanic topics attract a lot of intimidating anger and aggression from editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race, who academics are denying the existence of because they are dominated by ideologies and political correctness. I don't believe any version of the Germanic peoples article will ever avoid problems from that direction. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Tom's characterisation of certain sources as "utterly fringe" is absurd. Srnec (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Tom's proposal seems intemperate but is not supported by solid evidence such as diffs. Note that this is their first edit in three months. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose It would be a travesty to sanction an editor for working hard on articles in a very Wikipedian fashion. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Observation. I'm sure Thomas.W doesn't need my help defending his position, but to keep this discussion intellectually honest I would point out to Srnec that saying that someone's characterization is "absurd" goes nowhere to refute his argument. You actually have to formulate an argument of your own. To Andrew Davidson, the solid evidence has been offered by many others, above. It is, moreover, completely irrelevant how long it has been since someone edited. A person with a brain and the ability to think has the right to contribute. To North8000, the point has been made repeatedly that Andrew Lancaster has worked much too hard to the point of being an obstructionist and very definitely not in a Wikipedian fashion. But I support the direction of your question (see below). Dynasteria (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I managed to collaborate with Andrew on several topics related to Germani Cisrenani and Gallic-Germanic tribes of Gallia Belgica (eg. Atuatuci, Eburones, Caeroesi, etc.). Andrew just needs to be reassured that we're not going to write articles inspired by the essentialist vision of 19th-century scholars, and I'm sure that he's going to make efforts about the concision of his messages on talk pages. Alcaios (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alcaios, it's not clear to me what that offer might consist of. "I will be reasonable and seek compromise as long as you meet my demands." (?) Dynasteria (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My own main concern at the moment is that Andrew continues to deny that he's doing anything wrong. I don't think that speaks to him limiting his contributions.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dynasteria: which demands am I making to Ermenrich who brought this case here? @Ermenrich: according to Alcaios above my sin is writing without concision. Yngvadottir, in contrast, thinks some of my recent concise posts were impolite, and she has a point. All such feedback is constructive and I certainly admit to such imperfections in my writing style and will keep trying to improve because after all life is more fun that way. Of course it is difficult to live up to the standards of other editors on Germanic peoples though, in terms of concision and politeness. To be clear: do you think the talk page of Germanic peoples shows editors who are all concise and polite?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Lancaster:, my remark was in reference to Alcaios's statement that you need "to be reassured that we're not going to write articles inspired by the essentialist vision of 19th-century scholars" in order, apparently, to limit your Talk page messages. This, however, is the Hobson's choice you've been offering all along. Also, since you asked, the question is definitely not what demands you are making of Ermenrich, the issues are those that have been laid out by concerned editors here and elsewhere. Primarily, from what I understand, that you commandeer the article itself and use the Talk page to enforce your POV. Is that not what is happening? Dynasteria (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't really follow what you are saying. I think what Alcaios was saying, rightly, is that my concerns tend to be reasonable by the standards of most editors (or at least Alcaios) and so the situation is fine if we just all work together. (Of course, Alcaios is assuming most editors will not be insisting on 19th century essentialism. That might be an issue for you?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. An indefinite TBAN is inappropriate, and I won't support any measures based on the reasons given in this sub-proposal. I don't see the "self-declared agenda", the use a "fringe source", the "fantasy world", and I don't believe his idiosyncrasies are "tactics". –Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very strong support, recommend blocking. Enough is enough—I have yet to see any benefit's to this guy's editing, which is indeed POV-fixated and generally poor in these areas. I've witnessed him aggressively pushing extreme positions into the article whenever given the chance and stonewalling anyone who dares attempt to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. These articles have plenty of individuals with formal backgrounds relevant to these topics working on them—we don't need the constant bludgeoning and half-baked POV-pushing. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given what @Yngvadottir: has highlighted above, I now recommend blocking Andrew's account entirely. That is outragous. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inclining support. Bludgeoning is on display here at AN/I, whether Andrew Lancaster defines it that way or not. I believe the editor knows that dominating a discussion by posting at undue length and in response to everything anyone says, and being dismissive in short posts, are both uncivil and potentially intimidating, and that drawing attention to the former as a problem is not an endorsement of the latter. Personalization and emotionalism while accusing others of being emotional are also on display here: initial response at this AN/I: "As can be seen in the calmer reactions above the only way I 'block' or 'own' discussions is by analyzing the pesky complexities which come from published sources."; "Now is not a good time to be over-dramatizing"; response to Ermenrich below: "getting irate"; "Angry people are attacking me, including now you."; "anti-academic battlers"; "So you are pretending YOU are calm and not triggered". Yet as seen in in a talk-page diff that I linked above, he's quick to take offense when asked why he is himself emotional on these topics. However, I would not have endorsed such a hefty penalty as a topic ban, except that I find his response to Thomas.W's proposal above to be quite frankly shocking. "Editors on Germanic topics attract a lot of intimidating anger and aggression from editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race, who academics are denying the existence of because they are dominated by ideologies and political correctness." Andrew Lancaster sees himself as a gatekeeper and implies that those who disagree with him (he has provided much evidence on this page of his view that the scholarly mainstream is what he defines it as, for example: "I've been associated with the 'POV' of using mainstream scholars" from a diff I have linked) are tainted with racism. This is classic WP:OWN and WP:RGW, fellow editors do not have to accept such slurs for disagreeing with Andrew Lancaster or anyone else, and I am disappointed that anyone here is still defending his argument tactics after reading that. If he does not apologize and take back the implied accusation against fellow editors, I frankly advocate a block, not a topic ban. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Changed to Support, see below. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not aware of this—that is outrageous and absolutely unacceptable. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This ANI thread has certainly brought out the worst in Andrew, but a different user recently posted to the article talk page a Germans-as-victims screed under the heading "Let my people go" and complained that "white supremacist" was an offensive label. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Srnec:: I am that "different user". You are welcome to your own opinion but I do not have to accept your slurs as examples of the "worst" in someone. My thread was not some superfluous "Germans-as-victims screed" and it is un-Wikipedian behavior to be dismissive toward me. Primarily, though, the fact that I consider "white supremacist" to be a racist term, because it is, is outside your province of review. If you are defending the use, then you are guilty of a racist (or is it political) attack on me. You know nothing about me, do you? Dynasteria (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than that you advocate for voluntary amnesia about the catastrophe that was 20th-century German history, no, nothing. EEng 14:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yngvadottir: I certainly do not claim to be immune to emotion, or perfect in any way, but IMHO the reality of what other editors have been doing to ratchet up the emotions is relevant to this case and needs to be considered. Several of the editors here really have been part of a systematic push around Wikipedia to delete reference to specific scholars who they claim to have an agenda to "remove the Germanic peoples from history", and this programme has included enormous amounts of ad hominem and incivility. It does seem that Bloodofox's recent approach of claiming that I must resent linguists, and that historians I cite are hardly ever cited in academia, has now impacted upon the relationship between Ermenrich and myself. Thomas.W does not appear to be a very active editor but has pursued me whenever possible since early 2020. For several months in 2020 basically every edit of Thomas.W had one theme. I suppose I am damned if I mention this, and damned if I don't. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Also I did not mention "racism" but referred to the theory that there is a way of biologically or genetically defining who is and/or was Germanic. A weak version of the idea still appears in the article, and defences of this WP:SYNTH idea undeniably appear throughout the talk page histories, attached to specific Wikipedians and their long-term positions on other issues, including arguments against various academics. I don't think it can be denied that this topic is an intrinsic part of why this ANI case exists now. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Oh man, oh man. I'm not about to respond directly to anything Andrew Lancaster says on this page, otherwise, we're playing into his game, his usual technique, whether conscious or not (it doesn't matter which—same effect, and of course he can see the results—a royal clusterfuck). Look at his responses, classic bludgeoning— responding to every criticism—he's doing it right here in front of everyone, as Yngvadottir says above, because he can't help himself. Andrew still thinks there's nothing wrong with his excessive commentary on and bludgeoning of the talk pages of "Germanic peoples" and "Goths", and it's naive to think he'll change his style of obfuscation on these talk pages. I've given him the benefit of the doubt for too long, and now again he climbs up on his cross of victimhood, and dismisses criticism of his behavior, which seems rather arrogant. I say, stop engaging with him, it feeds what strikes me as something pathological. Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaning support now myself but also noting there is an alternative proposal below that may thread the needle between retaining retaining the value of Andrew's contributions while restraining any disruption from their ebullient mode of contribution in this area. I've been following this thread since it was first posted a couple of days ago, but taking the time to review the context in detail before supplying my own take on the issues of the talk page. Initially, I felt a sanction such as a TBAN would be excessive for a number of reasons: it's self evident that the two articles in question here cover deeply nuanced topics and must summarize a complicated tangle of issues and sources which incorporate both empirical research and more subjective faire. So a discussion of this topic is bound to involve a fair deal of heavy posts and some eye-straining debate. And if a given editor is predisposed towards verbosity, that could combine with complex issue to produce particularly lengthy arguments, even where bludgeoning was definitely not the intent. Furthermore, looking at some of those particularized arguments, I'm often finding that in some of the situations where Andrew is making their more voluminous contributions, they are doing so in service of a good argument on a complex issue.
    However, all of that said, the more I have reviewed the forgoing discussion on the talk pages, the more my concerns have grown and the more I understand the complaints raised here by numerous other editors in those spaces--sometimes even when I disagree with their content/policy read. Andrew definitely needs to internalize some lessons here regarding the fact that having the right position is sometimes insufficient if you can't make your argument in the right way. Which should not be construed as me saying they are overwhelmingly right: I hasten to add that because I am concerned Andrew will otherwise interpret this observation (as they seem to have other comments of partial support above) as amounting to evidence that their problems are mostly due to the complicated position they have been put it.
    And ultimately, that is the biggest source of concern here for me: there is a pretty monumental amount of WP:IDHT going on in this thread and even if we let Andrew off without substantial sanction in this case, it'll only be to delay addressing the issue until another day if he does not come to grips with the fact that there are legitimate concerns about his approach here. Above and bellow, I see a lot of posts where he makes a wise tactical decision to admit that his approach isn't perfect, but then spends three or four times as much time addressing why he is really correct in various particulars. That's the approach to mea culpa of someone who has a lot of experience being diplomatic and demonstrating openness to discussion to a certain level, but who really isn't receiving the message about how much their approach needs to change in toto.
    Andrew, to speak to you directly now, the sheer volume of feedback you have received about problems with your approach on those talk pages cannot be completely rationalized away as a product of the context, even if we were to assume (as you definitely should not) that you were right about every content question and simply were stuck with the difficult situation of arguing against superior numbers on a complex topic. I do think that North8000's approach below may be the way to go here--or that we should at least try this half-step first--but if you don't make real efforts to recognize and address some very much real shortcomings in your approach to how discussion must proceed in the constraints of this project, I'll be surprised if the topic ban isn't imposed the next time this discussion lands here, if it has to come to that. Snow let's rap 22:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise: to be honest that all sounds reasonable. I have said from the beginning that I do take some of the complaints on board, where that it logically possible. Some of the clearest and most useful advice comes from the same editors who actually cite sources such as Alcaios, and Austronesier. It is literally impossible to take all the criticism seriously because there are big differences between the different types of opposition against me. For example, Ermenrich included a POV aspect in the complaint citing an argument with Bloodofox. Bloodofox has one big issue and that is that I included citations from the academic author Walter Goffart in the 2020 version of Germanic peoples. If you look at my drafting page for that 2020 version, Ermenrich was one of the contributors suggesting Goffart quotations, and in the very examples cited above, Ermenrich was also involved, arguing against Bloodofox! It is like I said, the talk page is full of human imperfection. Was there an increasing problem or new problem though? No, there is a BETTER situation on the article. This case was triggered by a specific content discussion which is not part of any long term debate that I can see. (But maybe I don't fully understand Ermenrich yet on that. I would like to though.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I am not in a position to debate with you whether the article talk page is in a better place now than it has been in recent time: that may very well be and you know the article better than I, so let's just take that assessment at face value for the purposes of the moment. The important thing is that you recognize that whatever the state of the articles, a large number of your fellow editors and community members here are expressing a need to have you hear something that is pretty consistent in at least some details. Given the tone of feedback at this juncture, I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that hearing it might be vital to staying involved on these articles. Snow let's rap 13:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I read Andrew's initial response to me above, then went away to give him a chance to reflect on the need for an apology. Instead I find not the tiniest shred of regret for implying that any and all who disagree with his position represent a racist position, not even an admission that he may have phrased his point overly broadly. Instead he doubled down on it initially: "Several of the editors here really have been part of a systematic push around Wikipedia to delete reference to specific scholars who they claim to have an agenda to 'remove the Germanic peoples from history'", and redoubled the aspersion in a later addition to the same comment: "Also I did not mention 'racism' but referred to the theory that there is a way of biologically or genetically defining who is and/or was Germanic. A weak version of the idea still appears in the article, and defences of this WP:SYNTH idea undeniably appear throughout the talk page histories, attached to specific Wikipedians and their long-term positions on other issues, including arguments against various academics." He has continued to attack other editors here on AN/I, accusing them of being emotional and of creating the problem by attacking him; for example to Ermenrich below: "There is too much exaggeration and dramatization. Take a step back and look. You are in control of the article. No one is working against you. I am not the main participant in editing or on the talk page, but if I post any question or concern I get attacked and parodied and long discussions ensue, all driven by the same editors who have attacked me here." Note the use of "parodied", which denotes deliberate misrepresentation, and which he has frequently used when he wants to say that his position is being inaccurately summarized. He has resumed frequent posting at Talk:Germanic peoples (in addition to making one small change to the article itself with a diffident edit summary); with his repeated serious aspersions in this discussion, that is inappropriate. It is apparent that no admin is going to block him, which is a pity because it might have been a sufficiently unambiguous signal as to cause him to reevaluate his argument strategy and his assumption that his article ownership is acceptable here. But instead I must advocate for the less preferable means of stopping his disruption of the editing process. Someone who tenaciously believes that only adherents of his preferred school of theorists should be allowed to work on articles about Germanic peoples, and that disagreement with him constitutes an attack that he is entitled to bludgeon against, should not be editing on such topics or posting to the talk pages. Other editors have expertise in the field and are more than capable of ensuring that the scholarly point of view he favors is adequately represented in the articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I see multiple editors making long and frequent posts, both on the article talk page and here. I don't see any cause to topic ban just one of them. This thread is long on opinion but short on diffs of actual disruption. Seems like a content dispute to me. By the way, from skimming the article talk page, it seems to me the root problem is that the editors working there have yet to identify what the leading sources are for this topic. Accurately and neutrally summarizing the sources is impossible until the sources are identified. Levivich 13:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can Andrew Lancaster suggest a solution?

    @Andrew Lancaster: So, despite your best efforts, even those of us who applaud your work say that there is a problem at those articles as described above. Do you have a suggestion, even of some voluntary approach to try? North8000 (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC

    To be clear, I am stunned at this proposal. "OK, you didn't do the murder, but you did do deconstructionism, so can we agree on a year?" I see neutral Wikipedians posting above don't see any justification for singling me out. There is nothing being blocked by me. That is nonsense. The article and its talk page might be terrible but the direction looks better than for a while and I am contributing to that according to pretty much everyone. Let's just keep working? I find it really sad and surreal that you have attacked me like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The problem here is not a particular editor but some controversy about the topic. The solution in such cases is to attract attention so that more editors attend, express their take on the issue and so help establish a better consensus. This is best done by an RfC but this ANI entry will have a similar effect. Andrew Lancaster will no doubt take on board the various comments made and, in any case, their individual position will be more diluted by the input of others. The outcome we need to settle here is whether any immediate admin action is required and I'm not convinced that it is. This just seems to be a content dispute and so it goes ... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, various attempts have been made to attract more editors to the topic, including by myself (see [111], [112]), however most are simply put off by the complexity of the discussion and accompanying walls of text and leave. As I've said before, I believe that the complexity of the discussion is largely the result of Andrew Lancaster's manner of arguing, rather than the subject being more complex in and of itself than other areas. This is not just a topic dispute, it's a behavioral problem.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is not a content dispute why was POV included as part of the complaint? OTOH, while your examples of POV disputes are old arguments with Bloodofox where you agreed with me, the emotionally trigger to this complaint was basically at least a short-term content dispute: [113] Andrew, you are trying to force the definition of a single clique of historians onto the article - this is precisely why no one liked how you had edited the article before (and other comments in a similar theme). Apparently to some extent you've been drawn into Bloodofox's idea that this is a battle of linguists versus historians, and Carlstak's and Berig's ideas that they are mustering a team of linguistic experts and I am in the way? Would this whole ANI case really have existed without those battling ideas constantly being floated, and making normal BRD discussions difficult?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I brought up POV is that you've been pushing the article in a certain way, and it took my actually getting involved in editing it to understand exactly how this is happening. Whether you mean to or not, the walls of text cause people to become irate and annoyed and then eventually to check out entirely. They decide it's not worth the effort to try to debate with you since no matter what they say you will post a wall of text that discards their opinion. I have agreed with you on many things - but I still think you are bludgeoning for a certain perspective (POV) in the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) "Walls of text" is a silly thing to keep referring to in this context where longish posts are common among many editors on this topic including you, and some of the posts which annoy you were short. Let's use the word you've recently taken over from the anti-academic battlers to use on talk pages when targetting me: You say my posts are "deconstructionism". This is quickly becoming the most common word as everyone can check. But you don't mean I am a partisan of Jacques Derrida, you mean I look critically and carefully at definitions in sources. (As can also be checked.) Doesn't this match the aims of Wikipedia? Can you deny that this is what you mean? (2) Yes, I agree, this whole discussion here is all about certain people getting irate, including now you. Angry people are attacking me. Look at the observations of neutral observers though. I mean how bad is Deconstructionism right? The anger and intimidation has long been coming from the long term battlers who've been making these article talk pages bad for years, and not the people scared away by them. As Bloodofox warned me, "this is not my first rodeo". Be honest: editors including me and you have been repulsed by these article talk pages over a long period, and you have probably now taken a deep breath before jumping in just as I did a year ago. I want to support you in your efforts to move ahead, but this action you have taken against me can bring us back into the old battling circle. (3) You are saying this was not a content dispute but there is a POV problem. So you are pretending YOU are calm and not triggered by a small content dispute and instead there is some long-term POV problem which, before this ANI case, you have never mentioned. In fact, you still have not named it. Which POV am I pushing? Is it the one mentioned by Alcaios above? You are calling for a ban on a colleague so put it on the table please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @North8000: I have made friendly commitments to do my best above, and I am open to ideas, but we have consider the real context. Nearly everyone who posts on Germanic peoples could be accused of something, if our aim would be to wikilawyer. I must add that now regret the way in which particularly Carlstak abused friendlier discussions about reducing the number of posts - using them as a rationale to express outrage at anything and everything, even posting a complaint on the article page to notify everyone that I "broke my promise" by posting a message on a user page. We are now in an article rewriting phase, so several of us have been involved in relatively fast exchanges which (as Alcaios remarked) we should perhaps slow down. But in the meantime, the build up of Carlstak's off-topic, uncivil personal attacks and dramatizations has certainly played a crucial role in building up the emotions of some editors, leading to this strange case. If you look through the normal sorts of posts which regularly appear on the Germanic peoples talk page, incivility, long off-topic rants, walls of words, can all be found, but here is Ermenrich saying I must be banned because of my "manner of arguing". But not off-topic, uncivil, etc, - instead referring to me giving detailed careful readings of sources, and comparisons of different logical options. I do not know how unusual this is on ANI, but to me it seems Kafkaesque. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What I see there is two articles that are mired down due to the complexity of the topics and issues. Differing viewpoints appear to be only secondary causes. Nobody there has a knack for moving forward out of the mire, and as a result there whoever does the most work (Andrew) is creating the most miring. My idea would be to archive all past discussions. Then everybody try your ideas as SMALL individual edits on a BRD basis, one or two at a time. If reverted, discuss those small individual simple edits in talk, making only succinct arguments. For those most focused on Andrew Lancaster, they can rest assured that these changes most change/reduce what he is doing. Do this for 2 months and maybe it will establish a pattern that keeps the process out of the mire. I could camp out at both articles for 2-3 weeks as a facilitator of getting that process going. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be a bit different than you think. On Goths, things are stuck because the two main editors have to use RFCs to change the article. On Germanic peoples, in the last few days things are moving ahead but I am not the one doing the most work or wanting to make lots of proposals. Ermenrich is rewriting the article. I fully support this, and my hope is that I can give support and feedback. Ermenrich came here because I raised one or two awkward questions which E felt would hold things back but this was an over-reaction and editing continues. Most of the examples were from past situations. The talk page is busy but better than usual in terms of being focussed upon sources and content. I do not want to predict too much about what happens after this has run its course, but I think it is not controversial to say that this is when the main editors expect to review whether the article scope is good and whether splitting is needed. I don't think the situation right now could be much better actually. On the other hand the philosophy of having me under watch etc sounds ok, but please double check the situation and adapt the idea?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably indicative of the state of affairs on both is that I've spent a few hours on the Goth article over 4 months and 15 minutes on the Germanic article and had no idea that either of the things that you described is the case or even what the current situation is.North8000 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @North8000: Agree with your proposal about small edits, succinct arguments. However, characterizing an editor's behavior as (basically) "doing the most work therefore getting the most blame" in a really tough situation is turning the whole discussion on its head. Perhaps the way to look at problematic behavior, instead, is to ask (much like an anthropologist or psychologist) what benefit is the person getting out of the behavior? The topic is no more complex and difficult than the people working on it are making it. Why is it being made unnecessarily complex? Well, the objective evidence suggests clearly that such behavior provides control. Who has been controlling the article for nigh onto a year? Well, I'll let others answer that, but it has been stated already that it's Andrew. I'm attempting to go about this in a friendly fashion. However, as Ermenrich stated, the problem is that AL has not admitted to doing anything wrong. Additionally, I was more than a little shocked to come upon this article late in the game (mine and the article's game) and find such blatant bias and, from my perspective, a kind of lurking hostility toward Germanic peoples. I'm too old to be surprised by much, but I remain shocked nevertheless. I'd very much like to see this article fixed, but part of doing that is recognizing that the morass is illusory and created by human beings. To remove the bias, responsible parties have to recognize it's there. Dynasteria (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dynasteria: you are talking about past versions of the article. Ermenrich is rewriting the article and I am happy about that. Wait till that is done and then let's see if that is still biased according to you. But honestly, it probably will be right? In other words your understanding of why the article was biased is something not many other editors agree with so Ermenrich is not likely to change that problem for you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is quite unwise to ignore the plethora of editors from the Germanic peoples page—nearly every editor there, in fact—who highlights major problems with Andrew Lancaster's editing style. It's obvious that he's engaging in WP:BLUDGEON and ignoring this fact will only cause the problem to continue. Without Andrew Lancaster consistently attempting to micromanage every aspect of the article with walls of text, we're finally seeing progress toward improvement. The article doesn't need a babysitter, it needs rejection of the constant bludgeoning stemming from a single editor. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Plethora? "Nearly every?" Not quite true is it? Micromanage? Ermenrich now dominates the article in every way. No one is blocking the article. My posts do not dominate the talk page in any way. The article is being rebuilt, and no one can blame me for that anymore which is great for me. When the weaker accusations are stripped away I am just the annoying guy who points to terminology and definitional concerns etc; reading the sources. Please stop poisoning the wells with all your battling talk. I do believe you are to a large extent responsible for getting Ermenrich to see this as a battle and take this action.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Plethora and nearly every, yep. Go ahead and count them—they're all listed in the section above telling you to knock it off, some more gently than others. The fact that you just can't help yourself is one thing but attempting to blame others for your behavior is something else entirely. The article is moving forward because you've been told to knock it off by no less than a crowd at this point, some of them--including myself--even bothering to seek a topic ban for you. Now that's an achievement. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Lancaster: I'm happy to wait and see. It appears progress is being made. Dynasteria (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bloodofox:, it is good that we can at least agree that Ermenrich and other editors are able to work on the article with no-one holding them up, and that this situation began BEFORE this ANI case. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Some Observations on the discussion so far

    In spite of a number of involved or uninvolved users stating firmly that a topic ban in this matter is out of the question, the users Thomas.W, Bloodofox, Dynasteria, Yngvadottir and Carlstak over the last few days have increased their rhetoric and their demands, first calling for a wider topic ban and now even for a block of Andrew Lancaster. When initially the charge was limited at WP:WALLSOFTEXT and OWN, we are now looking at the following complaints:

    All this is being balanced by an increasing level of accusatory rhetoric that significantly overstepped the lines crossing over into incivility. Here are some examples of text snippets found among the contributions of the named editors: "describing his tactics as bludgeoning is spot on, because that is what he is doing", "attempt to drive all editors away", "his fantasy world", "enough is enough—I have yet to see any benefit's to this guy's editing, which is indeed POV-fixated and generally poor in these areas", "stonewalling anyone who dares attempt to discuss", "outrageous and absolutely unacceptable", "we're playing into his game, his usual technique", "royal clusterfuck", "he climbs up on his cross of victimhood", "strikes me as something pathological", "remove Andrew Lancaster from the picture and these articles will be FA-quality in no time".

    To me it reads as "no matter what anyone here says about the lack of gravity of the charges brought against AL, or what people think about his good faith and qualities as an editor, no matter that North8000 offered herself as a mediator for the page, we want to see AL blocked!" To me this confirms my initial impression that after all it may not have been AL's behavior that ultimately generated this thread. After all this verbal abuse without substance, I am wondering if it isn't time to play the boomerang card. LandLing 13:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Landroving Linguist: LandLing, please define "rhetoric" for everyone. I'm aware of increasing reasoned and logical responses, that is, skilled and persuasive discourse. The word carries those connotations for me. Dynasteria (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a second sense to the word: "language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content. You can safely assume that I used the word in this sense. LandLing 14:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I assure you I am always sincere and mean what I say. Therefore I reject your characterization. Meanwhile, I'm going through the links in your post (the evidence for your arguments) and it seems to me you lump various editors together and use one set of comments to delegitimize another set. Some of your points may be perfectly valid but it's hard to follow your argument. Ultimately, though, I don't want Andrew banned. I want better articles. Dynasteria (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ can't link to this non-event
    @Landroving Linguist Please understand that these comments are the results of long-going (how long, two years now?) and mounting frustration with Andrew's continued domination of Germanic peoples' talk page, as shown recently here and here. The first one is the one where I reached my breaking point, since he posted it soon after pleas from Ermenrich and me to please be more concise. It's not just the length of his comments, it's the sheer volume of them—he overwhelms all other commentary, making it very difficult to follow the conversation. As pointed out earlier, he's made 860 of its edits (44.1%). The next most frequently posting editor has made only 179 (9.2%). Andrew has added 754,829 bytes of text to the talk page (56.2%), the equivalent of several very long articles, versus 220,121 bytes (16.4%) added by the other editor, Krakkos, with whom Andrew has also carried on a long-running and acrimonious dispute, from which Krakkos has since withdrawn. I believe the same thing has happened at the Goths article. Andrew has worn many of us involved editors out, and new editors who might contribute are scared away. I apologize to Andrew for the intemperate comments I've made, we've had some pleasant exchanges in the past, even quite recently, and to the community. I got carried away when the article was restored to a previous version that more people found acceptable, and other editors were getting involved again, but then Andrew resumed his characteristic very frequent posting, often at length. It seemed that the progress finally made was going to be dragged down once again. Carlstak (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is good to hear that apology from you, which will go a long way. Yes, I can see your frustration, but I also took a few hours this morning to read through the Germanic peoples talk page. Although it is certainly very long, there is nothing in there from AL that justifies a topic ban or even a block. Bringing this up here to ANI with this intent has been quite frivolous, to say the least. I hope you also can distance yourself from the more serious accusations that were brought against AL, because they don't really reflect well on those who brought them up to raise the heat in this discussion. LandLing 14:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, Landroving Linguist, but have you looked at the archives? It would take a long time to read all the commentary, I think more than half of it written by Andrew since he started posting. It seems that his responding at such frequency and volume is effectively what could reasonably be described as bludgeoning. The acrimony between him and Krakkos, expressed at great length, was extremely frustrating to other editors, and better illustrates why some of us have lost patience. Carlstak (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I, and the other edits who have concurred with my characterization of events, do not agree with you this report has been "frivolous". Just because you can't understand how difficult and demoralizing dealing with the sheer volume of text can be, most of it either focused on extremely minor points, or else trying to push the article in a completely different direction than most editors think it should. We've had endless discussions about whether or not the subject of "Germanic peoples" includes people who spoke Germanic languages or not. At Goths, there's been endless discussions in which Andrew has tried to remove any reference to linguistics related to the Goths. The archives are full of this stuff. It's just too much for most people. While I may not agree with some of Andrew's most strident critics, I do think that the constant bludgeoning walls of text are a problem that needs to be dealt with, and Andrew himself shows absolutely no sign of doing so.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carlstak: @Ermenrich: It is strange to me that this whole thing was launched some days AFTER Ermenrich completely rewrote the article, proving that no one had been blocking this at all. If I was not actually causing a practical problem then the complaint is frivolous. In effect you are now admitting you just came here to complain that you find me annoying. I find a lot of people annoying too. I also think that there is a giant gorilla in the room, which is that there are no such problems in discussions with Alcaios, Srnec, Austronesier, or Ermenrich (the editors who cite sources) in many other related articles that get less attention. The reason for the difference is obvious. The Germanic peoples talk page has a relatively large number of high-impact intimidating editors who visit frequently and make uncivil comments about other editors, and their "agendas", but never cite sources or work constructively. They've been trying to get more people upset for a long time. Can either of you seriously convince yourself that I am the one who keeps bringing up Walter Goffart, and all the other arguments which are the ones that repeat over and over, and get mixed into every discussion, every time? Ermenrich can you imagine us arguing about that if it was just the two of us? Of course I will keep doing my best, but if you have to write constantly expecting that you are about to be attacked by people like Carlstak, or have your words twisted as throughout this discussion, over and over, it does not help concision? Ermenrich if we are honest, then those have been the distraction discussions, and I literally have no idea what you are talking about with your new accusation. Are you seriously saying that there have been "endless discussions in which Andrew has tried to remove any reference to linguistics related to the Goths"? What are you talking about? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew, if I’m honest I really just think you need to pledge to stop posting walls of text and maybe even take a break from the article. Even when you are being reasonable the sheer amount of text makes it feel like an attack. I do think you’ve gotten too fixated on not Goffart specifically, but a direction of scholarship that tosses out all other disciplines who need to be in the article. That is why this was brought to ANI: I certainly don’t enjoy reporting you here, but it didn’t seem like I or anyone else was getting through to you.—-Ermenrich (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ermenrich: There is too much exaggeration and dramatization. Take a step back and look. You are in control of the article. No one is working against you. I am not the main participant in editing or on the talk page, but if I post any question or concern I get attacked and parodied and long discussions ensue, all driven by the same editors who have attacked me here. You are not an angel watching from heaven. Two necessary conditions for this ANI case, and the difficulties of keeping discussions neat on the talk page are definitely: (1) Editors personalizing their frustrations about normal content-related challenges; (2) Editors distorting each other's positions. You and Carlstak both now seem to have picked up those bad habits. Concerning your Goths aspersion you are not really answering, so switching to generalizations: yes, there are differences between branches of scholarship which give us challenges. HOWEVER, none of us editors who read the sources could get confused and angry about this if we were working without all the extra noise on a less well-known article. No-one is trying to toss something out, unless you are, so you're summary of my concern with your explanation about the new opening lines is frankly an uncritical distortion that evolved straight from "denying the German race" meme. You have not really read what I was saying, because instead you brought it here. (That was my only long recent post - because careful.) If you want a short TLDR version see my question to Ealdgyth. In response to your "take a break" proposal, unfortunately in less friendly WP editing situations you have to be careful about making friendly compromises which can be twisted into precedents, admissions or promises. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew, I'm going to break my promise to myself not to interact with you any more. After repeated pleas to ease up on the frequency and length of your comments, you ignored those pleas, as you've done all along, because you don't see a problem with your voluminous and very frequent commentary that makes it difficult for other editors to see what's going on, as has been remarked many times. Yes, it's true that Ermenrich reverted the article to a previous version from which to start anew, and progress was being made, but you immediately took to the talk page to register your concerns, as you always do, with multiple, wordy points of 5,092 bytes. I thought, "Oh no, here we go again. The article is going to get bogged down because of Andrew's refusal to consider the comfort and limits of the patience of the people who are forced to read all his verbiage, unless they simply withdraw, as many have done). To give other editors an idea of what I'm talking about with the excessive commentary, obfuscating in effect, I present this interaction timeline between you and Krakkos. Warning: it takes a while to reach the end, after much scrolling downward. The interactions on the talk page of Germanic peoples starts at 2019-09-07. Carlstak (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carlstak: Honestly, such posts are a problem, not a solution. You could certainly be described in recent times as someone who posts long off-topic posts, and is deliberately trying to disrupt the work of another editor.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, there's a large crowd of editors here discussing Lancaster's numerous editing problems, and you think it's the crowd's fault? Now that's a creative takeaway. WP:LISTEN. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 2

    Andrew and all how about this?: Andrew's very Wikipedian work is appreciated, but the sheer quantity of that work and discussions at the 2 subject articles is causing problems. Andrew will voluntarily cut their amount of work and posts at the subject two articles down to about 1/3 of their previous amount for a month, details on this to be interpreted by Andrew.. After a month the agreement expires but it is hoped that the new pattern established will continue. This ANI will be closed but after 2 weeks concerned persons can reopen a new one if they see fit. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like something a little bit more clear than that. What does 1/3 mean, exactly? That main problem is just his lengthy talk pages posts, as well as, I think, a myopic focus on excluding "Germanic-speaking peoples" from the article "Germanic peoples".--Ermenrich (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ermenrich: First 2 sentences: do you have a suggestion? Long third sentence has no connection to reality, and is a specific content issue that you're now introducing. I don't think that's practical. (If you really believe it then it shows how much of the current problems are problems caused by personalization of frustrations, and distortions of other editors. This is a content issue, but whatever else happens I would eventually like to have a bit of your time for a discussion to clear this up. I also feel frustrations, like you. It is always horrible to see someone misreport you over and over.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support North8000's proposal. And I also appeal to more restraint from other editors, however "annoyed" they may feel. Can we agree to commit ourselves to DS-like standards in the talk page and the article? –Austronesier (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for North8000's proposal, and for Austronesier's call for restraint. LandLing 20:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • North, I appreciate your creativity, and Austronesier I think your words are gold. Sounds doable if done in a reasonable way. However I'd point out that my normal rate of work on the actual article is low and not really the subject of this complaint, so I think the focus is on the talk page? You are going to need to define it though. Are you thinking about something like a number of posts per day and/or bytes limit?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    After scanning the history, what about maximum 10 talk-page posts each running 7-day period, maximum size of 1500 bytes per post, and 1700 bytes per day. I presume this is much less than one third of my normal output for some periods. I don't see any reason to be limiting anything on Goths or the Germanic peoples article itself. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew, the intent is to get it down to about 1/3 of your overall rate of activity on those two articles, and yes, it's mostly about talk pages. And it's structured as self-regulated, self-determined by you so details such as you propose are not necessary. But if you want them, fine. The intent is not to create a new rulebook, it's just to get you to do less on those articles, especially the talk pages. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that is fuzzy so forget the exact numbers, but I'll try to be uncontroversially within that. To be honest my historical participation has been connected to the lack of editors who had time to spend on quality work on the article as opposed to comments on the talk page, and also (as Alcaios mentioned from the start) concerns with occasional attempts to reintroduce what Alcaios politely calls 19th century essentialism. While we have Ermenrich leading work on Germanic peoples, I'm happy to watch and support or comment, as others are doing. I hope I will not continue to be distorted, and I hope the ad hominem posts will stop! While I've clearly taken some wrong steps and should accept some responsibility I do feel however very sad about the way in which ad hominem posts, distortions of my position, and the liberal use of dramatic outrage, have led to this case. I am convinced that if there had been no systematic programme of declaring that I had an "agenda" (variously evolving: Goffart, "revisionism", anti linguist, anti Germanic, "deconstructionism" etc etc) this would not have happened. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with N8k about not having numerical limits but FWIW those numbers are way too high. How much time do you expect other editors will spend on this article, per day/week? What proportion of that time should they spend on reading what you write? That's the way to think about it. Levivich 14:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't want to cause anybody any problem of course, but it is a busy page, and currently undergoing a reconstruction. I was honestly thinking one post per day, and occasionally two, is a quite tight restriction given the normal rate at which not only myself but also others post there and edit the article? I am honestly open to suggestions on how to judge this. I guess we all judge such things based on our experiences of what is normal around us on particular types of articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, I wonder whether we are on the same page here. N8K expressed the limits in terms of bytes, not words. To get this into perspective, AL's post right above this one has exactly 605 bytes, so a limit of 1700 brings it into the range of less than three of these contributions. This is not excessive by anyone's standard, and I don't think it is helpful to restrict any editor using boundaries that are just not realistic. But as I say, I suspect that this is just a matter of misunderstood units. LandLing 18:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Landroving Linguist, you are right: I misread that as 1500 words per post, not bytes. I don't think a word or byte or post limit is helpful, either. The relevant unit of measurement IMO is minutes (of other editors' time). Levivich 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Unacceptable accommodation for an editor who has bludgeoned, attacked, insinuated, and represented himself as the victim right here and is now bargaining for the right to continue acting as a self-appointed gatekeeper. The chilling effect of both his argument tactics and his insinuations is apparent and has been documented here; subject-matter experts and good writers have been driven away by Andrew Lancaster's acting as arbiter of what Goths and Germanic peoples can say, he is unapologetic, and the problem is not that he has a wordy style or that he is being attacked, or even that he is arguing for a valid scholarly point of view on contentious topics; the problem is that he has a detrimental effect on the articles, up to and including not abiding by minimum rules for civil interaction and not accepting the validity of criticism about his approach. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yngvadottir: Please give diffs for "attacked", "insinuated" and "not abiding by minimum rules for civil interaction". I stated above that so far the only reasonable documentation in this thread was about WP:WALLSOFTEXT, which is by no means a punishable crime on Wikipedia, if the text is to the point. You are again introducing or repeating charges for which we have not seen any reasonable documentation. Please give us that documentation, or stop doing that. The same applies to bloodofox. Claiming "numerous editing problems" as you did above without so far showing us even one of them is not going to help your cause, but it reinforces my above suspicion that you are part of the problem. LandLing 10:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Landroving Linguist: I think I may be the only participant in this discussion who has brought diffs and quotations. I quoted the insinuation above: "Editors on Germanic topics attract a lot of intimidating anger and aggression from editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race, who academics are denying the existence of because they are dominated by ideologies and political correctness." I have more recently quoted Andrew Lancaster's doubling down on that insinuation in a response to me: "Several of the editors here really have been part of a systematic push around Wikipedia to delete reference to specific scholars who they claim to have an agenda to 'remove the Germanic peoples from history'". That makes it clear that the accusation of identification with a Germanic race (my emphasis) and of a "push" to delete mention of scholars on such grounds are not drive-by white supremacists or a deluded minority, but those of his fellow editors who disagree with him. Since you apparently require me to personally convince you, I refer you again to my post above supporting Thomas W.'s proposal for a comprehensive topic ban, or you may feel free to re-read Andrew Lancaster's own statements and to remind yourself of the heading of this section, by Ermenrich (who I believe agrees with most of Andrew Lancaster's positions on the scholarship), which refers to WP:OWN and WP:BLUDGEON, both of which are violations of editor conduct standards, although I would not presume to school you on when they cross the line into obvious policy violation. I have also invoked WP:RGW. Perhaps I have been too verbose and you have not read my fuller arguments, above. If you have, please forgive my repetition in responding to your request. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yngvadottir, thanks. Yes, I have read your previous contributions, and in my OP to this section I have also stated clearly that these are rather flimsy grounds for an accusation that AL is playing the racism card. Both passages you quote you interpret as insinuations and use them against AL, but, from reading what I read so far in and about Germanic people, both statements are actually factual statements that need to be evaluated against what they are referring to. Apparently there are editors and members of the public who see themselves as members of an on-going Germanic race. Obviously there are academics who deny the existence of that, and they do seem to claim that such ideas about the ongoing Germanic race are based on ideologies and political correctness. All these are factual statements, and their validity can be discussed without assuming that AL is attacking any editors, such as you, in particular. It is also beyond doubt that AL's statement about editors pushing systematically to delete references to specific scholars is correct, and we can ask Andrew Lancaster for a diff regarding the statement that these editors claim that said scholars have an agenda to remove the Germanic peoples from history, as this seems to be a quote that he has taken out of a talk page discussion. With no word has he accused you or anyone else in particular of being a racist, and I think you know that quite well. Look, this is a discussion where editors wantrequest to *block* or *topic-ban* AL. Frankly, no admin is going to doimplement that on the evidence given so far. The WP:OWN and WP:BLUDGEON charges go quite a bit beyond just observing WP:WALLSOFTEXT, and the jury is even still out on them, as apparently at least the ownership issue had been resolved even before that whole case was brought before ANI. In summary, there is no convincing evidence for AL's attacking and insinuating behavior, and certainly nothing that gets anywhere close to AL not adhering to civil conduct. LandLing 11:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, what specifically in AL's behavior warrants a WP:RGW tag? I didn't understand that. LandLing 11:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)@Yngvadottir: after your first post you switched to expressions of outrage that are effectively treating both me and the neutral admins as dishonest in our reporting of relevant extra context. To point to the gorilla in the room, from your own posts, and various discussions between us previously, this is purely connected to my descriptions of the interactions I have had with several editors you seem to have a longer history of working with (Berig and Bloodofox and I suppose also Thomas.W). The fact is that is that my experience is of them entering discussions and then making personal attacks against me, not citing sources, distorting my position, casting aspersions, poisoning the well, and literally nothing else. Their position is that I am a propagandist for the scholar Walter Goffart (which is not true), who they accuse of wanting to eliminate Germanic peoples from history (which is not true), and who Ermenrich, Austronesier, Srnec etc encouraged me to cite more in 2020. The talk page is frequented by many editors making these claims about WP eliminating the Germanic people from history, and I don't know all their exact backgrounds, so I can only judge them by their actions towards me, and report those. It is clear these editors have a shared POV-based accusation which is completely different from any position I have ever seen put forward by Ermenrich, Austronesier, Srnec, Alcaios, etc who are all editors I have a good history of working with on different articles, and who cite sources (including Goffart) and have a long history of editing and discussing things on Germanic peoples at the same times when I have. So in a sense there are two different incompatible sets of concerns being mixed together. One is about too many or too long posts, and people annoying each other etc, and I have taken it seriously from the beginning. The other is one which I think would require a more complete review of the editing of the above-mentioned accusing editors, Berig, Bloodofox and Thomas.W. I personally do not like wikilawyering or overdramatization but I make no apologies for saying that those editors have acted systematically in problematic ways against me, and that I can't logically take them to be part of the same claim as Ermenrich. Furthermore they are not offering advice (as you did in your first post) and they won't be happy with any practical compromises. Unfortunately their participation here is simply part of their longer run efforts to disrupt any work by me on these topics. That is the truth as I understand it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Landroving Linguist: Hopefully the diffs you and Yngvadottir have suggested I should show won't be called bludgeoning by anyone!

    • Bloodofox was I think an occasional visitor for a long time (longer than me) on Germanic peoples but entered discussion heavily with this thread [114] which was nominally about a new Germanic folklore article drafted over a long period together with Ermenrich and Berig.[115], though no-one has mentioned that since. A large-scale deletion of Goffart mentions followed [116]. The aggression towards me was obvious.[117] I contacted Bloodofox on their talk page to complain about ad hominem posts several times where further comments about Goffart and me can be noted. Bloodofox then called people for comment including many editors who I don't recall seeing on Germanic peoples, including Thomas.W who is not even a very active editor.[118]
    • Berig's stated position is that scholars are wrong as shown by their disagreement with the Encylopaedia Brittanica and will be proven soon by advances in DNA research [119]. Soon after posting that statement, Berig seems to have gone to check the Goths article, seen that it was under admin oversight, and then gone to that admin to try to get me blocked, which is when our interactions started. The sequence of aspersion castings (agenda etc) that ensued is remarkable, but no diffs or similar were ever given.[120] They now mainly seem to work on such draft articles which are lists of Germanic things, but also has a longer history on Germanic topics. But recently Berig entered Germanic peoples talk to join the discussion started by Bloodofox, and I think Berig is the one who recently started repeating the term "bludgeoning" over and over about me, leading to requests that I reduce my posting and let others decide the future of the article.
    • Thomas.W's activity level is low, so easy to check. Their main pursuit of me was in the first half of 2020, when every edit that user did had some connection to this theme, with constant focus upon Goffart (who has been cited in WP for a long time before I knew anything about him). In a post to Srnec Goffart is described as a "historian who has as his stated goal the total removal of all Germanic peoples, and everything relating to them, from history" (which is not true, as Srnec has explained various times). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Lancaster, can you show us the diff for this quote: "historian who has as his stated goal the total removal of all Germanic peoples, and everything relating to them, from history", which would be quite important in your defense, as it shows that you were making a factual statement based on the talk history. LandLing 13:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I missed it. [121]. Bloodofox made similar claims in several places linked to above. Goffart's concern is however with the usefulness of the term in "late antiquity", which was a use connected to claims of continuity into medieval and modern times. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please, I've been editing on ancient Germanic studies topics on English Wikipedia for around a decade and a half. I returned to the then-mess that was the article after completing a draft of Proto-Germanic folklore with several other editors, all of them here. I then encountered a very clear example of WP:BLUDGEON and POV-editing. This talk page is full of editors who encountered similar, specifically classic WP:BLUDGEON at a rate I rarely encounter outside of fringe topic pages. This thread is about your behavior, Andrew. Rather than listening to the crowd here telling him to knock it off and channel his urges into a something more appropriate (like a blog), we're now seeing conspiracy theories from Andrew ("I make no apologies for saying that those editors have acted systematically in problematic ways against me, and that I can't logically take them to be part of the same claim as Ermenrich ... Unfortunately their participation here is simply part of their longer run efforts to disrupt any work by me on these topics" — wtf, take a note for your defense of Andrew, @Landroving Linguist:). :bloodofox: (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloodofox, you have once more made an accusation of POV editing without providing any documentation, although you have been asked not to do this. This gives the impression of deliberate contempt of the way discussions are to be conducted on ANI, where diffs are the currency of the exchange. With your blanket statements about AL's alleged misconduct you have contributed exactly nothing to this debate except a significant increase of heat. This is disruptive, and with language such as "knock it off" and "channel his urges into something more appropriate" you have once more crossed the line into personally attacking Andrew Lancaster. I find this rather deplorable and not worthy of an editor in long standing as you are. I'm seriously contemplating to ask the admins to invoke a topic ban against you, because I'm getting more and more convinced that this would solve some of the problems on these pages. You have presented enough material to work with over the last few days to build that case, and there is more on the talk pages. LandLing 22:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there may be a misapprehension here. I have looked through this noticeboard section once more, and I don't see any "neutral admins" participating; the only admin I notice here is Berig. (Ealdgyth is an admin and sought at Talk:Germanic peoples to act as a neutral arbiter, but as I wrote above, I consider Andrew Lancaster was rudely dismissive to her; however, as I said and as demonstrated by statements here, editors differ in their perception of hardball argument tactics.) Landroving Linguist, who dismisses the complaints as "frivolous", has called for boomerang sanctions, and demands documentation, is active elsewhere at this noticeboard but is not an admin. Levivich is a regular at this noticeboard but is not an admin. North8000, whose good faith I do not doubt but who appears to have entered this discussion with a very non-neutral statement, "It would be a travesty to sanction an editor for working hard on articles in a very Wikipedian fashion." at the same time as starting a new section inviting Andrew Lancaster to make his own suggestion for what should be done, and he and I therefore disagree considerably in our assessment of the matter under discussion, is also not an admin. Snowded, who has also contributed to the discussion, is not an admin. Nor is Srnec, or Alcaios, or Thomas W. (Nor for that matter am I.) Non-admins, particularly experienced editors, are of course welcome to contribute to discussions on this board, and to attempt to move them toward a resolution. (I wonder whether I have missed some of Landroving Linguist's experience, perhaps under a different user name; I do not recall encountering this editor before, although I have a bad habit of reading AN/I and I admit I am bad at names.) I am sad to say that conspiracy theories about other editors cabaling against one (WP:BATTLE as well as WP:RGW are uncollegial, and their unapologetic repetition on this noticeboard is contrary to our civility policy at the very least. I am pleased to see one small improvement in that "The fact is that is that my experience is of them entering discussions and then making personal attacks against me, not citing sources, distorting my position, casting aspersions, poisoning the well, and literally nothing else." is a statement of what the editor has perceived, rather than an assertion of others' intent, but the accusations of personal attacks, casting aspersions, and poisoning the well still amount to the pot calling the kettle black, and based on the judicious statements I have read in this discussion, are unfounded. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Landroving Linguist:, whoever you are, I get that you're keen—for whatever reason—on fighting tooth and nail to defend Andrew from the numerous editors on this talk page describing his behavior as classic WP:BLUDGEON and are clearly willing to look the other way at whatever he happens to say (like accusing other editors of together conspiring against him—which I quote directly in my previous comment), but I'd prefer you not make threats, whether to me or others—if you've got a case for topic bans, go for it. Otherwise I ask you too to "knock it off" and review WP:LISTEN. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as the only remedy that seems likely to find any consensus at then moment. I would prefer something more definite, however.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but only because this seems to be the only way forward at the moment.--Berig (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Ermenrich and Berig above. Carlstak (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support–I suppose this will need to do as a first step. Any reasonable editor who sees this talk page and notes the sheer volume of editors here discussing the user's behavioral issues (especially WP:BLUDGEON) will immediately see that this needs to be addressed and resolved. However, as I know that Wikipedia can often work in mysterious ways , something done is better than nothing. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I have not heard of a single problem in the history of Wikipedia where cutting activity to 1/3 for a month is a productive solution. If an editor needs a break, it should be a full break. Simply being prolific is not a sin; I suppose editors of a different political persuasion might be inclined to want 1/3 activity but that is not a good reason for one. I don't see anyone who has presented 2 or 3 diffs that justify any action (that action should be a straight TBAN, not an encouragement to reduce activity) in this thread; if I am to change my mind somebody must do so. I also don't see anything on Talk:Germanic peoples or that article's revision history that justifies action. There are certainly points where AL makes arguments against a consensus; the burden is to rebut those arguments, not to ban AL. This is a difficult topic; the process of writing an article ought to be difficult, and whether or not AL is involved is irrelevant to that. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to believe that anyone can look at the fact that Andrew Lancaster has posted over half the responses and over half the text on one page with several editors actively participating in discussions, and nearly that on another, and conclude that nothing is wrong. Should I provide diffs of all his responses? You've provided a link to an essay about AfD discussions, I've provided evidence above with links to examples of repetitive discussions, ignored advice, and the general problem. There's no way to reduce this sort of long-term behavior to diffs.
    At any rate, I will defend this decision as a step in the right direction: it encourages Andrew to modify behavior that most editors involved in the talk page have found problematic.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Celestina007

    I don't enjoy reading the ANI, let alone reporting an editor but it is antithetical to our goal of creating an online encyclopedia that anyone could freely edit in a collegial environment if we ignore conducts that are injurious on a large scale to our editors. User:Celestina007 is an experienced editor with interest in Nigeria-related topics and a "self-acclaimed UPE fighter". There is no doubt about her knowledge of Nigeria-related topics but her often unsubstantiated false accusation of UPE is concerning, worrisome and destructive to the project. I believe that something urgently needs to be done, as failure to act will give an impression that false accusations and similar behaviors are acceptable here. Today, Celestina007 tagged an article written by me in 2019 as UPE without evidence. When asked to substantiate their claim with evidences, they removed my comment without a response or any evidences whatsoever. However, I am not here because I was falsely accused of UPE but because this pattern of behavior from Celestina007 is disruptive on a large scale and should immediately stop. On closer review of this editor's contributions, I observed a large scale accusation of UPE without evidence and newbie bity.

    Here are few examples of false accusation of UPE

    All of the above examples are from July 1 alone but randomly looking at their talk page archive, it looks like a long-term problem that has gone unnoticed for years . While we appreciate users who are enthusiastic about Wikipedia, users with this behavioral pattern should never be tolerated here. Beeblebrox advised this user to find something else to do, while they responded to Beeblebrox, they failed to learn from the advise and continue to falsely accusing users of UPE. I'd leave this here to allow the community to determine whether the conducts of this user with regards to UPE accusations is right. UPE is a criminal offense at least in the United States per WP:UPE. False accusation of crime is serious and should be treated as such. Regards. SuperSwift (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment — Just Another day, with more disgruntled staging a siege against me. Even after both onel5969 & I told you here that the UPE template wasn’t intended for you , you somehow still tried and made it about you. We literally both told you the UPE tag wasn’t intended for you oh well. Furthermore this isn’t accurate as there is literally no dispute here. Celestina007 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found Celestina007 to be acting in a way which was far too aggressive, even if the recipient of their messaging was an UPE. At User_talk:Totalpoliticsuk#Sockpuppetry_warning they accused the editor of insulting their intelligence, stated they would get the editor indefinitely blocked, and them to both "quit Fucking with me". Even if this user was an UPE I'd consider this too far. Whether this combative approach is effective at deterring actual UPEs or not - and I doubt it is - it lends itself to substantial collateral damage and the furthering of a hostile atmosphere on the project, which we should not tolerate. Sam Walton (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samwalton9, correct and indeed otp, but this was me before getting advice to tone it down which I have to the best of my ability upheld. Celestina007 (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad that recognize that, Celestina, because frankly I find the behaviour in that thread beyond the pall for a volunteer workspace on this project. Your comments literally read like you think that you are a hardboiled detective from a 70's crime drama interrogating a criminal suspect: "Don’t you dare insult my intelligence, you know how it is, either you comply with our rules or I see to it that you get indef blocked" -> "quit Fucking with me." -> "Don’t push your luck.". Sam is absolutely correct: no matter how certain you are that you have ferreted out a COI editor--and frankly, I also have concerns at the level of self-assuredness you adopt on the basis of your evidence, but even assuming you are correct, the following principle holds--it does not abrogate your from responsibility for scrupulously following the standards of WP:CIVILITY, a pillar policy of this project. You are not the en.Wikipedia Special Prosecutor for Undisclosed Paid Editing and you need to drop this unnecessarily aggressive mentality.
    Now, you say you've reformed your approach, and it's true that the thread Sam links above is the worst of what has been presented here, but it still looks like you come at editors with an air like you are cleaning up shop from some position of authority persists. Based just on what we have seen here, I think even at this early stage in oversight of your behaviour, I would support a topic ban for you relating to accusations of UPE; I do not think you have the right temperament to be active in this area on this project. Even if you were right about every single one of your suppositions (and again, I'm far from convinced by your reasoning in each of these cases), your approach is still highly flawed and inconsistent with the measured, impersonal, dispassionate approach that is both expected and most effective in COI review.
    In short, I would seriously suggest you consider voluntarily backing away from this area: your own talk page suggests that you see the problem with actively seeking out ("hunting" as you put it) COI, and I think you need to take your own advice there, even as regards UPE you think you have spotted in the wild, as it were. You don't have to ignore what you consider problematic editing either: just consider taking yourself out of the equation by bringing these matters to WP:COIN or an admin when you think you have sufficient evidence to warrant examination, and ignoring your gut impressions in all other circumstances. I don't think I like your chances for avoiding a sanction if you just continue of the present course of grilling everyone you suspect of COI like they are just daring you to pull out the proverbial rubber hose. Snow let's rap 22:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow Rise, Snow, that is exactly what I’m saying that since June when I received advice from a functionary on how to handle suspected there I have made deliberate attempts to do just that, I pursue things through the proper channels via COIN and ANI, I have filed at least one report at each venue this month. rather than confront the situation as I would have done prior the advice and even when I UPE template editors I tell them exactly why I left the tag, snow please look at analysis of the diffs I did below, I understand how this would come off as rather tough but in order to appreciate this you would have to understand that I am under a calculated siege. Not only is this report wrong it is rather baffling as the OP misunderstood an action I carried out, even when told it was a mistake by myself and another editor they still brought it here when it was clearly established that the action did not concern them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow Rise, Snow, this is me two days ago literally telling Rich_Smith the importance of explaining why a UPE template should be accompanied by a personal message. Celestina007 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment  – This sweeping generalisation is demeaning to the entire WP:NIGERIA community and the good work all the good faith editors there do. I raised similar concerns on this board about a month ago but only a few of the participants noted this unchecked behaviour. Something needs to be done about this kind of behaviour that makes the environment toxic for others and basically undoes the efforts of the good people that go to different parts of Nigeria to recruit new wikimedians who inadvertently get burnt. Kind regards. Princess of Ara(talk) 22:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note — The editor above Princess of Ara was topic banned because of me. Once again an attempt from another disgruntled editor to get back at me. I am taking my time to explain everything so you all can understand the siege i am facing now. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't think that comment is objectionable--though I presume it is substantially inaccurate. As you can see above, I have some significant misgivings about Celestina's approach here, but the comment you are presenting as inappropriate is that of an editor expressing an opinion (perhaps an exaggerated one, but good faith nonetheless) about what they perceive the extent of a problem to be in a given content area. Our editors must be free to share their perceptions about the nature and expanse of disruptive behaviours on this project, even where it incidentally reflects a negative impression of a large class of contributors. No behavioural policy or principle of community consensus limits the scope of good faith commentary in this regard, and it would have significant negative knock-on effects if we did adopt such a rule.
    Now, you could argue that this comment (particularly the 90% figure) is evidence of Celestina's bias in this area, which in turn reinforces their propensity for jumping in with accusations on limited evidence: that I might buy. But we cannot afford to treat observations about problems in certain content areas as a PA, merely because they happen to incidentally involve a class of person that might take umbrage to said observation. Celestina is entitled to their opinion when it comes to the numbers here. What they are not entitled to do is act upon them without limitation. Snow let's rap 22:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Celestina007 keeps making reference to my being topic banned in discussions like it means I'm not allowed to have an opinion. Same thing she tried at AfD. I clearly linked the ANI discussion with the closing statement so this is not a discovery. Princess of Ara(talk) 07:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Celestina's comment, that 90% of articles from her country on ' “businessmen” “entrepreneurs” “organizations” “musicians” and “actors” " would hold true for many other countries also ( Allowing for some rhetorical exaggeration, ) At least as far as “businessmen” “entrepreneurs” & “organizations”are concerned ( I don't know enough to work on the other two categories), somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of the articles of these types from my own country are also paid editing, tho more of them are being disclosed than used too be the case. Anyone who doubts it should come work at AfC for a while. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Analysis of the diffs from OP

    • Their first diff has nothing to do with any matter relating to UPE. Their second diff against has nothing to do with UPE it shows me moving an article back to Draftspace. Their third diff is me asking an editor how they got an image in the article as their “own work” Their 4th diff is me placing an AGF sock tag on an editor who knew our mark up and knew how to add scripts to their commons.js in their first 20 edits. Their 5th edit is me placing a placing a UPE tag and initiating a discussion(not against policy).
    • I would analyze all the diffs but I have shown a pattern of mixing real diffs with deliberately misleading diffs that have nothing to do with UPE (or even me) to inundate the readers. They have stalked my page ever since and this is exactly why i wrote out on my page before now on how to address UPE on my userpage before this. There was literally no reason to bring this to ANI, it had long been established to the OP that by both myself and onel5969 that the UPE tag wasn’t intended for them several hours ago but it was still an opportunity to bring me to ANI.
    • For transparency sake, even though their first diff perhaps was an error, what was quoted there was indeed a comment I made to Yamla in response to them declining a block, but again they are being being deliberately deceptive this if the diff here, they said i had no strong evidence but the comment in itself had two cogent facts, that happened here on Wikipedia. I find it disingenuous of them not to mention that I am equally a Nigerian.
    • I however remain unfazed since as I have in no way violated policy, I’m conscious of this hence every and any UPE or AGF sock tag I leave on the tp of an editor I always try to leave a rationale so as to avoid situations as thus If SuperSwift says they dislike drama boards then one begs the question why they still deemed it fit to bring a problem which was established not to be related to them to ANI.
    • I dislike coming here, but I hope the diff analysis of this goes to show you what I’m talking about when I say they intentionally(or mistakenly) include diffs that have no business with me negating UPE and mix it with accurate diffs in bid to inundate the community and force a mirage.
    • Since I received advice(in June) from Beeblebrox on how to tackle UPE without less confrontation I have done do so by reporting appropriately to either ANI or SPI, whenever I UPE template an editor I always give a personal rationale. I would provide diffs shorty to portray this, using a mobile device give me a minute to do that.
    • This is getting tiring the OP mentioned the diffs are from July 1 but haven analyzed them can you now see subtle deception at least three of those diffs were false, in their own words in diff 2 they claim I UPE tagged an editor but please can you all take a look at diff 2? Can you all see the deliberate deception?
    • Is deliberately being deceptive and outrightly lying about someone else not in itself warrant a boomerang block? Celestina007 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the analysis of the diffs:
    • Their first diff has nothing to do with any matter relating to UPE. Except that it does; a blocked editor's appeal was denied, and Celestina007 chimed in to make that wide-ranging statement about Nigerian editors and UPE, even though the editor wasn't blocked for UPE. Her comments made it about UPE.
    • Their second diff against <sic> has nothing to do with UPE it shows me moving an article back to Draftspace Celestina007 moved the article to draftspace (not back to draftspace) immediately after tagging it for UPE.
    • Their third diff is me asking an editor how they got an image in the article as their “own work” Actually, the third diff is to a UPE Warning discussion Celestina007 started (followed by a sockpuppetry warning below that). And as SuperSwift mentioned, that editor has not edited since their conversations with Celestina007. That could be intepreted as evidence of guilt or evidence that a new editor was bullied away.
      The rest of the OP's diffs seem to be what they say they are. I do not see a pattern of mixing real diffs with deliberately misleading diffs by SuperSwift. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd,
    • I don't see deception, subtle or overt, in the original report. That the 2d diff is to the move rather than the preceding edit in which the UPE tag was applied isn't "deceptive". I do see that this was how Celestina007 told SuperSwift that the UPE tag wasn't intended for them: Whilst I largely remain unimpressed with some articles you have created I don’t think anyone was accusing directly of UPE. I do however concerns about you holding the NPR perm as I do not deem you competent enough to hold that right. Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd, like, I literally was not talking to them about UPE, agreed a tough manner to say “no it was intended for you” I accept and take responsibility for that but they went off like I had falling into their trap or something, I believe i can count on one hand how many times I have interacted with this user, then they began replying me as though I had specially offended them. Like we literally told him/her this wasn’t intended for you. That was like an hour two hours before this ANI, I assumed they understood rather than come back to my page and say “what are you implying” “what did you mean”? boom! I’m hit with this ANI. Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Schazjmd, I’m largely offended by this ANI, this is quite personal to me, look at my TP and see how I’m living with a life long health condition and I’m here helping out within my capacity and doing the best way I can, they claim I target Nigerian editors but this is me reaching out. Not once have I ever had a problem with any co Nigerian editor who is in good faith editing here, even when my self and good faith editors butt heads we reconcile immediately I edit via a mobile so I can’t do some things with ease but when you can under “Appreciation and Barnstars” and take a look at the very first Barnstar I received. The attempt to paint me a villain is not true please I beg go through my TP and see how I have extensively helped my co Nigerian editors and other editors regardless of race, sex, or country. I’m at WP:TEAHOUSE helping out also. Celestina007 (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If @SuperSwift claims they do not appreciate being here just as I hate being the center of any form attraction also this can be handled by a conversion between myself and them(should have handled in this manner from the start) Baring in mind that they opened this ANI because they believe I left a UPE tag for them which was established by both myself and onel5969 that the UPE wasn’t intended for them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Celestina007, the OP was clear that they were not opening this conversation because of the UPE tag or an accusation against them, but because of a pattern of behavior. I don't think anyone thinks you're a villain. I know that you contribute a great deal to the project and that you spend countless hours reviewing AFC submissions. It's clear that you take pride in your efforts against UPE. I think what's a bit concerning is that you've taken on UPE as a personal crusade, and that in pursuit of that crusade, your approach might appear to be that of a vigilante.
    I used to patrol recent changes. What I learned was that by spending a lot of time reverting obvious vandalism, I was beginning to view all edits as suspicious and all unknown editors as suspects. I wonder if by immersing yourself in UPE/COI, you might be experiencing a similar phenomenon. Maybe spending more time on other aspects of editing and a bit less trying to ferret out UPE rings and take down the "bad guys" might not be better for you? The world is not going to end if an undeclared-paid editor slips in an article that is dubiously notable, and it most likely will get caught eventually. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Schazjmd, I promise you I am not actively looking out for bad guys, asides UPE, I’m happy at the WP:TEAHOUSE, infact on my Userpage I advise against actively hunting for UPE, but if I stumble upon one I report to the appropriate venue, I come here to enjoy myself, I really do love editing here. Honestly I’m tired mentally, I have explained over and again that I play by the book, but editors keep trying discredit me by bring up my past of incivility which I taken responsibility for. Celestina007 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Siege mentality

    There's numerous references above, by Celestina007, to a 'siege' mentality, to an 'us v them' situation, and some kind of vindictiveness in this report - plus taking things '"quite personal[ly]". My view is this is deeply unhelpful, and potentially speaks to a bigger problem around the attitude that this editor takes to UPE and similar actions. When handling all new editors, regardless of your suspicions, editors may be firm, but ultimately must be fair and kind. I question whether someone who displays such an abrasive, combative approach to handling new editor contributions can achieve this level of kindness, welcoming and fairness as consistently as is required. Daniel (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (examples:)
    • "with more disgruntled staging a siege against me"
    • "I understand how this would come off as rather tough but in order to appreciate this you would have to understand that I am under a calculated siege"
    • "The editor above Princess of Ara was topic banned because of me. Once again an attempt from another disgruntled editor to get back at me. I am taking my time to explain everything so you all can understand the siege i am facing now."
    • "They have stalked my page ever since"
    • "I’m largely offended by this ANI, this is quite personal to me"
    • " look at my TP and see how I’m living with a life long health condition and I’m here helping out within my capacity and doing the best way I can"
    Daniel (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daniel, Daniel please look at my contributions at the TEAHOUSE and I believe that answers that. Daniel this is still me look at the latest message. The siege I reference is more of revenge from editors I have reported to the ANI which resulted in them being topic banned or their sensitive user rights removed an example is this. I have diffs, which shows me begging editors join WP:NIGERIA. Celestina007 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The third sentence of your response is yet another example of what I am saying. This is not an 'us v them' situation, and seemingly being gleeful or discrediting editors because you've had them "topic banned" or "their sensitive user rights removed" is exactly what I'm talking about. I am not going to engage further on this, I am happy for others to assess what I have written above and either agree or disagree with it. Daniel (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — It would be disingenuous of me not to mention that SuperSwift(OP) answered a very very imperative question I have been asking in the last two years, I have in the past always asked certain editors, the question of if they ever received coaching because they were too new too be too that proficient with either templates or our markup, the editors never replied, but today Super Swift mentioned in our of their replies that I had “frustrated” some of his students. This answered a question I had been asking for a while now, I don’t go to any social gatherings so that this happens is something I’m hearing for the first time today. I believe it would largely explain editors with less than ten edits creating a somewhat decent article, why they didn’t say this all this while I really do not know. It would have been so much easier. AFAIK UPE or COI isn’t the problem but failure to disclose this is the problem. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should also add that with this new awareness of editors teaching people how to edit Wikipedia (in a formal event or non formal/Personal manner) I see no reason why I can’t work with Super Swift moving forward, for record sake I’d state prior June 2021(before new techniques of handling suspected UPE was advised to me by a functionary) I agree that some comments I made were harsh and in retrospect whilst reading some of them I too cannot believe I made such harsh comments. I know I have been quite harsh to what seems like UPE) but as God is my witness, I honestly cannot remember a situation whereby I have crossed WP:CIVILITY or made unfounded accusations anyone(after functionaries told me a better way to deal with UPE, yes sometimes I do forget to insert the personal message to editors I UPE template as to why I believe their article to be UPE or why I believe they are actively engaging in UPE, but for every article I affix the UPE tag on, I largely have evidence, some of which I just send straight to WP:ARBCOM, if they contain material that is sensitive. I honestly do not know what else to say. I’m mentally drained at this point. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've interacted with Celestina007 over the past year and while we have been friendly, she reminds me quite a deal of Jytdog in that she does a lot (quite a lot!) of good work and receives a great deal of support from fellow editors, but she is often in danger of crossing the line regarding privacy & civility, especially towards new editors.
    I respect much of the work that she does but have told her that a) she can not tell editors that she can get them blocked (if you believe this, have a RFA) and b) she can't demand that other editors answer her probing questions as if she is in a position of authority and could prevent them from editing if they don't comply. I've seen her acting tougher on new editors than most admins would be and complain elsewhere that most admins aren't, in her opinion, doing anything about paid editing. Like the siege comments, this seems like shades of a savior complex to me.
    I don't come here to ask for sanctions because she does contribute so much but my comments on her talk page haven't had any effect and I hope this discussion will lead to her moderating her approach and tone and to not see herself as the paid editing police. As others have said here, even if some of her accusations are true, it's something Wikipedia can and does deal with every day. It won't lead to the demise of the project. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comments Liz, moving forward I propose not to (a) see myself as boarder patrol for paid editing as I have largely described on my UP even before this ANI, (b) to provide a rationale for UPE templating an editor, (c) adjust my tone even further to be more accommodating. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    UPE tagging of articles and templating editors without evidence is an integral part of the problems we are discussing here. When you tag an article written by a good faith editor as UPE, you are directly accusing the editor of UPE and that’s unacceptable. I respect your contributions as an editor but when it comes to false UPE accusation, it is unhealthy and has sent lot of good faith Nigerian editors away from the project. Also, you haven't shown in this comment that you understand the problem. So, I think a formal restrictions such as the one I proposed below will be in order, atleast for now. Kaizenify (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have to agree with the idea that Celestina should step back from the language used in some of their UPE accusations. They have done some excellent work in that area, but the attitude is very much that of a gunslinger sometimes. There was a recent case at COIN where I ran into this. After defending what looked to be a good-faith editor (one who Celestina accused very strongly but presented almost no evidence beyond the idea that it was a gut feeling), Celestina commented to another editor that " I literally laughed when I saw an editor defending this account." Well, I was the editor defending the account. I've chased down what must be hundreds of UPE and COI editors by now; I have a pretty good radar on who is and isn't UPE and COI. The thing is, I am on the same side as Celestina, I'm not some COI or UPE editor trying to game the system. The further statements by Celestina are at a level of mistrust and aggressiveness that is just not necessary: "That I’d tell those supporting this COI promotional gibberish “I told you so” is an eventuality. I have unwatched the AFD, Wikipedia indeed does get the editors they deserve. My accuracy when nabbing UPE is near perfect, that a non anti spam editor is arguing with me in my field of expertise is just funny." Some kind of commitment on the part of Celestina is needed that the attitude is going to change. I feel quite badly for the portion of innocent editors who are on the receiving end of that attitude. If there is no willingness to change, I'd support the UPE topic ban. --- Possibly ☎ 07:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me also add Celestina's afd comments to me for the same COIN issue, which are basically just a personal attack: "@Possibly, I’m not looking to sway you, I have brought this to AFD, if you can’t comprehend sources and tell a reliable source from a reliable piece or tell when a piece is a sponsored or an extended announcements not fulfilling SIGCOV, that’s really no concern of mine, it’s many people who can’t tell the difference so I’m unfazed by your rationale." The thing is, I have a ton of experience in this area. There's no need to insult people who disagree with you. And the AfD closed Keep. There was no proven juice behind any of these Notability/UPE/COI accusations and the ensuing personal attacks. There was a point where it was time to AGF, which was soundly rejected. That has to change. --- Possibly ☎ 07:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Considering that this is a pattern of behaviour that needs to be nipped in the bud to protect our editors and the project, I am proposing a ban from WP:UPE for Celestina007 as a mildest solution that has a good chance at resolving the problems highlighted above. User:Celestina007 is also warned that further hostility towards new editors may result in a block.

    • Support as proposer. Kaizenify (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – I agree with much of the commentary above (particularly by Liz and Daniel), and I hope Celestina takes it to heart. But such a broad topic ban seems distinctly premature, especially when she's committed to do better in the future. At this point, AGF mandates that we take her at her word. For what it's worth, I'm fairly confident that Celestina doesn't mean to appear hostile: more likely, she just sometimes gets carried away in her zeal to keep spam out of the encyclopedia. That's certainly a problem, but it shouldn't require the blunt instrument of formal sanctions right now, particularly when she's already agreed to address the issue. Again, I hope and trust that she'll think more carefully in the future about her words are perceived, but at this point a topic ban appears unnecessary and disproportionate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, agree with EW above. I expressed my concerns, above, because I had concerns (something I had witnessed over a number of months, not just today, although I didn't have bank of diffs to demonstrate it so I focused on what I read today). I don't think the best remedy in this situation is a blanket ban for Celestina from this area of editing. What I do think is required is a) an undertaking from Celestina to improve moving forward (which has been given); b) demonstrated improvement of this occurring; and c) increased scrutiny from uninvolved editors & administrators as to ensuring b) occurs in the coming weeks and months, with a good-faith discussion one-on-one with Celestina occurring should someone believe the standards aren't being met. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose and suggest closure with no action at this time. In Celestina's defense, she has made many valuable contributions to the project and even the words/actions being criticized in this thread are obviously intended to improve Wikipedia. I've seen how Celestina has learned and grown as an editor since she began editing. I've seen her take on board past criticism and change how she approaches different tasks, and so I believe that she will consider the concerns expressed in this thread and moderate her approach to other editors in response. Schazjmd (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the first time this user is promising to change their behaviour . As early as June 2021, the user made the same promise in this ANI thread, here, here. Here we are again with another promise. SuperSwift (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that the four diffs are all promises to do better, and all about a month old. --- Possibly ☎ 07:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extend some WP:ROPE. This is a close call and the irony is not lost on me that I said I could imagine myself supporting just such a measure above. There's a lot to be concerned about in diffs presented here, including in recent interactions and to some extent into the present discussion. But Celestina seems to be genuine in their assertions that they are working on assimilating to community standards. I'm also concerned that the ban here would be an atypical one, as I think about it. A usual narrowly tailored topic ban can be easily followed without chance of putting an editor in a position where they have to choose between reporting bad faith behaviour and risking sanction or just letting obvious examples go to preserve their own editing priveleges. While I'm not saying that this is something we absolutely should not consider if the behaviour persists and Celestina shows they cannot keep perspective in these areas, I'm also thinking a higher threshold is needed before we hobble and contributor in this fashion. By the same token though, I personally think Celestina has gone right up to the edge on this, even considering their well-advised decision to listen to community feedback and continue working on reforming their approach. Afterall, there was a bit of WP:IDHT up until that point, and only the fact that I believe them when they say they are frustrated but still willing to listen that tips the balance for me. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to flip my !vote to supporting the TBAN if Celestina ends up back here for behaviour even remotely resembling the pattern discussed here in this thread. But this community is in the habit of extending some rope in these situations and I'm willing to lean into that here. Hopefully I won't regret the !vote later. Snow let's rap 07:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The "siege" commeent is unfortunate, but this user has genuinely caught more legitimate UPEs than not. Furtherore, per EW and Daniel, this user does appear to have taken to heart the comments about unnecessarily un-AGFAGF comments, and quite honestly considering their previous behaviour I have no doubt that they will rectify the problems listed. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 07:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if we're going to avoid a sanction here and hope for the right attitude from Celestina moving forward, we need to frame this as a question outside of their batting average for catching UPE's. First off, we need to be stressing that a certain tone is required regardless of how certain they are that their concerns are legitimate. Second off, I genuinely think that Celestina needs to reassess the baseline level of evidence they have before they leap into action on some of these cases. There are examples in this thread where their presumptions far outstripe the evidence they are working from. If Celestina doesn't learn to temper their approach in both regards, I have little doubt they will end up the subject of another thread here eventually. Snow let's rap 07:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - Clearly keen as mustard, does some good work, and seems to have the right ideas if somewhat overzealous methods. A number of people have provided sage advice, both in this thread and previously, and I would strongly suggest that (regardless of outcome) Celestina takes a step back for a while and carefully considers all the feedback they have been provided and what they will be doing differently in the future (not just in terms of behaviour and interactions with others, but where they see themselves fitting into the somewhat strange world that is Wikipedia). My sense of optimism and what I have seen thus far gives me some hope that, if given this opportunity to do so, they will seize it and move forward as an ongoing positive contributor. However I would also suggest that if this does not pose a wake up call, nothing will; if we have to come back here again, I doubt many people would consider that we haven't reached the end of this particular length of rope. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Celestina007 promised to change and stop casting aspersions and accusing editors of UPE without evidence on 23 June and 24 June 2021, in the ANI report initiated by Princess of Ara, as can be seen here, here and here, in her words, yes I accept that I have been ferocious and I have taken responsibility for that.... But yes, like I said I take responsibility for my less than civil approach, moving forward it wouldn’t be confrontational.... Some comments have been raised, yes I do take responsibility for some of my harsh methods of dealing with UPE.... I have seen the “cracks in the wall” and I’m going to correct them, moving forward i shall continue to tackle UPE but in a less confrontational manner, they continued However, I do agree that more often than not I tend to tackle what I believe to UPE ferociously, and moving forward I’m going to be a less confrontational but still as effective and further added I have learnt that moving forward I should do things like you have suggested. This has been a learning curve for me & I do appreciate your input. Rather then changing, this user even increased in their battleground behavior, accusing more good faith editors of UPE without evidence. As can be seen here on 9 July 2021 and in this AfD. Their comments in another AfD from 4 to 8 July 2021 and this COI thread as pointed out by Possibly shows they've refused to learn. Accusing a whole country (Nigeria) editors as UPE without evidence as can be seen here on 21 July 2021 is the worst personal attack I've ever seen here on Wikipedia. I'll also add that if this continues, I'll not hesitate to support an indef block. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      To misquote Shakespeare; The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - for the simple reason that Celestina is a net positive and giving them such a topic ban would cause more harm to the project than good. I have no doubt that they will reflect on what has been said here and adapt. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Oppose. Celestina is an extremely competent and valuable editor, but they have a hot temper and sometimes go overboard. But I am pretty sure that this can be worked on and that they can improve. My account is less than 1 year old and I barely have 5k edits, so nobody has to listen to what I say, but I would advise 1) always starting at a level 1 when it comes to UPE/sockpuppetry user warnings, regardless of the previous user warnings that the editor has received, 2) not adding personal comments to the templates and 3) exercising extreme care when discussing with the users accused of UPE/sockpuppetry. I would just like to note that the OP is also exaggerating quite a bit. As an editor who cleaned up the article written by the "Legal Intern" (which saved it from deletion), I am not personally convinced that this was the work of a volunteer editor, so I'm not sure on what basis the OP calls Celestina's user warning "false". Regarding another article that she "falsely" tagged as UPE, it's worth noting 1) that Celestina also proceeded to clean it up very thoroughly from its promotional content [122] and 2) that anybody who would have taken a look at the article in its original state, before Celestina's work, would also have suspected that it was the work of a UPE editor. JBchrch talk 09:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – yeah, I'm not seeing this. While I concur that Celestina should raise their bar for what constitutes indisputable evidence, we're yet far away from a point where I would call their behaviour "chronic and intractable". And certainly, there are worse things to be overly passionate about than UPE. AngryHarpy‍talk 10:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support  – With all this kind of counsel [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] and more from experienced editors over time, I think a long enough rope has been given. So many overzealous fans and newbies have gotten burnt needlessly. Kind regards, Princess of Ara(talk) 16:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose While I have spoken to Celestina about toning down her approach, I did not suggest (as seems to be implied way up above) that she should stop working to detect and prevent UPE, and do not see a need for tban. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - deciding UPE issues is one of the trickiest issues done by reviewers. There are certain tells which are dead give-aways that a person either has a UPE or COI issue. Their contributions are incredibly valuable, particularly in the area of articles regarding Africa. They have said they will tone down their rhetoric, and we should AGF. Onel5969 TT me 20:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-admin Comment: I'd go further, and say that UPE isn't just tricky, it's downright impossible. The two key rules of WP are "Don't say anything unless you've got good evidence" and "Assume good faith", and with UPE, neither is realistic. You can never prove UPE because no one here has access to another editor's personal finances. And it's impossible to defend yourself against a claim of UPE. It ultimately risks descending to the conversation: "You're being paid!", "No I'm not", "I don't believe you", and that's flat contrary to assuming good faith. I wonder whether UPE is really a problem that anyone should be working on. Focus on the edit, not the editor: if the text is referenced, balanced, and reasonably well-written, what more do we want? The point about WP is that it is so strongly peer-reviewed that there is no advantage to paying. Frankly if a person is daft enough to pay an agency/writer to fill "their" article with self-aggrandisement the most likely outcome is someone else will nominate it for deletion, so they might as well just stick their cash in the shredder (and that's the message we should be making loud and clear). But where I think we very much need people like Celestina is in assessing articles about African situations and people; Celestina seems to me to have local knowledge and expertise at knowing when the sources are good or unreliable, which I for one don't. Elemimele (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Let's make no mistake, we are under siege from paid editing, whether disclosed or not; if we don't do something soon, that siege will become a tsunami. Editors who are prepared to stand there with a finger in the dyke are few and far between, Celestina is one of them and deserves our thanks for that. However, intemperate or hostile comments or remarks are not acceptable here, and can weaken the effect of otherwise worthy actions. Celestina007, could you see your way to a rather more laid-back – or perhaps even courteous? – attitude to other editors, while keeping up the good work you do? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Justlettersandnumbers, I am thankful each time for an opportunity such as this as they are a learning curve for me. The answer is a solid “yes” infact, from the last ANI that resulted in a boomerang on the OP what I got out from it is that rather than be confrontational I should just use the WP:COIN board to report issues or go off wiki and report directly to Arbcom. I have tried and have done so, even when I UPE template an article and not the creator per se or even when I leave UPE template on the page of an editor I actively try and initiate a dialogue with the user as to why I have done so. I am always grateful for an opportunity to learn, what I have taken out of this is, to be conservative about my POV as noted above (making an assertion that 90% of Nigerian editors, (I’m Nigerian also) engage in UPE was out of line, I could have said “a good percentage” and that would be statistically correct, one only needs to go to up work and anyone can see for themselves, in fact when I made that comment I referenced two cases where experienced Nigerian editors who had gained the communities trust have been nabbed in less than ethical practices on Wikipedia. Let me also add that i apologize to SuperSwift for the error I made, although I did erroneously make that edit, corrected myself, and told SuperSwift that the UPE tag wasn’t intended for them, I told them in a snarky manner unbecoming of a senior editor. So it’s like I said, I would definitely continue my good work, still be as effective and definitely would tone down on my tone. Celestina007 (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to apologize to the community at large, and Princess of Ara, in particular, because I indeed put them under scrutiny from there first edits. Celestina007 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)Oppose per Justlettersandnumbers above. Celestina007 may sometimes be overzealous, but UPE is WP's elephant in the room and I trust them to take on board the issues raised here. Definitely a net positive. Miniapolis 23:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moving forward and from advice from both ARBCOM and a sysop here actively engaging in anti UPE I know exactly what to do when tackling UPE in the most appropriate and civil manner, I do not envisage ever being reported here ever again as I know just exactly what to do in tackling UPE, it would less confrontations and more civil action by using the appropriate channels, which I have largely tried to follow since the advice from ARBCOM in June. Celestina007 (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I've been working with Celestina for some time, and I think they now understand the best way to stop UPE is not to waste time and energy into blaming them, but just to remove their articles in an objective manner. Expressing negative feelings here to people who are knowingly ignoring our rules evokes is almost never necessary, and runs the risk of inappropriately expressing negative feelings towards people who may not realize that they are breaking the rules, or who may be good faith editors who are unwitting copying the promotionalism that is so rampant here or even deliberately copying it because it is so pervasive they think it's what they want. Like most active people working with UPE, I have made occasional incorrect accusations and identifications--and so have the most experienced admins and arbs working in this area. I apologize for them--but I always remember and regret them. But as Celestina said above, we are under siege in this area, and we need to keep working--but doing it as dispassionately as we can, though it is difficult to feel dispassionate towards people who are trying in bad faith for money to destroy the value of Wikipedia.
    I understand the concern of the OP here ; I gather from their usertalk they are an organizer of a Wikipedia club at a university. From my own long experience with such activities, it takes experience to prevent such activities from being manipulated by those who would do promotional editing, and even greater skill to prevent naïve new users from submitting work which is so unsatisfactory that it will be taken as deliberate promotionalism . Most new groups go through a considerable period where they gradually learn to avoid the submission of grossly improper contributions due to inadequately supervised training. Most new groups improve as the trainers get experience. Because of the disruption of conventional in-person training session by the pandemic, the last two years have been especially difficult--it is very much more difficult to supervise training when its done remotely, and the performance of even my own chapter is nowhere near as good as it used to be. (This has been of course a problem for teachers generally, not just WP.) The solution is not to reduce standards, but also not to express anger at people who are learning under difficult circumstances. It's hard for anyone to get this right-it's difficult for me as well as for Celestina--I know I am not as patient with poor contributions as I was 2 years ago. I recognize the frustration of someone leading training when their trainee's work is declined, but they should realize this is the opportunity to learn how to improve their own role.
    But Celestina is learning, just as the rest of us are learning. My main activity these days is reviewing declined AfCs looking for those I can rescue. Celestina's declines are as accurate as anyone's, There will sometimes be disagreement between reviewers, but there are very few instances where I or another reviewer will accept something she's declined. Working in this area can be demoralizing, and it requires effort to focus on the minority of articles that can be accepted, not the many that can't be. She's done very well at keeping up her morale, and is doing the work more calmly than at first. What she really needs, just as all of us workers at AfC need, is for more people to join in this. It would be utterly unproductive to try to remove one of the hardest working and most accurate people in this area. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I don't believe that allowing the user to continue engaging in frivolous UPE accusations, newbie biting, and general obnoxiousness is a good idea. With all the diffs that have been presented (and apparently ignored), if we're planning to allow Celestina to walk out of this discussion without any editing restrictions, it should be done strictly on a last-chance basis. This doesn't leave me with a whole lot of hope for their future though: they just don't seem to get what's being said to them. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC) This comment has shattered what little hope I still had. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Opppose Celestina is a great editor and a fundamentally decent women. But we must deal in realpolitik here. Poeple get angry for natural reasons, but mostly for UPE editing now. scope_creepTalk 09:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (Non-administrator comment) - I think the good Celestina does to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia far outweighs the mistakes she has made in the past. She is a productive, good faith editor who has proven that she has keen perceptive abilities to identify UPE and COI editing. She has stated that she will temper the tone of her interactions and is actively listening to the advice given to her here. I believe that she is trustworthy and will keep her word. It would be a net-loss to the project to ban her from an area of her strength. Netherzone (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As I believe I stated above, I didn't comment here to support sanctions but just urge a change in tone & approach and the a promise not to make threats which can serve to intimidate editors, especially newbies. I agree with DGG that many editors who write promotional content aren't paid editors but just think that this style of writing is what is acceptable online. They require education, not accusations.
    What I don't want is for Celestina to become the next Jytdog who also did tremendous work here regarding COI until he crossed the line. I'm glad that some of the comments above mine are pointing out that there IS a line. And, also, I'm not sure how "a ban from WP:UPE" would even be carried out. It seems like Celestina is taking comments to heart which, ideally, is the best outcome a stressful experience like coming to ANI can deliver. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Failure to close an RfC despite consensus has been achieved

    An RfC was opened in 2021 Cuban protests' talk page on the inclusion of a cause in the infobox: [129]. In light of a consensus being achieved (a rough count shows that votes for Yes account for more than a double than those for No):

    Please, this requires arbitration. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes to admins and my version (Davide King)

    As far as I am aware, the closure must be done by an uninvolved admin, certainly not by an emotionally involved user who took part to the RfC, i.e. the same user who took me here. For context, they also previously did not respect removal of the contentious (see this discussion and revision history, such as this, while I respected embargo's removal due to an RfC being opened about it). As noted by the user themselves, the RfC opener BSMRD noted "Note to Closer: There is quite a bit of discussion on this topic both above and below this RfC, which may be useful for any closure." Rather than asking an immediate closure, the RfC opener actually asked the closer (an admin, not an user who took part to the RfC itself) to consider the whole discussion, which in my view actually means to take all the necessary time to review the RfC before the closure. The user who took me also seem to ignore that Wikipedia is not a democracy based on voting or the numbers of 'yay'–'nay' but whether the arguments are based on our policies and guidelines; it is not up to them to "declare consensus", that is the job of the admins. If there is anyone to be sanctioned, it is not me. Davide King (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    When did I ask for an early closure of the RfC? Do you any evidence of that? Also, the contentious piece that you removed wasn't being discussed in a RfC at the moment I re-added it (I don't recall doing it while on RfC, but if did, I wasn't aware). You say: "[...] while I respected embargo's removal due to an RfC being opened about it." Are you sure? Consider [142] and [143]. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By prematurely closing the Rfc, when that is the job of an admin or uninvolved and experienced user. Did you ignore the part of the edit summary where I literally stated "try possible, bold compromise for the infobox" and tried to appease with you by adding 'authoritarian', 'lack of civil liberties (freedom of association and political freedom)', which you wanted? See also Wikipedia:Be bold, this, and this. The RfC was whether to add or not the embargo, not whether to add it with a caveat among pharentesis, which would be a compromise, and I made the edit to see what other users thought and if they supported this possible solution and compromise. Clarified this, if you want to reply me back, write me to my talk page; this is neither the moment nor the place to discuss this. Davide King (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanna clarify that these two conversation that you had ([144] and [145]) were not with me, but with other editors; so I don't know what you mean by bringing them up here. Ajñavidya (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ajñavidya, it appears that you attempted to close the RfC the same day that it was opened, with a result that favours a position you have advocated for on the talk page in question, and as such, David King's reversion was entirely appropriate. RfCs generally run for at least a month before there is a procedural close and can in fact run for much longer if contributions remain steady. One of the major advantages of an RfC is that they pull in opinions from editors disinterested in the content of the article who can give an unbiased policy read on an editorial dispute. They absolutely should not be closed by someone who has already been party to the underlying dispute, and certainly not mere hours after the RfC is opened. The 4:2 strict !vote ratio (which you described technically accurate and yet at the same time rather misleading terms of a 2:1 ratio) is not much of a consensus when you consider there have been a half dozen !votes total and you really haven't waited for input from the broader community. Furthermore, note that despite the sometimes confusing nomenclature, "!vote" consensus discussions are not decided purely on a straightforward numerical support basis: rather the closer will need to consider the result in light of broader community consensus as codified in project policies, which is another reason why said closer should ideally have no previous involvement in the dispute.
    Please let the RfC run its course (there is WP:NORUSH here) and then let an uninvolved party close the discussion--it needn't be an admin, but ideally would at least be someone with experience sorting consensus conclusions from community discussions on contentious issues, and (again) should definitely be someone without "skin in the game" as the idiom goes. If push comes to shove, and you find yourself waiting after the 30 days, you can always ping me and I'll make an effort at figuring out where consensus has landed. You can also make such a request at WP:AN, WP:VPP, and other central community discussion spaces. Regardless, there is no behavioural issue here with regard to David which require community intervention. Snow let's rap 00:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I'll definitely consider it. Ajñavidya (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ajñavidya, consider reading WP:NACINV, which states: "editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted", which appears to be the case here. As noted by Snow Rise as well, this seems like a premature close, having been done only four days after it started. Isabelle 🔔 00:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The outcome for "yes" is pretty clear, but the lack of awareness that would lead one to think they can close a discussion that they also voted in is pretty staggering. Zaathras (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Overturn and promptly reclose. Ironically I was multi-task preparing an WP:AN/RFC request for close when I saw this. The RFC should be closed, the general result was clearly correct, however Ajñavidya never should have preformed an involved close. Especially not given the vociferous minority opposition and entirely predictable challenge. Ajñavidya I don't know how much (if any) experience you have in closing, but I'd be happy to answer questions or offer advice in this area. I have experience and I find it a very interesting specialty. Of course the first advice is to to avoid any closure where anyone might credibly claim an actual or perceived conflict of interest. The cost of a potential challenge outweighs any hoped-for benefit of getting it done quicker or "easier".
    Alsee, I was not aware that the closure may not necessarily be an admin but by any uninvolved (key word) and experienced user (which is not the case here, as Ajñavidya voted), as clarified by Snow Rise ("it needn't be an admin, but ideally would at least be someone with experience sorting consensus conclusions from community discussions on contentious issues"). This does not justify the fact an involved user (who voted) closed the RfC and claimed consensus. To all other involved users, please keep in mind that Mathglot also opposed early closure. See this and Mathglot's "Very strongly opposed to any snow close ... I am firmly against any premature closure until the normal Rfc period has run its course, which if I'm not mistaken, is 18 August. I'm sure I appeared too late in the process for anything I say now to have any effect, but I feel it's important to get the data out there and on the record." There is no need to rush. Davide King (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Alsee. Can you be more specific at to why you think an early closure is appropriate here? Looking at the RfC in question, it seems appropriately approached, has only been open a few days, and currently has a 6:6 support/opposition !vote ratio, including responses from regular editors of the article and fresh perspectives, with continuing engagement from new FRS contributions. So in pretty much every observable respect, this is the polar opposite of the narrow circumstances in which community standards authorize a WP:SNOW close.
    Mind you, I'm open to the possibility that I missed something here (in part because I believe I recognize your name as an old hand in project spaces), but as a veteran editor you surely know that you need a better argument than "I think the premature close by an involved editor was flawed, but still would have resulted in the right conclusion." That's not sufficient cause to abrogate the usual WP:RfC/WP:Consensus standards and close the discussion when feedback is ongoing and has, thus far, not resulted in a concrete consensus. There's WP:NORUSH here, so why would we take the extraordinary action of shutting down an RfC, just a few days in, with an evenly split !vote, with feedback ongoing? We need a strong procedural argument for that beyond that you think it would result in the better outcome for the article, because that would very much beg the question and subvert our consensus building process. Snow let's rap 21:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Snow Rise I appreciate you recognizing me and, given how unreasonable my post must have seemed to you, phrasing your comment as respectfully as you did. There was a misunderstanding - we're both sorta right chuckle. There are TWO RFC's on that page. You appear to have looked at the bottom one, which is indeed closely split. The RFC at issue here is the top one. This one has been open a few days longer, but still admittedly short. My close analysis, if I were an uninvolved closer, goes like this: The initial low-information votes on the RFC were 2-Yes vs 3-No. I would give little weight to the first 5 votes. The next person posted a pile of sources. From that point on the RFC went 14-Yes vs 3-No, with a majority explicitly citing the posted evidence as conclusive. Basically the RFC ended the moment the evidence was posted. Regarding early closure, aside from the outcome already being clear, this is a high traffic active-event page. Readers are not being well served. The page is sitting on The wrong version because (in my opinion) the majority side are following polite Wikiquette while the minority side have (in my opinion) used dubious tactics to push whatever they want while the RFC is in progress. I'm tempted to edit the page to the majority version, but I am generally averse to editing any issue under active RFC. In this case I actively anticipate any majority-edit is likely to be warred as long as the RFC is open. Waiting a month basically allows the minority to stonewall the page until it (mostly) doesn't matter anymore. I normally take the long view of getting it right eventually, but there are a LOT of people currently reading this active event. Alsee (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, see I thought there must be some rational explanation for that incongruity! Please forgive my confusion on the matter: there was a lot of topical and procedural overlap on those two RfCs (including involved parties), so I was not able to discern from the forgoing discussion that it was the former rather than the latter RfC at issue--though in truth I should have looked for the reverted closure in the edit history anyway, as a matter of prudence. Anyway, thank you in kind for the courtesy and understanding of your own response, as well as for the clarification. I will have to review my comments above to make sure that the feedback provided remains germane with regard to all the specific, but thankfully at first blush I think my previous commentary (up until my immediately previous post to you) mostly applies equally as well to the former RfC as much as the latter, being rather generalized to some features they share in common. That said, and turning a more particularized eye to the correct RfC in question, with a current !vote of ~15:6, and only six days in, I'm still not sure that I would personally feel this is a case of SNOW: it's a borderline case, I feel, and I tend to err on the side of further discussion in those circumstances. But with appropriate context, your argument and perspective that it does in fact meet the burden certainly looks much, much more reasonable! Snow let's rap 01:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Alsee. The truth is that I don't have experience closing RfC's. I was basing myself on WP:RFCCLOSE, which states in point 2: "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time, and one of them can remove the {{rfc}} template." I wasn't aware that there were additional rules to the process further than those four listed there, and since the consensus became pretty obvious 3 days after the RfC was started, I thought I could proceed. This was not the case, and that's my bad. Ajñavidya (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated WP:BLP violations in the Zina Bash article.

    See the recent article history. [147], and in particular the repeated addition of content like this. [148]

    In brief, two contributors (User:TrueQuantum and User:Attic Salt) have been tag-teaming to insert content into the Zina Bash article, in contravention of WP:BLP. Since it has been made perfectly clear, in reliable sources already cited in the article, that claims that Bash made a 'white power' sign are based on nothing more than 4Chan conspiracy-theory trolling, the material being added, which implies that Wikipedia takes this nonsense seriously, is a gross violation. Further comments about Kavanaugh are likewise improper, given that they simply have no bearing on events that actually occurred, rather than on a particularly silly conspiracy theory.

    Any responsible contributor would surely understand that if there is a dispute about possible WP:BLP violations, the proper course of action is to resolve the matter through dispute resolution. Since however those responsible have acted in the manner they did instead, I suggest that appropriate sanctions be taken against them.AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, when I asked you what specifically is the BLP violation that concerns you: [149], [150], you did not provide an answer: [151]. Attic Salt (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no 'I didn't like the answer I was given' exception to WP:BLP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I should probably have also linked the earlier WP:BLPN discussion too - comments there seem relevant to assessing what happened later. [152] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully protected the article for a week and will watch the talk page for a while. Let me know if the issue cannot be resolved with normal discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Trust me when I say that I do not want to be involved in this dispute. What first got my attention were complaints that Marquardtika was tendentiously editing Bash's page to such an extent that the editor was making attacks and accusations of sexual assault against other BLP subjects who accused Bash of making the controversial hand signal. This was particularly evident against another BLP subject Eugene Gu where Marquardtika overrode an RFC to put sexual misconduct accusations against him not only on Gu's page but also on Zina Bash's page as well. Upon further investigation I saw that Bash's page was edited in such a biased, non-neutral fashion that it looked more like a PR defense or reputation management for Bash than as an encyclopedia entry. I want us all to adhere to our policies in WP:BLP. My thoughts on this are simple. Either we discuss Bash's highly publicized hand signal during Kavanaugh's highly publicized confirmation hearing in a neutral way considering all reliable sources from all different angles or we nominate this article for deletion. We can't have a PR style reputation management entry for Bash because that undermines the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia. TrueQuantum (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    TrueQuantum, you have repeatedly added BLP-violating content to the article. Specifically, "It is unclear whether Bash made the hand signal to distract from Kavanaugh's controversial confirmation hearing." The reliable sources aren't ambiguous at all here. Vox says "Bash was not making a 'white power hand signal'" and called the incident "fake news." The Washington Post says "The idea that the hand sign is a secret symbol for white power owes its mainstream spread to a viral troll campaign aimed at making liberals and the media look gullible....The gesture is not considered a real hate symbol by organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League." If you want to nominate the article for deletion, go ahead. But you need to stop confusing our BLP policy with "PR." Marquardtika (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not edited the article in any way other than enforcing the 3RR policy by reverting some of your contentious edits. Reverting your TE does not constitute "repeatedly adding" BLP violating content. I have not added anything to the article at all. I am simply trying to undo your TE and preserve the principles of neutrality that is central to our mission on Wikipedia. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, 3RR policy isn't 'enforced' by involved contributors adding (or restoring - the same thing, in this context) material to articles. It is enforced by taking violations of policy to an appropriate noticeboard, where an admin can, if necessary, impose sanctions on one or more of the involved parties. Though I think it is safe to assume that said admin will take due account on the explicit exemptions to WP:3RR rules which can apply when removing WP:BLP-violating content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Marquardtika, the New York Times source [153], which you keep removing, for example, here: [154], is more circumspect about whether or not Bash intended anything and whether or not the gesture is or is not offensive. We can't get into her mind, so the most that can be said is that there was an accusation. I don't know if Vox is actually considered to be a RS, but the Vox article you keep citing is clearly loaded with opinion. It is not as definitive as seem to suggest. Thanks. Attic Salt (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT article you cite is a 2019 article about the evolution of the OK gesture. It's not particularly useful or accurate when discussing an incident that occurred in 2017. And no, we can't "get into her mind." But we can and we must identify conspiracy theories for what they are. She unequivocally did not "flash a white power sign." And we're certainly not going to say she was accused of such in the article without addressing the fact that, per the myriad reliable sources I've provided, that's a false accusation. Marquardtika (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, Marquardtika, the NYT article you keep removing notes that it is not always clear when the okay gesture is or is not intended to be offensive. In this respect, your quote, including mentioning the ADL, is not necessarily accurate. It is, at times, clearly used as a hate symbol. Attic Salt (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you genuinely don't understand how edits like this are BLP violations, you need to stop editing biographies. That you are not comprehending that saying a Mexican Jewish woman was accused of flashing a white power symbol without providing any context about who was accusing her or how this came to be is problematic. The fact that sometimes the OK sign is used as a hate symbol does not mean that she used a hate symbol. The Washington Post is very clear that she gave an OK sign with her hand to a judiciary staffer after that staffer fulfilled a request to bring Kavanaugh a glass of water. We obviously need to be extremely careful about including any content that accuses someone of making a white power symbol. That is a serious and ugly accusation. It's a shame that several editors on the Bash page don't understand the BLP issues. Marquardtika (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, please don't personalise this discussion. The edit you cite this was not made by me. So why do you cite it here in responding to me? I'm all in favour of providing context, but the quote you keep presenting, asserting that the gesture is "not considered a real hate symbol" is simply false. That the WP article is simply wrong. The NYT article you keep removing makes that clear. I'm not suggesting that Bash used it as a hate symbol. In fact, I'm completely agnostic on that matter. Attic Salt (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So it is your contention that The Washington Post is wrong? You might want to take that to WP:RSN. Marquardtika (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Truequantum, trying to defend a WP:BLP violation by making a personal attack on a contributor, entirely unaccompanied by any evidence, generally isn't considered a wise tactic. I'd recommend taking a little time to figure out how Wikipedia actually works (you've only been editing since the beginning of June) before making further comments. The question of what should or shouldn't go in the Bash biography (and indeed whether there should be one at all) can now be determined at more appropriate locations than WP:ANI, and if anything needs to be discussed on this noticeboard regarding what went on with the Eugene Gu article, it will need a new thread. Accompanied by actual evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a serious accusation, AndyTheGrump. Please show me where I have made a personal attack on a contributor. I have simply laid out the evidence of what has occurred in the editing history. Furthermore, I recommend you refresh yourself on Wikipedia policies and our ethos. It does not matter if an editor has been here for 1 day or for 10 years. We do not undervalue the contributions and opinions from any editor regardless of how long they have been editing. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have 'laid out' no evidence at all. Evidence, at WP:ANI, consists of links (e.g. diffs) to the relevant material, as posted by the person concerned. It doesn't consist of mere assertions that something or other happened. And no, it isn't a good idea to undervalue a contributor on the basis of how long they have been editing. It is however often relevant to how much allowance should be made for their evident lack of understanding of how things work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) NeneCaretaker (talk · contribs) and 66.190.166.205 (talk · contribs) are meat puppets or sock puppets, but they are all new accounts with a sudden and similar interest in Zina Bash. Marquardtika (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of personal attacks on contributors, this false accusation is utterly uncalled for. TrueQuantum (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The text "new accounts with a sudden and similar interest in Zina Bash" is completely accurate: TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) was created on 6 June 2021 and has 268 edits starting with their user page (permalink) while NeneCaretaker (talk · contribs) was created on 16 July 2021 and has 26 edits starting with their user page ("The red font for a blank user page is ugly" permalink). Regarding the issue of the article, TrueQuantum and NeneCaretaker have received the BLP discretionary sanctions notification and I will ensure that any BLP problems result in appropriate action. If anyone wants to oppose a sanction against those who came to Wikipedia to add fuel to an article, please speak up. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq, I'm surprised by your suggestion of sanctions. What, specifically, are you asking us to oppose? Certainly you are obliged to clearly state what you are proposing. More generally, I think the evidence you cite for a sockpuppet is flimsy. Why not request a CU to verify? Independent of that, TrueQuantum's behaviour has been both civil and well reasoned. I find Marquardtika's edits to be tedious and I view AndyTheGrump as a bully. Those are my thoughts. Attic Salt (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. This is getting pretty ridiculous. I am being accused of making sockpuppet accounts (namely that of NeneCaretaker and 66.190.166.205 without any evidence whatsoever. Now there are threats of sanctions against me for trying to enforce our policies on neutrality? I would like other administrators to weigh in here because this seems patently unfair. TrueQuantum (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which 'policies on neutrality' are you trying to 'enforce', and where do they state that a participant in a dispute should be 'enforcing' them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the call for a different administrator. Attic Salt (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you do. But User:Johnuniq is a very experienced administrator and I, an even more experienced Aministrator, see no problems with the suggestion that any BLP violation after the discretionary sanctions alerts have been given may lead to sanctions. In fact, they should lead to sanctions. Doug Weller talk 12:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please identify and cite the evidence used to justify a BLP violation and discretionary sanctions alert that AndyTheGrump placed on my talk page. I am concerned that rather than using this mechanism to protect our policies on Wikipedia, AndyTheGrump as an editor involved in this dispute is using the discretionary sanctions as a silencing tactic against me. Wikipedia is meant to be open to editors of all levels of experience and time spent here. I am highly unsettled and concerned by bullying from "experienced" editors that will degrade the quality of this encyclopedic resource. Why do I have discretionary sanctions and AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika do not? Please examine their contentious editing history and talk page comments regarding this issue. Fairness and objectivity should be values that administrators believe in. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not having discretionary sanctions 'used against you'. You are being notified that they exist. Experienced Wikipedians already know about them, and don't generally need such notifications, since they are already aware of them. I certainly was, and fully expect that if I ever violate the relevant Wikipedia policies, such sanctions will be applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The allegation that this BLP subject repeatedly made "white power" hand gestures at a deeply controversial, very public confirmation hearing never made much sense and has been clearly refuted. Supporters of racial justice and equality, which I hope includes all of us, should find better causes for their editing efforts than further promoting this allegation, which at this point is both a defamation and a digression. Actually, the interesting BLP question about this article is not whether we should "neutrally" report that something is possible where it obviously is not true, but whether this type of spurious but potentially life-destroying allegation against a non-prominent person should be included in a Wikipedia article at all. I have referred to this question elsewhere as the "allegations problem": when does an allegation that would otherwise not be worth mentioning, whether because it is untrue or (in other cases) because it is non-notable, need to be included because the making of the allegation itself became a public controversy. (Compare my comments here and the discussion problem here.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Newyorkbrad, You seem to be rehashing things already said. Both TrueQuantum and I have stated that this article might be worthy of deletion. But I disagree with your quotation marks about neutrality. As long as the article exists, we should certainly strive for neutrality. I also disagree with your simple assertion that the allegation is "obviously not true". We don't know that, so let's stop saying things we don't know. Regarding "further promoting this allegation", no one here is promoting an allegation. I suggest you retract that comment as unhelpful (to say the least). And, finally, TrueQuantum requested "Please identify and cite the evidence used to justify a BLP violation". For clarity, your response, here, does not do that at all. Attic Salt (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, this is symptomatic of a broader issue: the tendency of Wikipedia biographies of living persons (and articles in general, though that matters less) to become battlegrounds between contributors with opposing views, if there is any political context at all, and for such battleground behaviour to result in articles consisting of little more than a series of 'pro' and 'anti' sections based on marginal sourcing, chosen not to actually describe the subject biographically, but to score points. Not only is this a poor reflection on contributors, and on Wikipedia in general, but it is also an insult to readers, who I'd have to assume would rather read something less resembling the Somme after a particularly bad day. For the record, as a Brit, and thus as an outsider generally only observing US politicking from a distance, I had no recollection of knowing anything about Zina Bash before I saw the thread on WP:BLPN, and reacted to it not because I wanted to take sides, but because I saw what was so blatantly a violation of WP:BLP policy that I couldn't ignore it. As the few of you who have seen comments from me on a Wikipedia-criticism forum I participate in may have noticed (the rest of you will have to take my word for it), my own political views are about as far from those of the Trump administration, and its appointees etc, as could be imagined. If I were to pick sides, I'd be on the other side of the trenches. If my politics influenced my actions here at all (which is of course possible) it was probably because this insult to readers intelligence (to even describe it as a conspiracy theory suggests more coherence than it deserves) makes those pushing it look utterly idiotic, and consequently harms efforts to confront real-world racial bigotry from actual advocates of 'white power' etc. Real-world bigotry with real-world consequences. If people want to use Wikipedia as a political battlefield (which no doubt they always will, since being political is part of being human) they really need to use more subtle tactics than those employed here. 15:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)
    Hi Newyorkbrad, I would like to understand your points and arguments in good faith. I do agree with you that a "potentially life-destroying allegation against a non-prominent person" has no place on Wikipedia. That is why I have repeatedly said that if Zina Bash is only known for the hand signal controversy at Brett Kavanaugh's controversial hearing, then the entire article should be deleted. What I am adamantly against is using Wikipedia as a reputation management PR service for anyone. In fact, there seems to be three main possibilities for Zina Bash's OK hand signal:
    1. It may be an innocuous OK hand gesture without any bad intent. There are reliable sources that state this perspective.
    2. It may be a white power hand gesture with malicious and racist intent. There are reliable sources that state this perspective and cite individuals who have been fired from their jobs and disciplined after flashing this hand signal during media interviews.
    3. It may have been a way to distract from Kavanaugh's controversial hearing where accusations of sexual assault were causing significant impediments. Reliable sources have stated this possibility as well and the Washington Post noted that even after the first uproar about the hand signal, Bash did it again.
    I honestly do not know which of the above possibilities are true. Also, it is not my duty as an editor to determine which is true or to fight for any single narrative here. I believe that in the interests of neutrality we must cover what the reliable sources state about this incident and let the reader come to her or his own conclusion. We cannot pick and choose what reliable sources are "true" and what reliables sources are "false." What I believe to be a violation of our principles on neutrality is to only include the sources that state that the whole incident is a "conspiracy theory." That would make Bash's page appear to be more of a PR type reputation management service since Wikipedia articles, especially BLPs, often make it to the top of anyone's Google search. Wikipedia is not here to vouch for anyone nor to repair their reputations. Our job is to make sure that for BLPs we remain absolutely neutral. Since I do believe in the presumption of innocence and the tenets of due process, the most fair scenario here is to delete Bash's page. If the page is not deleted, then portray the incident with absolute neutrality. TrueQuantum (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How to shoot yourself in the foot in one easy lesson: "I believe this article should be deleted, but rather than nominate it for deletion, I'm going to turn it into a battlefield instead". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't appreciate your dismissive and derisive attitude here towards me. I gave an explanation citing my reasoning based on the available evidence and sources and you simply state "How to shoot yourself in the foot in one easy lesson" and accuse me of turning the article into a "battlefield." It would have been more appropriate for you to actually go through my arguments and rebut them based on the evidence and with your own logical reasoning. That's how I expect editors to conduct themselves when discussing issues on here with maturity. TrueQuantum (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote what I said earlier, when I started this thread "Any responsible contributor would surely understand that if there is a dispute about possible WP:BLP violations, the proper course of action is to resolve the matter through dispute resolution". WP:ANI is not the proper place to engage in a content dispute. What is being discussed here is behaviour - specifically, the behaviour of a couple of individuals who, when it had already been made abundantly clear that the disputed content was considered by responsible and experienced editors to violate WP:BLP policy, continued to restore it to the article. You don't have to agree with other people assessments regarding WP:BLP policy. You are however expected to at least conform to the minimum standard of expected behaviour, and discuss issues over such content properly (asking for third-party comment etc if needed) rather than edit-warring it in to 'enforce' (your own word, used above [155][156]) your preferred version of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me see if I understand this correctly. If you are making accusations that I am violating BLP guidelines despite not actually writing anything into Bash's article at all (simply reverting Maquardtika's edit once and your edit once), I am supposed to not even discuss the topic whatsoever here and take the consequences of your accusations including discretionary sanctions without defending myself. If I defend myself in the proper forum and explain my reasoning, that to you is a violation. All of this is occurring in the setting of you and Marquardtika violating the 3RR policy. Tell me how this makes sense. Also, please cite the evidence for my BLP violation on Bash's article that justifies these accusations leading to possible BLP discretionary sanctions against me rather than against you and Marquardtika. TrueQuantum (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AndyTheGrump, and, again, when you were asked what the BLP violations that concerned you [157], [158], you refused to answer: [159]. Attic Salt (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking further into the history of the Zina Bash biography

    Having looked at the history, I'd like to first state that this revert, [160] made by TrueQuantum, was absolutely in compliance with WP:BLP policy, and had I seen the material myself, would have done exactly the same thing - and quite likely pursued it further, at least to the extent of finding out who was responsible for originally adding it and asking them what the hell they thought they were doing. My endeavours to figure out who actually added have so far however been thwarted by the convoluted edit-warring that has taken place. The article history is a total mess, and reflects poorly on almost everyone concerned.

    Going back to the origins of the article, one will readily observe that it has been abused as a political battleground right from the start, as competing factions alternately add their preferred spin to a facile troll-fuelled 'debate' over the position of the hands of someone sitting in the background of a Supreme Court conformation hearing. If it wasn't created for that express purpose in the first place, it might as well have been. If Wikipedia can't do better than this, it should maybe consider tightening the notability criteria for biographies of living persons further, to at least reduce the number of vacuous-battleground-biographies enough to enable less politically-motivated contributors to keep a better eye on whatever idiocy is being perpetrated on this self-proclaimed 'encyclopedia'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like AndyTheGrump is completely retreating from his call for an ANI. Attic Salt (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What the heck is a 'call for an ANI'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You brought us here, but you have declined to provide evidence of BLP violations, see: [161]. Attic Salt (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that your interpretation of multiple Wikipedia policies (as shown here [162]) is clearly entirely at odds with mine, or indeed with more or less anyone I've seen who actually understands them (e.g. your suggestion that "Perhaps the only thing that is noteworthy enough to justify a Wikiarticle on Zina Bash is this accusation. If there is to be an article on her, then the accusation needs to be discussed. Though not in unrealistic terms, like whether or not it is debunked.") perhaps you might like to ask that question of the many other people who have responded here, who appear to agree with me. I very much doubt you'd take any notice of what I said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic bans

    What issue do I have with the BLP policy? Attic Salt (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right — this seems to be an isolated incident, and the only problematic conduct on your behalf was on Zina Bash and its talk page; for instance, this edit to remove WP:PROMO from a BLP looks uncontroversial. Changing to oppose for you, but may still support a topic ban from Zina Bash from your previous comments there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very confusing. I've asked several times what the controversial conduct was. Please provide diffs. Why is that so difficult? Attic Salt (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit reverted by Marquardtika (talk · contribs) and then reverted again by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) (after one round with TrueQuantum) is alleged to violate the BLP policy. You previously brought up a point about the sexual abuse allegations against Bash in January 2020, at Talk:Zina_Bash#January_2020_2, which was refuted by CWC (talk · contribs) and Marquardtika. I think at this point that this has descended into a content dispute where you are innocent that should have gone to WP:BLPN first (Bash has never been discussed other than this zero-reply thread by the creator), although TrueQuantum may still be problematic based on the evidence I presented. Thanks for telling me to address this more closely. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And you really consider that edit to be so controversial that you contemplate a ban against me, specifically? Please don't complain about splinters in my eye. Attic Salt (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than playing dumb, I think that Attic Salt truly does not yet understand a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia's BLP policy, which is that it is more important than most other policies, and more specifically that it is more important than otherwise basic content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. When talking about accusations made against historical figures who lived 2000 years ago, a comment like Nope. We are not at liberty to interpret accusations as being either true or false. Accusations can be made and denied. Proof, here, does not exist. [163] might be a perfectly legitimate interpretation of policy: we just report what historians are writing about the accusation, and we don't engage in our own research about whether the accusation was true or false. The person involved is long dead anyways, and what we write about it does not have any real-world impact apart from the accuracy of our information about ancient history. When talking about living persons, however, a completely different standard applies. For living persons, the question whether we do or do not repeat serious accusations made against them can have far-reaching real-life consequences. In these circumstances, it is not enough to consider whether what we report is objective, or whether it complies with what expert sources are telling us. For example, when it comes to serious allegations that are reported by reliable sources, but which nevertheless show some of the characteristics of gossip, we would report it without a second thought in the case of historical figures (the fact that objective historians are writing about it is proof enough of its notability, and everyone likes a bit of speculation on the personal lives of the ancients). In the case of gossip about living persons, however, we are required to ask ourselves whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Basically, if it is even remotely likely to be just gossip, mere allegations without any substantive form of proof, then the preferred course is to either not include it, or to write about it very sparingly (perhaps one sentence, e.g. if it is directly relevant to something else we're writing). It doesn't matter that in principle it could be true, that there is no evidence that it isn't true, that a number of reliable sources have reported on it, etc., etc. Our first goal in such a case is not to be objective, but to avoid being complicit in defamation. Now I'm fairly confident that Attic Salt just wasn't aware yet of the extra stringency we apply to BLP's (which, by the way, includes an exemption from 3RR), and that after the explanation I have just given they will understand and agree. If, however, that would turn out not to be the case, I would support a topic ban on BLP's until they do understand. As for TrueQuantum, I can't and won't comment on their understanding of BLP policy in other articles, but I note that they too elevated neutrality above BLP concerns in the case of the Zina Bash article, and that throughout this thread they have failed to understand the importance of these concerns. I think that also for TrueQuantum, a topic ban would be in order if they should not come to understand this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "[BLP] is more important than otherwise basic content policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR."
    Without necessarily disagreeing with some of your ultimate conclusions on content issues here, I'm going to have to push back against that statement, Apaugasma: WP:NPOV is a pillar policy of this project, and more or less by definition has a higher stature, in terms of over-arching community consensus formulated over the duration of this project, than does BLP, by a significant margin. And WP:OR is of course one of the primary outgrowths of that pillar policy explaining how we apply it in practice. Don't get me wrong, I very much support the precautionary principle which undergirds BLP, but it sometimes takes on a life of it's own in the hands of those who would like to excise content which they do not like with regard to living persons--even where good faith application of the standard WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT process clearly established an argument for inclusion. BLP was designed to work synergistically within the bounds of a policy of neutrality that is not meant to be abrogated under any circumstances, not to become a talisman that causes neutrality to be thrown out the window when we determine that information is sensitive in nature--which latter approach would be too vulnerable to abuse from POV pushers looking to sanitize articles on living but highly controversial figures.
    That said, I do recognize that BLP has, as an informal cultural matter, grown into something of a standard held in greater regard than your average policy page, but as a structural matter regarding how this community has codified its priorities and over-arching community consensus on the most paramount concerns when deciding a content matter, no, WP:NPOV is not some "basic" policy which bows to BLP. Quite the opposite: in a theoretical context in which the two are in direct conflict (which in reality is almost never the case, because the nuance of both policies generally allows for threading the needle and the two being applied in concert), we would be expected by the highest level of community consensus to err on the side of neutrality. Of course, let me reiterate again, that in practice you and I might agree on the right content call in both the present circumstances as well as most others that potentially implicate both BLP and NPOV. But with regard to the statement I quote above, you are categorically incorrect as to which policy is meant to inherit the greater level of concern as a recognized fundamental policy of this project. Snow let's rap 03:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snow: Yes, I struggled to formulate that without causing offense. I am of course aware of WP:CRYBLP, and I hope I did not inspire anyone to misuse BLP policy in that way. But what I meant with NPOV being basic is precisely that it is "elementary, fundamental, essential", and when I said that BLP is even more important, it was very much in the specific context of this ANI report where I was trying to convey that when evaluating a specific edit, it does not matter that it seemingly complies with NPOV if it blatantly breaches BLP. Of course, when an edit blatantly breaches NPOV it also doesn't matter that it seemingly complies with BLP, but in practice this is just not often the direction of concern. You are right to say that BLP works within the bounds of NPOV, but even within that framework it generally does function as a kind of additional rule, and yes, it often does trump other concerns. This statement is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It is just a fact that, because BLP violations may have serious real-life consequences, we tend to be very sensitive about them, more so even than with edits violating our most fundamental content policies (God knows that more than half of the encyclopedia consists of those). As an additional 'check' type of rule, BLP is far less central and therefore in a way far less important than our core content policies, but when it comes to enforcing rules, we just tend to be far more strict on BLP, and in that way grant it more importance. Anyways, that's surely what's relevant here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good summary of the situation, particularly when we consider your caveat that it is a descriptive rather than prescriptive description. That said, sometimes that is precisely a part of the concern for me: that the weight of BLP relative to other important policies and principles prioritized in the BLP context itself is sometimes out of proportion to the relative support in established community consensus. I sometimes think the community is long overdue to have an express discussion about this issue on a mass scale, to resolve it one way or the other. Either we should have some more explicit language so as to define the contours of BLP when it is in conflict with nominally more fundamental policies, or the ways in which it can permissibly abrogate those principles should be agreed upon by the community and expressed in policy. And I very much see arguments that appeal to me running in both directions, but at the end of the day there needs to be more clarity than presently exists. A lot of people just act from very impulsive a priori assumptions when a bit of sensitive information imputes BLP on a topic, and it often allows original research in via the back door. It's usually proscriptive OR (that is to say, an original research argument in support of keeping content out) rather than inclusive OR, but it's still not a workable standard like the more straightforward applications of WP:WEIGHT/WP:RS that govern most non-BLP content. But for now it's the best we have. Mostly we are able to manage in BLP areas because there's usually a strong consensus for or against inclusion of a particular piece. But it must be noted that more borderline BLP questions become some of the most fertile ground for both dispute and disruption because of BLPs strange, sometimes quixotic application and status. Snow let's rap 06:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I thank you for this explanation. I accept it and the BLP policies in general. I would have appreciated a clear explanation like this earlier on, rather than all the antagonism and arrogance that has bee directed my way. Attic Salt (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it extremely unsettling that both Attic Salt and I are under threat of a topic ban and/or other discretionary sanctions. Such drastic actions require detailed and specific evidence because these actions censor our views and contributions to an encyclopedic resource that is meant to be free and open to all editors in good faith. If I am to be subject to a topic ban on BLPs, I demand the specific violation(s) I have made and how each of these violations went against specific policies. I cannot be subject to a topic ban because of the articles that I choose to edit, which range from topics in physics to biology to mathematics to BLPs. If I believe in the tenets of WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME and seek to apply these policies to protect BLPs, I should not be punished for my good faith understanding of Wikipedia's policies even if other editors may disagree. Furthermore, I am unequivocally not NeneCaretaker nor am I IP user 66.190.166.205. Yet somehow I stand accused. I would appreciate a Check User action to verify this. In summary, I am very concerned with how Attic Salt and I are being treated here. It's beyond chilling that we are subject to sanctions based on vague accusations without specific evidence to back them up. It would be extremely troubling for editors who have many years of experience here on Wikipedia to form a clique because of the age of their accounts and to gang up on newer editors like myself. To then apply sanctions or even the threat of sanctions is anathema to the spirit and ethos of an open source encyclopedia. TrueQuantum (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Does you 'good-faith understanding' of WP:BLP now extend to an understanding that when multiple experienced editors state that material you are adding or restoring to an article contravenes the policy, the correct way to proceed, if you disagree with that assessment, is to try to resolve the matter through discussion (including if necessary formal dispute resolution etc) rather than adding or restoring it again? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I share TrueQuantum’s disgust with how this has unfolded. Attic Salt (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Attic Salt, samequestion for you: does you 'good-faith understanding' of WP:BLP now extend to an understanding that when multiple experienced editors state that material you are adding or restoring to an article contravenes the policy, the correct way to proceed, if you disagree with that assessment, is to try to resolve the matter through discussion (including if necessary formal dispute resolution etc) rather than adding or restoring it again? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy,your behaviour here has been horrible. I’m not interested in interacting with a bully. Attic Salt (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure those wishing to determine how best to proceed further will take your non-response to a perfectly reasonable question into consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really concerned that nobody is addressing the bullying behavior from editors AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika. So far they have accused me of being NeneCaretaker and 66.190.166.205 without any evidence nor CU action. They have attacked my character repeatedly as well as my intentions. Furthermore, the administrators involved so far have only been piling on by threatening sanctions against me and Attic Salt while giving a free pass to AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika. I sincerely hope that Wikipedia has not become an insular group of editors and administrators who give favoritism to those they know or those whose accounts are older while discriminating against newer accounts like myself. TrueQuantum (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At no point have I accused you of being NeneCaretaker or 66.190.166.205. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrueQuantum: I agree that WP:BITE may have been a concern here (@AndyTheGrump: please do try to take it easy). However, the accusations are not vague. They're simply that this edit and this one reinstated what other editors had identified as a BLP violation without waiting for the discussion about this to end. This is not acceptable, and demonstrates that you do not yet sufficiently understand the gravity of BLP violations. Even if there is just a possibility of an edit violating BLP policy, it should be extensively discussed before being reinstated. If you simply acknowledge this and promise to take this into account in the future, I'm fairly sure that no action will be taken. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for actually pointing out what the potential violation is and what policy it violates. I did in fact discuss the BLP issues in the talk page for Zina Bash way in advance of reverting Marquardtika's edit. Not only that, but furthermore I pointed out on Marquardtika's talk page that I identified contentious editing and politely asked the editor to refrain. The talk page discussion was as follows: "I saw you put in accusations of sexual assault against Eugene Gu in your edit to Zina Bash's BLP. Upon further investigation I saw that you were aggressively editing Gu's BLP to include accusations of sexual assault that a unanimous RFC forbade. Please refrain from tendentious editing and look up our policies on WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Maybe Eugene should have looked up the BLP policies before he used his public platform to falsely accuse a Mexican Jew of flashing a white power symbol. As for the accusations of sexual assault, it's right there in the reliable source: "Eugene Gu, a prominent anti-Trump doctor who recently made news when he was accused of sexual assault..." Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC) Okay. Seeing as how Gu isn't a Wiki editor, it's strange to say that he should have looked up the BLP policies. Sounds like you have an axe to grind against Gu that makes you ignore RFC consensus and then attack him in Zina Bash's Wikipedia page to get revenge on him using his "public platform" to "falsely accuse a Mexican Jew of flashing a white power symbol." I highly recommend you refresh yourself on the 5 pillars and WP:BLP policies. Please discontinue the tendentious editing that is clearly motivated by feelings of retaliation and desire for retribution. TrueQuantum (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)." I made repeated attempts to reach out and discuss on the talk page before resorting to reverting what I believed to be TE. If I made an error in this case, then it was unintentional and I will take it as a learning point and lesson. I hope that Marquardtika and AndyTheGrump can similarly learn lessons on Wikipedia policies and civil behavior so that we can have a better community here. TrueQuantum (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The crucial difference is that after Marquardtika got reverted on the Eugene Gu article, they did continue to discuss a bit on the talk page, but they did not reinstate the edit without getting consensus to do so. Likewise, after you reverted them at the Zina Bash article, they discussed a bit with you on their talk page but they did not reinstate the edit. I do think it rather questionable that they incorporated the sexual assault allegation against Gu in the Zina Bash article just two days after their inclusion of it in Gu's own article was reverted, though as they write on their talk page, the allegation against Gu is specifically noted in the Vox article we are using on Zina Bash. Anyways, the important thing is that when editors identify BLP violations, they should not be reinstated without a thorough consensus, and they can in some cases even be reverted beyond 3RR. This is not always an obvious point for newish editors to catch on to, but I guess that learning it the hard way is also one form of learning it. :-P Thanks for your attention, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To piggyback on Apaugasma's very useful advice here, I would recommend that you take a look at WP:BRD, if you are not familiar with, or to review it even if you are--and when doing so, consider every note of caution with regard to the principle of discussing before acting to have a particular vitality in the context of BLP. Mind you, when it comes to the tone of the discussion itself, I believe you acted in a civil and measured fashion, and I intend to note that in an !vote below. However, the edit warring here never should have taken place. The burden was upon you and Attic Salt to achieve consensus for these changes once they were reverted, and you skipped that rather principal step. In the future, where things are looking rather intractable, you should consider soliciting additional perspectives through a process such as WP:RfC rather than resorting to attempting to get the content in by brute force of redundant edits: that approach will never work in your favour. Snow let's rap 03:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fairly strong oppose. The behaviour here is limited to a one-time instance as far as has been presented (absent a trivial WP:NOTAFORUM violation, but in any event both excuseable in a newer user) and frankly (though I would support a different view) their content arguments are not wholecloth without merit. The proposed sanction is way out of proportion with actionable behaviour here (if any), given that at least one of these editors has pretty clearly recognized shortcomings in their approach and assumed the appropriate attitude that their approach to these situations must adjust. Blocks are administered for purely preventative purposes, not punitive statements, even where we might find the content in dispute objectionable in some respect. Putting aside for the moment the question of whether or not Andy's bringing the issue here was appropriate--I assume for argument here that it was--we have already achieved an acceptable approach in that the editors have evidenced no suggestion of a more disruptive pattern (at least that I have seen submitted here), and seem not to object to adjusting their approach to community expectations. So long as we have no reason to expect duplicity, I see no reason not to AGF as to their intent and give them the benefit of the doubt as to their ability to adjust.
    There's also the fact that, upon reviewing the discussions in full, I actually think there is reason to feel they handled themselves fairly appropriately and with restraint in those discussions. Andy frankly was showing so much WP:BITE there from word go, I would say it was verging into uncollaborative discussion. This is, if my memory recalls correctly, something that has brought Andy to this board more than once in the past, and has certainly, looking at his block log, something close to behaviour that has earned him blocks in the past, so maybe if there is an editor who does have a pattern worth noting here, it is not the two named in the complaint. Not that I'm arguing for sanction for anybody here. But weighing the behaviours of TrueQuantum and Attic Salt in the light of the dispute and taking into account their responses here, I don't see a good argument for sanction, let alone something as severe as the proposed T/PBAN. If there's any lingering concern, it is that Attic Salt has not been quite as forward in owning up the edit warring as has TrueQuantum. I also advise the parties to RfC this issue if they can't resolve it any other way (unless the standing consensus is already pretty substantial and recently arrived at, in which case the issue should be left alone for a time), though if I am perfectly blunt, I can't imagine TrueQuantum and Attic Salt can prevail on this editorial question in any discussion that pulls in a substantial number of experienced editors. Snow let's rap 05:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partial blocks. Per all the above, and noting especially the aggressiveness of TrueQuantum in the discussion, I have blocked TrueQuantum and Attic Salt indefinitely from Zina Bash and its related talkpage. I don't mean to close the discussion; other sanctions, such as topic bans or sock puppet investigations, may well still be on the table. Bishonen | tålk 08:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    I would like to know why and how Bishonen can just unilaterally apply a sanction on me without further discussion with other editors as it seemed the discussion above was about how sanctions are preventative and not meant to be punitive. I very much desire to make positive contributions to Wikipedia and strongly oppose being censored like this. If an uninvolved administrator or editor can help me apply for an appeal I would very much appreciate it. I don't believe in censorship and hope that this community does not believe in silencing users. Furthermore, I find it highly unusual that Bishonen interprets my behavior as aggressive and threatens even more sanctions that are "on the table" while willfully ignoring the rather bullying behavior of AndyTheGrump and Marquardtika. I really hope for there to be a semblance of objectivity and balance here. Is this how administrators treat conflicts between older and newer editors? TrueQuantum (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it that a seven-week old account with under 300 edits is so confident about procedures at Wikipedia? When two established editors started removing what they said were WP:BLP violations at Zina Bash, did you ask anyone for an explanation? At your talk, some kind advice "to be self-reflective" was dismissed diff with "Demanding that I be self-reflective ... is very chilling to me." That is not the way to succeed at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TrueQuantum, most sanctions are put in place "unilaterally", by a single admin, at their sole discretion, and that's what I did. A partial block from one article and its talkpage is an extremely narrow sanction, which leaves you free to edit the rest of Wikipedia, so you have hardly been "silenced" by it. Nor am I "threatening" "even more sanctions"; I merely point out that suggestions for other sanctions have been made above, and therefore it's not time to close this section yet. I myself have no opinion on these potential other sanctions. Bishonen | tålk 11:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

    Death

    WRONG VENUE
    (non-admin closure) IP editor has been directed to WP:DWG (and possibly WP:OVERSIGHT) for guidance on informing about a deceased editor. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I wanna announce the death of my friend AbhiMukh97 who passed away a week ago due to covid. I figured out he used to edit wikipedia and hence informing. 223.223.136.222 (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    223.223.136.222, I'm sorry to hear about this. If you have evidence of their deceased status, I suggest following the instructions here, and possibly contacting the oversight team. Please accept my condolences, BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 07:37, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:VNHRISHIKESH

    User:VNHRISHIKESH already has a rather problematic editing history, with in a month one so far successful article creation, and 10 or so failed ones (mostly deleted, some draftified). This includes things like moving Paracelsus to Philips Paracelsus, a name not used anywhere else. They received warnings for the use of their user page for promotion, copyright violations, and general disruption.

    On 13 July, they asked for protection of their user page and talk page[164] to preserve it from vandalism. Neither page had ever been vandalized, and the request was swiftly rejected[165].

    Today, an IP appears[166], makes two vandal edits to All, and then makes the most gentle of vandal edits ever to VNHRISHIKESH's user talk page[167][168]. The IP then stops editing, and 3 minutes later our editor reappears and again asks for protection[169] (the last edited three minutes before the very short-lived vandal IP appeared). To put the icing on the cake, both the editor and the IP turn out to be from south Kerala.

    Vandalizing Wikipedia to get your user page and talk page protected must be among the more stupid things I have seen here, but coupled with the waste of time this editor has turned out to be otherwise for most of their edits, I don't think they should stay around for much longer. (Oh, as an aside, with IP masking in place this would have been a lot harder to check of course). Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Though I generally agree that this user may not be ready yet to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, from their personal website they link to at their user page it appears that they are a young editor, and I don't feel that the tone of the report above reflects that very well. Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, can we please block VNHRISHIKESH until they have some more competence and maturity? Since the above, they have given a rather confusing reply[170] with some clarification afterwards[171]: so apparently they claim that they got logged out, vandalized All[172] and again after being reverted[173], then immediately vandalized and undid this at their own talk page[174]: and then not only did they again log in 3 minutes later, but they saw those last two edits and didn't realise they had made those edits and called for protection[175].

    And then they started moving their poor articles, which were draftified by a range of editors (including me), back to the mainspace, creating stuff like Factors affecting Temperature distribution (again draftified by me now). You can look at this article at the time of redrafticiation[176] for yourself, note how this article on temperature distribution on Earth starts with a graph of the average body temperature of humans throughout the day, as if that graph has anything to do with the subject.

    An editor who one the one hand vandalizes articles to get their user page protected, and on the other hand produces such rubbish articles, is an editor we can do without. If age is a factor, then they can come back once they have matured a lot. Fram (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:WikiBullying by User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00

    I am compelled to report the said users for persistent wikibullying. The policy says: "On Wikipedia, all editors have fair and equal rights to editing all articles, project pages, and all other parts of the system. While some may have more knowledge or familiarity with a topic than others, this does not mean those with less Wikipedia jargon are at a lower level, or not entitled to their point of view."

    In my case:

    1. User:Aman.kumar.goel has been undoing all my contributions to the pages List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism without even bothering to check the references and sources I added. I was improving both the articles with references and fixed some unreliable sources but next day all my edits were undone. My request in this regard to User:Aman.kumar.goel on his talk page was also unanswered[177].

    2. I had to contact the Helpdesk[178] where User:331dot and User:Maproom advised me to discuss this on the article's talk page so I opened a thread on the article's talk page here[179] for discussion.

    3. Despite all these efforts User:Aman.kumar.goel kept undoing my contributions without even bothering to look at the references I added (though I used only reliable sources which are being used in other Wikipedia articles). Instead of any explanation, he continued undoing my works repeatedly and threatend me of disabling my editing rights. Didn't pay any heed to the administrator[180] who advised him to discuss rather deleted my own message from my own talk page[181].

    4. In the middle of these, suddenly another User:Capitals00 came with a similar warning and false statesments against my edits. I have not interacted with him before and did not even know him. He said I was making own calculations but anyone can verify that I added reliable sources for my every contributions.

    Since, my contributions with reliable sources have been undone by them yet they have no interest in discussion so I am forced to report them to get my contribution rights please. --Bringtar (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bringtar Just FYI you are required to notify any other users you are discussing of the existence of this discussion(see the top of this page for instructions on how to do so). 331dot (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I am not aware of all the issues here but the question from the Help Desk does remain in that is it insufficient for an individual's statement of their religious conversion as evidence of their religious conversion? 331dot (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    331dot sorry, I am doing that now. Thank you again for all your help. Bringtar (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ratnahastin I have no earlier accounts. I edited wikipedia in the past without creating any accounts and I did not plan to make regular contributions here but that does not mean I cannot contribute. Also I did not make any edit-war rather tried to discuss it with the other editor who has been edit-warring. Can you please list my unreliable sources because I was the one who replaced the Wikipedia article links with reliable sources. Bringtar (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You are accusing me of WP:ADMINSHOP but FYI, I contacted the helpdesk first as this was the first place to look for a help when my edits were removed and like I mentioned above, when the other user were reluctant to discuss and gave me block threats then I have to report them here according to WikiBullying policy. --Bringtar (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think this is acually a problem - but not from Bringtar. A number of the entries added by Bringtar do appear to have reliable sources, though some I am less sure about. Also, many of the entries added do talk about the subject's conversion from Hinduism in their own article, often with reliable sources. Thus, the behaviour of Aman.kumar.goel and Capitals00 jumping in with a totally unjustified final vandalism warning suggests to me some problematic POV editing from those two editors. Yes, clearly multiple accounts are trying to add that information. However, removing it en masse when some of the entries are clearly correct per the subjects own articles is equally as disruptive. Why not remove any poorly sourced entries, and leave the rest? Advice to Bringtar. Ensure that the sources you use are definitely reliable, and be especially careful if the subjects are living people. Do not add the entries if you are unsure, and you can always ask for advice at WP:RSN. You can also use many of the sources in the subject's own articles to source the entries. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the advise. If you see my discussion threads, I repeatedly asked to point me to the unreliable sources so I can improve with better sources. Anyway, I will use WP:RSN to verify reliability. Thanks again. Bringtar (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have also seen similar 'consistent unhealthy' pattern from User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00 of abusing Wiki processes to bully, some examples below:
    User:Aman.kumar.goel
    1. Reported me as sock, and I proved for the admin the mistake in blocking that I am not a sock. Strangely, when I was blocked, of all the edits he undid my specific edits of a Hindutva far-right politician article ONLY. For example, this article before[182] and after[183] undoing edits.
    2. He 'again' reports me as sock, not even bother doing a basic check. Can understand if he is a beginner like me or if reporting me for the first time. Please check the frivolous claims for 13 July 2021 report[184]. What is amazing is the consistent efforts being spent to bring some irrelevant 'similarity' with years apart pattern of edits as sock. Sock report (meant for catching actual frauds) is abused here by bunching irrelevant accounts frequently, as seen in this report[185]. Commendable if actual fraudulent socks are identified, but this consistent pattern of sock labelling by bunching accounts based on some strange 'similarity' is unhealthy and taking sock report and admins for granted.
    3. For the article, [[186]] neither he points which specific entry is problematic nor stops from undoing contributions without talking in that page.
    User:Capitals00
    1. For the article, [[187]] similarly neither he points which specific entry is problematic nor stops from undoing contributions without talking in the page.
    2. In my talk page[188] threatens in the first instance itself 'you should be indeed very careful'. Doesn't respond to my questions.
    3. Doesn't clarify and doesn't respond to my second communication in my talk page on this change[189] despite proper sources.
    User:Ratnahastin above who mentioned that 'I don't see "bullying"', has recently undone PLENTY of articles (pages of who embraced Islam) of my well researched edits which were inputs to the same List of converts to Islam from Hinduism article without any discussion tantamount to vandalism. For example, here[190] and here[191] as I was trying to tag Category:Converts to Islam from Hinduism for organizing. This is similar to User:Capitals00's undoing for this article[192].
    Above are some example, please check the edit history pattern and their communication to mine and other talk pages for more such. In summary, articles like List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism is not allowed to be evolved with User:Aman.kumar.goel, User:Capitals00 and User:Ratnahastin having similar disruptive activities without any beneficial discussion in the talk page of that article. Why they are disrupting together by bullying the contributors, especially when well researched factual entries are updated for these articles? Attempts with well researched sources get undone by ascribing 'sock' labels, threats, etc. with no response at times or no discussion in the respective article's talk page. Based on the nature of articles and edits that get disrupted, shows a far right wing POV by bullying others who want to contribute even well researched information. If they can't point out which specific row/entry is a mistake, and keeps on undoing all entries, what is to be done? Is this the manner, a healthy, open and conducive atmosphere to encourage contribution of topics with such suffocating 'abuse' of wiki admin terms/block threats? Many admins in the past have corrected my flaws as a beginner without ascribing false motives or in a threatening tone in my talk page (like @Toddy1:, @Callanecc:, @Kautilya3:, etc.). But User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00 especially are abusing Wiki admin processes (meant for removing actual trolls) with threats, wasting both admin time and the user's time. Am not an expert/senior here on 'all' legal nuances and unaware yet on all rituals to give a sophisticated comment, not sure if any wiki policies/behaviors if the above statements have got touched for conveying the grievance in laymen terms above. Hope, experts get the crux of what I really meant. If anything rude, please let me know, will withdraw that specific statement. Thanks for understanding and co-operating for making a better world. Loveall.human (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nothing to add that has not been said above - I checked just two of the sources that Aman.kumar.goel claimed were inadequate, and found that both were reliable press articles reporting "<subject> said 'I converted to Christianity ...'". Maproom (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maproom: since you didn't say which examples you checked, it's impossible to see more. But to state the obvious, you can have The Hindu, BBC, NYT, Reuters, The Globe and Mail all reporting "<subject> said 'I converted to Christianity ...'". If this is all you have, you cannot use this to add anyone to either of those lists especially not living person. Those lists are lists of people who converted from Hinduism. Unless the person said "from Hinduism" or otherwise earlier talked about how they were a follower of Hinduism before conversion, then they are insufficient. Indeed if an editor repeatedly adds living persons to such lists and their sourcing mentions conversion to Christianity (or whatever) but not "from", they should be topic banned from such lists or maybe from BLPs generally. If we have lists which are converts to Christianity or Islam without the from, then yeah probably such sources are sufficient although I'm not sure we should have such lists. Nil Einne (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: For example, when Muhammad Ali or Jermaine Jackson or Cat Stevens embraced Islam, they did not declare in the template, I am going to convert from 'XYZ'. We infer from the upbringing, name, family, reputed sources, interviews etc. There are 'all kinds' of such lists here in Wikipedia, but here only the convert lists from Hinduism are being disrupted from growing. Again, if any 'specific' entry is not well sourced, that can be discussed but as you notice FOR MANY YEARS these two specific articles have been stifled from maturing. Especially within India's Hindu majority setup, as per constitution anyone who is NOT Muslim/Christian/Parsi/Jew is considered (yes, including Buddhists and Sikhs) as Hindu. Even if a Muslim in India gives up his religion and is yet to adopt a new faith can still be considered as Hindu as per constitution. BUT, this list does not have such (i.e. from Sikh or Buddhist family etc.). Loveall.human (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne, if you mean a person has to declare himself that he "converted from x to y" then most of the entries in List of converts to Hinduism from Christianity and List of converts to Hinduism from Islam do not support that but still they were included? Bringtar (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bringtar and Loveall.human: ANI is not really the place for extensive discussions on policy issues but I wasn't trying to say you need the person to say "from XYZ". Personally I think we should require self-identification for previous religious identity (which doesn't have to be in the form of "I converted from", it could be "I was" etc), but this isn't the right place to discuss that and I tried to make it clear it wasn't what I was saying. However you do need a source to say what the person's previous religious was or better to specifically say what they converted from. If you have a source simply saying the person was raised as XYZ, I personally don't think that is sufficient but I won't dispute that here.

    But you definitely cannot make inferences from where a person lives, their name or even their parent's or families religion. That's always a violation of WP:OR even when BLPs aren't involved. And sorry, a countries constitution or laws are completely irrelevant. Religion is a personal thing, it's not what someone else says. There are BLP reasons for this but even putting that aside, it's simple common sense.

    To give an example, in some Muslim countries, it's legally not possible to convert from Islam and a child's religion follows their father. But in practice a small number of Muslims do convert despite the risk and of course some of these go on to raise children in their religion. Outwardly and in the eye's of the country's legal system the child may be Muslim. However if they always rejected Islam, it doesn't make sense to say they (unlike their parents) are a convert from Islam, and it's unlikely they considered themselves as such. The fact they were forced to publicly "follow" and profess Islam doesn't change this. (I would prefer not to single out a religion like this, but in truth while I know some countries e.g. Freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia and Freedom of religion in Malaysia where conversion from Islam is not possible, I do not know of any where conversion from some other religion is not possible in the modern world.)

    Per WP:Other stuff exists, existing problems are not an excuse to add more problems. Any entries which are a problem in any article need to be fixed with better sources added, or the entries remove if these sources do not exist. I had a look, and it seems to me that Muhammad Ali may be fine. But Yusuf Islam is indeed a problem at List of converts to Islam from Christianity and so I tagged it. I do not see Jermaine Jackson in any list of converts from article, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there.

    Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nil Einne, appreciate your views and accordingly I have removed many unverified claims from here[193]. Just for your information, my thread here is not about these policies but about the unprofessional behaviors and intimidation by User:Aman.kumar.goel and User:Capitals00. I also see another administrator have reinstated some of my edits here[194] which proves my edits were not disruptive. Bringtar (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bringtar is an editor whose first edit was 20 July 2021. I am amazed that such a new editor already knows about WP:ANI. Instead of trying to resolve the issues on the article talk page(s) as he/she was advised to, he/she brought a complaint to WP:ANI.

    This post by Aman.kumar.goel 07:35, 22 July 2021 is a bit strong in that it includes {{uw-biog3}} instead of {{uw-biog1}}, but the message carefully and helpfully explains what Aman.kumar.goel perceived the problem to be: "Your continued violation of WP:BLPCAT, WP:OR and WP:RS on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism and use of highly unreliable sources. The source should be 100% clear that "x converted from x to x" and if the person is alive then they should admit it themselves." Aman.kumar.goel might not be perfect, but he/she was being helpful. I do not think it was helpful of Aman.kumar.goel to delete this post by Bringtar 13:55, 22 July 2021 when Aman.kumar.goel posted a reply on User talk:Bringtar. 18:54, 22 July 2021

    Aman.kumar.goel is giving good advice. Bringtar should assume good faith and take the advice that both Aman.kumar.goel and I have given him/her - see Talk:List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism#Which are the BLP violations according to you?. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Toddy1, I am amazed that you said it because I was trying to resolve it through discussion not Aman.kumar.goel and he repeatedly ignored all my messages on his talk page and on article's talk page. I am a long time supporter of Wikipedia and I frequently use it for information. What is a problem in this? I do not know about ANI, but to get my editing rights, I created this thread as instructed on this page[195] where it clearly states with a link to this board: "If you feel that you are being bullied or another user has threatened you with bodily harm, it is important that you report them immediately to the Incidents page on the Administrator's Noticeboard so the matter can be properly dealt with"
    I think you did not check properly because:
    1. I contacted Aman.kumar.goel on his talk page to discuss first which is still unanswered[196] when he undid all my edits.
    2. I sought help from Help desk and I created the thread for discussion[197] on article's talk page not Aman.kumar.goel and again he removed my edit without discussing it on that thread.
    3. Aman.kumar.goel even tried to block me from editing the page but he was advised to discuss[198] but as usual he did not!
    4. His only message came with a accusation of "disruptive editing" on my talk page and in that too he removed my own message from my talk page!
    Now, would you still say he tried to give "good advice" and I did not try discussing it to resolve it? What would you do if a user continuously removing your all edits and then ignoring your messages? I do not consider a block threat as a good advise. Bringtar (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she pasted the wrong number on the template message ("3" when "1" or "2" would have been better). He/she also carefully wrote out what he/she thought you needed to do, which was a kind and helpful thing to do.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it? He/she didn't discuss on article's talk page or on their own talk page even after advise from an administrator[199]. Their message only came after they reverted my whole edit repeatedly. From when does accusing someone's contributions as "disruptive" have become a "kind" and "helpful" thing? Weren't they obliged to participate in discussion at the very first place when they were removing my edits? Bringtar (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, I came to know that I am being reported here[200] so that I can be blocked from editing. I did not know Wikipedia can have these kind of editors who can file a report but cannot discuss to collaborate. Bringtar (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, even I am also accused now as 'sock' for interacting with you. Is 'sock' some infection? To consider, this is the 'third' time I am accused as 'sock', with carefully crafted some similar 'behaviors' as evidences. Even if accused 100 times as 'sock' not an issue when there are wise admins to investigate. But, how can this sock reporting be abused so many times like this (which is meant to catch actual fraudulent accounts)? Instead of learning Wiki policies and contributing, one has to spend time in academic wiki rituals back and forth proving that one is not a 'sock' because of this illuminate type frivolous 'sock' pattern (which is challenging to disprove at times, as there are co-incidental shared interests/pages every time when accused). Sock report is a blessing, but let there be an observation on the pattern of bullying/desperation to stifle accounts, like for my case. Effectively for example the List of converts to Islam from Hinduism page has been stuck from evolving for almost 5 years with this bullying.Loveall.human (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Loveall.human: Do not worry. I have had people accuse me of being sockpuppet at WP:SPI. Since I was not a sockpuppet, the accusations were rejected.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toddy1:, Your quoted policy says "Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sockpuppetry" but in my case it is full of lies and deliberate attempts to block me from editing. If they are making policy based edits then why don't then answer my questions[201]? Bringtar (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course there is good reason. You created the account at 18:00, 13 May 2020.Special:Log/Bringtar But your first edit was 19:46 20 July 2021.XTools Bringtar Since then you have made 98 edits (none deleted).XTools Bringtar That is a lot of edits per day! As a "new" editor, you know about forum shopping, WP:ANI and WP:SPI. This edit13:55, 22 July 2021 shows that you know about dredging up past criticism of editors you are in conflict with.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are now accusing me of forum shopping. I already told you that I opened this thread as per instruction here[202]. You mentioned that WP:SPI policy, not me. I came to know about my report from User:Loveall.human who informed me on their talk page19:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC). My this edit[13:55, 22 July 2021] which was also reverted by Aman.kumar.goel exactly proves my point here. Anyone can go and check their talk page. I found that when I left them a message here[203]. I have been using Wikipedia for a long time and have made minor edits in the past without the need of creating any account but Wikipedia always suggested to create an account because my IP was exposed. You should read what User:Black Kite has mentioned above. Bringtar (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, this case more or less resembles a similar one a couple months ago (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066 § Aman.kumar.goel's conduct). Inappropriate templating check, accusations of apparent policy violations check, no further explanation and no response when their own activities are questioned check. In the previous case, AKG repeatedly removed material which was sourced to unambiguously reliable sources related to the extent of the COVID-19 pandemic in India, with no talk page participation and in the end used original research and unreliable sources themselves when they finally had to participate in one. ProcrastinatingReader pointed out there was inappropriate MEDRS stonewalling involved as well, in general I think their conduct looks like long term tendentious editing which drives away productive users and stonewalls development of articles in the process.
    In addition, there's likely some sort of meatpuppetry going on here. I have not seen Capitals00 before but they are pretty much playing the same role AKG's counterpart in the previous report was, who barely had any activity for months before the stonewalling, Capitals00 similarly barely has any activity for months before the stonewalling here. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 137.27.65.235

    I got some concerns over the behaviour and attitude of the IP editor 137.27.65.235. They seem to be acting aggressive to people reverting or countering their arguments. For example, I commented with a warning in a discussion that their words "Undo revert or i will" was not civil and poor conduct for an editor, and they snapped back with "It wasn't a threatening attitude, yet your "warning" ironically is." I'm concerned they wish to be aggressive in responding to other editors comments, changes to their edits or reversions of their edits, and wish for an admin to check if my concerns are justified. GUtt01 (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You must notify any users you are discussing about the existence of this discussion; please follow the instructions at the top of this page to do so. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. GUtt01 (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Other concern I have is some of the IP's edit summaries have included him claiming editors are harassing or badgering him. GUtt01 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per talk page comments, this is nonsense. Instead of addressing the issue i was accused of a "threatening attitude" with a 'warning' and i defended myself by simply letting GUtt01 know it was his perception but not accurate. For some reason this user is denying Nightbirde doesn't go by her legal name while performing. It was a calm reaction that i would undo the revert since the source clearly states she is Nightbirde. Not sure what the big deal is but it's irritating having to fight for what's right on here sometimes. Thank you for your time. P.s. Please see my discussion/input/comments here: Talk:America's Got Talent (season_16). I appreciate it. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, another editor started watching a page i edited on after i made legit contributions on Dion. This person can not stop posting messages on my talk page: [204] instead of discussing the sources i used on the article's talk page. That editor also keeps reverting edits [they] have been wrong about (see Dion & Dion DiMucci discography as well as Joe Bonamassa). It's frustrating to come on here and do good work yet be accused of bad attitude/behavior for being right. Please do not assume i'm like others because i'm defending myself. Nightbirde clearly states she goes by that name while performing which she did on the show and has done professionally before the audition. I'm not sure why this is even an issue but i've left the discussion as not to engage in problems just to prove a point. One day i'm sure it will be fixed/corrected. I regret you were offended. I hope you have a great day! 137.27.65.235 (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    P.s. My bad, i guess i should have used the word 'can' instead of 'will' (undo revert or i can) but interestingly i noticed remarks on edit summaries towards IPs that could be considered hostile/attacking in an effort to get them blocked. I apologized to the editors involved for seeming upset at them for reverting or ignoring my input. However, in my defense, it was well over 5 days before i even replied to your 'warning' that did not address the problem. That's hardly "snapped back" and i also took a long break before i was bombarded with talk page accusations immediately after i resumed editing regarding your concern about another editor. People shouldn't read emotions in text nor take it personal. I did not use caps or bad language. This seems to be over based on your last talk page comment about updating it later. Take care! 137.27.65.235 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An IP cames along to the Dion article and demonstrated WP:SPA behaviour. I investigated to see how deep it went. It was easy to see that the editor was primarily focused on Joe Bonamassa and the subject's record labels at this time. I started with a bit of clean-up including expanding bare references: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Bonamassa&type=revision&diff=1033030296&oldid=1032397339 . The anon came back made two corrections, without edit summary, and I made another correction. More good edits from the anon, etc. The problems came starting with this series of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Bonamassa&type=revision&diff=1034990881&oldid=1034813649 where we have a primary source supporting claims. I reverted, with explanation and placed a non-templated final warning on anon's page. We then get into the aggressive behaviour from the anon that @GUtt01: mentioned. The main issue is the poor sourcing and aggressive response. I am not sure that this outweighs the somewhat WP:FANCRUFTy but otherwise good addition the anon makes, but WP:CIVIL might need to be explained. Also, the recent focus on Bonamassa's record label may need to be explored. It's not clear if this is simply fandom or if it's paid editing. I have no proof either way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Walter Görlitz: Word of advice - even though I can see that things between you and the IP were not great, you have nearly let that dispute on editing on Joe Bonamassa become an edit war. Considering your past history, you might what to discuss the issues you have with the IP on the talk page, and point out why you did what you did and see what they have to say. Editing disputes on an article aren't a welcome matter, especially if you let emotions get the better of you. Take a breather, cool off, and come back with a clearer head to discuss things peacefully with the party you have the dispute with. GUtt01 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to address the anon's behaviour issues first and, as I was still on another computer trying to get some processes at work to complete, so I was making shortcuts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So because i added a record label that produced Dion's notable record which wasn't added to the article yet, i'm a paid editor or fan? Does this only apply to IPs but not others who add to articles such as the AGT program which this issue was initially about? Your interpretation of my behavior is not fact. I resent you thinking i'm behaving uncivil. All you had to do was rework the sentence as you did several minutes ago then there wouldn't have been a problem. The point is, the two artists are on the KTBA label. Don't like all the sources? No problem, remove them. This could have been prevented if you didn't display such mad revert habits as evidenced by multiple blocks. It is what it is. I'll avoid the AGT and Bonamassa article now that you have decided to follow/watch it. It's not worth the stress/headache. At least i backed off. Please take GUtt01's advice and do the same in the future to avoid conflicts such as this. I'm not trying to get my way. I yielded to GUtt01. Sometimes pride should be avoided. Thanks for conceding by accepting my contribution even if it needed to be tweaked. Enjoy your weekend! 137.27.65.235 (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    P.s. I think this started because i updated Dion's page due to "poorly written content" which Walter may have taken personally without knowing who did it in the past. This is hardly uncivil/aggressive behavior: curprev 05:50, 7 July 2021‎ 137.27.65.235 talk‎ 41,388 bytes +1‎ →‎Recent work and blues success: 2000–present: thanks for ref fix undo 137.27.65.235 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: After trying to "bury the hatchet" hours ago, i come on to find that Walter has to continue to pester me and accuse me of being connected to Bonamassa because i edited a blues article unrelated to him but similar to his record label name. He has pushed me away. It's evident i have to use another IP or create an account to avoid this toxic behavior. I'm not sure why he gets so many chances and hasn't been blocked indefinitely. This has caused me to be agitated with other editors such as on the AGT article which this ANI was started about. I may or may not edit using this IP from time-to-time but i will avoid their articles. Here are the remarks: [205]. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Peacemaker67's semi-protection of Arthur Blackburn

    LTA trollery, move along --Blablubbs (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Peacemaker67 has semi-protected TFA, Arthur Blackburn, after only a couple of instances of silly vandalism, despite being the major contributor and the person who nominated it for Featured status. This contravenes WP:INVOLVED and is a massive overuse of protection, going against the Wiki philosophy of anyone can edit. Please unprotect the page immediately, and I suggest an admonishment for this admin. 188.232.142.69 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot notify Peacemaker67 of this thread as they have also semi protected their talk page. Interesting. 188.232.142.69 (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hyperbole much? It appears to be a reasonable measure, given the silly vandalism [206], is something any reasonable admin would have done, and doesn't contravene involvement.Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked the OP for block evasion, given the use of proxies and the vandalism diff noted in my response above. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any issues with the protection of the article in these circumstances (TFA, no content dispute, only protected to end of day, etc etc.), but if it makes anyone who feels slighted feel better, I will take full responsibility for the protection as I 100% agree with it, considering the facts of the case. Daniel (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it very interesting that the IP was blocked for block evasion given that none of the other IPs in this case were blocked. How can it be "block evasion" if there's no block to evade? 180.248.121.10 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Next proxy blocked. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing an article does not make one involved. The policy sets the bar at "disputes in which they have been involved". It also goes on to say "In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion."

    While I personally would have resorted to RFPP in this case, I can't fault Peacemaker67 for this. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Another ethnic warrior

    BLOCKED
    Indeffed by Mjroots (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Chezia dfg (talk · contribs) is not here to edit, but to defend the great truth. He started with deleting whole section in Egyptians 1, without explanation. He then came to Syrians, and this time called it a correction 2. Now, what he insert is the word Arab and Arabian instead of any reference to any other peoples. Hence, he can be characterized as an Arab ethnic warrior. Anyway, I gave him a warning 3, and ever since, he has enjoyed cursing me every now and then. So, this is the list:
    1-You are just a fake liar
    2-You are a liar, a forged typeface
    3- and on my talk page he has: What you are doing is spreading lies and forgery
    4- and the best, which he wrote in Arabic and translated by me: ارجع لبلدك وكفاك تزوير وكذب يا بقايا الصليبيين It means: go back to your country and enough forgery and lies you remnants of Crusaders. To give context, this "crusaders" thing is what Islamist Arab nationalists tell the Christians in the Middle East to deny them their historic connection with the land (p.s Im not a Christian).

    This guy has already been blocked before, and his talk page is a wall of warnings from other users. No reason for him to stay here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Attar-Aram syria: - you are supposed to inform the editor complained of about this discussion, per the big yellow notice in the edit window. That said, he's clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribut constructively and his short editing career is now over. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Borsoka and User:Fakirbakir

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

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

    I'd like to talk about a user I've been paying attention for some time now. The user in question is Borsoka, at first glance, a well respected and active contributor. He spends most of the time writing articles related to Hungarian history. However he also seems to have a particular interest in Romanian history too, being extremely active on many of the most important Romanian history articles. What started ringing alarm bells is when I noticed that this interest is heavily focused on topics that are highly sensitive in the context of Hungarian irredentism and a clear WP:NAT style of editing.

    Borsoka is engaged in large-scale revisionism of Romanian history articles on Wikipedia with the help of a support network, but has mostly managed to stay under the radar and evade punishment. I'm not the first to notice his shady behaviour, he's been reported many times before [207][208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219], most of those times for POV pushing, but either nothing happens or he only receives a slap on the wrist. The thing is, Borsoka is actually a great writer and a profilic contributor, and adds a great deal of quality historical content to Wikipedia. That however, doesn't excuse manipulating historical articles to reflect a nationalist agenda.

    The subtle stuff: WP:NPOV and WP:CHERRYPICKING

    Usually, Borsoka finds an article about Romanian history, mass deletes content from it, including sourced content, by claiming WP:OR or WP:POV. He then starts removing any information that would suggest Romanians lived north of the Danube before the Hungarians arrived (the "continuity theory"). Afterwards, he starts rewriting the article and subtly adding in things that would suggest that Romanians originate from somewhere south of the Danube instead, and migrated north after the Hungarians (the "immigrationism theory"). Currently there's not enough evidence to prove either one of these theories.

    Supporting either theory isn't by itself a bad thing. But systematically editing history articles to make them support your theory is not.

    Some examples of him doing this by cherrypicking, inserting doubt, editorializing etc:

    1. Suggesting Romanian was viewed as 'semi-Romance' ​[220]
    2. Suggesting Romanian was viewed as a Slavic language [221] [222] [223]
    3. Suggesting Romanian comes from Balkan or Slavic language instead of coming from Vulgar Latin [224]
    4. Suggesting Latin words were not inherited directly but somehow "mediated" through Slavic [225] (and reverting back to a previous vandalism)
    5. Changing what the source says - the substrate in the source is listed as Thracian-Dacian, first he removes it then changes it to unidentified [226][227]
    6. Changing what the source says - "North-Danube Romanians" changed to "Balkan Vlachs on the left bank of the Danube" [228]
    7. Sneaking in doubt disguised as copyediting:
      "Hungarian documents prove that the Romanians held lands in Transylvania" changed to
      "Hungarian documents prove that the Romanians were thought to have held lands in Transylvania" [229]
    8. Removing newer work from a reliable author if it contradicts immigrationism, saying it's WP:OR [230] (despite him also citing older work from the same author elsewhere in the article)
    9. Citing constantly a linguist with fringe theories (such as Yiddish comes from Slavic) [231]

    There are countless edits like these, way too many to list here.

    An example of how he completely rewrites articles to subtly support immigrationist theory: a relatively obscure article about a tribe called 'Bolohoveni' or 'Volohoveni' which some assume to be 'Vlachs'(Romanians) living somewhere around southern Ukraine, while others assume to be Slavs. Romanians living that far north is problematic for immigrationist theory so he decides to rewrite the whole article depicting the Volohoveni as Slavs while removing most (but not all) Romanian references to them: He starts by marking everything with WP:OR, removes historical references because they mention "Vlachs" who are according to him completely different from "Bolokhoveni", adds new information from sources which argue they were Slavs, gradually removes all the previous sourced content. He cherrypicks information carefully to hide a Vlach presence in the area: he correctly quotes the source which explains why it's doubtful the Bolohoveni were Vlachs, but completely ignores the parts right before and after where the author states there also were Romance-speaking enclaves and a numerous Romanian population in the area.

    Another easy to spot example of cherrypicking to push WP:FRINGE: he cites an interpretation of a Franciscan diplomat who believed Vlachs are a nomadic migrant population coming from Eurasia, while completely ignoring all the context surrounding it, where the author describes how this interpretation is used as the basis of a new feeble and aberrant theory on the origin of Romanians.

    The not-so-subtle stuff: WP:NAT and whitewashing Hungarian history

    Other times it's much worse than just subtle edits. The article Decree of Turda is about a law that was passed that discriminated against Romanians and over time led to even worse ethnic laws being implemented. In 2014, the article was much longer before Borsoka started editing it.

    He removes the part describing that it discriminates towards Romanians along with the sources: The decree takes an explicitly negative view of Romanians: propter presumptuosam astuciam diversorum malefactorum, specialiter Olachorum[1] in ipsa terra nostra existencium (…) ad exterminandum seu delendum in ipsa terra malefactores quarumlibet nacionum, signanter Olachorum [2] - because of the evil arts of many malefactors, especially Romanians, who live in that our country (…) to expel or to exterminate in this country malefactors belonging to any nation, especially Romanians.
    And rewrites the whole paragraph to paint the Hungarian, Szekler and Saxon noblemen as the actual victims: The latter had informed the King that they "have been suffering, day by day, many troubles because of the evil arts of many malefactors, especially Romanians, because of their way of being and their disorderly behaviour". The royal decree granted special privileges to the Transylvanian noblemen "in order to remove, from this country, malefactors belonging to any nation, especially Romanians". For this purpose, the decree determines the rules of the legal procedure. He uses WP:OR again as an excuse and removes all the negative effects the decree had.

    On the talk page he diverts accusations of WP:NPOV by saying things like "For instance, we should present the POV, that the decree of Torda/Turda proves that the sudden appearance of a migrating population (the Vlachs) among the sedentary Saxons and Hungarians made the adopiton of special laws necessary" . Literally excusing discrimination and pushing immigrationist theory in the same sentence [232].

    Despite him trying to dismiss or downplay this decree, the author, a reliable source that he frequently cites, writes extensively about the discrimination of Romanians at that time: :"Gradually, after 1351-1366 and 1437, Romanians lost their status as an estate and were excluded from Transylvania’s assemblies. The main reason was religion [...] As seen above, even in the Middle Ages the Romanians were held inferior, being “schismatic”, subject to the new masters, excluded from offices and restricted to a local level. [...] The Romanians’ inferior status began to be more and more obvious in the Transylvanian Diets’ decisions (laws) [...] the Romanian could not appeal to justice against Hungarians and Saxons, but the latter could turn in the Romanian (1552)" [233]

    Then for the next 7 years, from 2014 to 2021, he reverts every single person who attempts to add back the information he removed or any other new information.

    He also mass deletes entire sections related to this decree in another article over and over again all the way from 2012 until a few days ago [234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243][244][245][246] always giving OR as a reason. He's extremely dedicated to this.

    Another example is where he whitewashes the same subject by trying to blank the entire section about Hungary in the Anti-Romanian sentiment page not once, but twice. [247] [248]

    WP:CANVASSING to get out of trouble

    Borsoka has a support network that helps him push Hungarian nationalist POV and maintain control of pages. The primary users most involved in this are User:Fakirbakir, User:Norden1990, User:Koertefa and now banned User:KIENGIR, who was much more disruptive than the other four and engaged in more obvious vandalism. KIENGIR was the first I interacted with when I spotted him reverting users over and over to keep a nonsensical section up and removed it. He then used the same tactics as Borsoka: reverting and stonewalling. It turned me off Wikipedia for a while. I recently came back and noticed KIENGIR received a ban, and by looking at his contribution history to find vandalism is how I stumbled on Borsoka and the others.

    They help each other get out of trouble:

    When Borsoka is reported, Fakirbakir, Koertefa and Norden1990 show up to defend him. [249]. When Norden1990 is reported, Fakirbakir and Borsoka show up to defend him. [250].
    There are plenty of instances of this: Borsoka defending Norden1990 [251], [252], Borsoka supporting KIENGIR [253], Koertefa defending Fakirbakir [254], Fakirbakir defending Borsoka [255], Fakirbakir defending KIENGIR. [256], Fakirbakir defending Norden1990 [257], [258], Koertefa supporting Norden1990 [259].

    There have been previous instances where they've been reported together including for canvassing: Borsoka and Fakirbakir, Fakirbakir, Koertefa and Norden1990 Koertefa, Borsoka, Fakirbakir and Norden1990, Fakirbakir, Norden1990, Borsoka. While they aren't sockpuppets they work together regularly and other reports cover pretty well how they're involved in canvassing.

    The support network that helps him WP:OWN articles

    They maintain control of important articles by reverting the changes of others, and achieving consensus in Talk pages. Borsoka's most edited article is Origin of the Romanians with 1,278 edits. [260]. This is a highly controversial article because it's central to both theories and the talk page has many users complaining about NPOV. It's often the target of both Romanian and Hungarian nationalists, but somehow Borsoka seems to somehow maintain control with 85.6% of the content being authored by him, the next biggest contributor having only 1.8%. He does this by constantly reverting and rewriting the edits of others and resorting to stonewalling on the Talk page when challenged and achieving consensus with the help of his support network (on this page, Fakirbakir and until recently, KIENGIR).

    A very clear example of canvassing: Borsoka mass deletes huge sections of a article he doesn't like by citing OR. [261][262]. After getting reverted twice, he mass deletes a third time [263], except this time Fakirbakir suddenly appears 3 hours later on an article he's never edited before and makes several positive edits, making it harder to revert Borsoka's deletions. It's hard to assume good faith when he purposefully enlists the help of others to mass delete content.

    Civil POV pushing

    The talk pages of his articles on Romanian language or history are always filled with the usual: citations not matching the sources, cherrypicking, fringe and POV. The way he responds to user criticism is a classic case of WP:SEALION. If they question the text, he points to the sources. If they question the sources he tells them to find sources which state otherwise. If they find any, they're unreliable or original research. He always makes sure to always appear civil: "thank you for your time", "thank you for your suggestions", "thank you for your remarks" ... then completely ignores what they said. If accused of an agenda, he doesn't have one, [264] but he has openly admitted before that "immigrationist theory is more compatible with facts" [265].

    And that way, he maintains a stranglehold on many important articles in this category (for example: [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] and many more).

    As a user who barely contributes, I'm aware that I don't have a lot of credibility making huge accusations against someone with countless awards and a prolific contribution history, and on top of it all, it's a touchy subject. But I felt that the amount of misinformation being spread is truly massive, and it required some serious attention so I tried to compile enough evidence to show the extent of the problem. It's pretty clear that he has a strong incentive to push a specific POV in important articles about Romanian history.

    I think a temporary 6 month topic ban for Borsoka and Fakirbakir on any articles which primarily concern Romanian history would be warranted, which would give some other editors a chance to fix those articles a bit without getting hit with waves of repeated reverts and stonewalling. The other two haven't been involved in editing Romanian history lately, so I don't think there's any need to take action. OUT 20:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations, you may have set a new record.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23, I read every word of it, and I would like a neutral editor with knowledge of Eastern European history to make an informed comment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I do not want to comment on this lengthy thread. Borsoka (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: as you read every word of the above report, you may want to check the edit history of the articles on which I allegedly maintain "a stranglehold". Actually, I have not edited most of them for years. Indeed, I extensively edited them 7-9 years ago and as a consequence two of them (Romania in the Early Middle Ages and Romania in the Middle Ages) were promoted to GA. A third article (Founding of Moldavia) was heavily edited by other editors after I stopped editing it (actually, it should be rewritten to provide a neutral picture). As to canvassing, I can state that all my interections with other editors are transparent. If you need further information, I can comment on other baseless accusations as well. However, are you sure we should discuss accusations made by an editor who has never edited the articles to which he refers, but is well aware of their edit history? Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's another boring stream of words from an unambiguous sockpuppet: three months ago, roughly the same baseless accusations were formulated in the same style by another relatively passive "editor" User:Cealicuca, regarding eight to ten years old contributions. Maybe a sockpuppet investigation would be useful, I suspect identification with long-time abuser User:Iaaasi. I would be very happy if these frustrated reports from "false" editors ceased, I do not have the time and desire to deal with such anti-Hungarian nonsense. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, I also assume that the whole report was written by Iaaasi. He has regularly hired editors through emails to act on his behalf. @Tgeorgescu: what do you think? Borsoka (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Deflecting blame to me doesn't mean that all your actions suddenly go away. I've had this account for a very long time and never used another one, and I'm more than happy to welcome any sockpuppet investigation. OUT 10:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a Romanian, but not a nationalist. The gist of this dispute: the Romanian nationalists want 100% wiki-victory, while the Hungarian nationalists made peace with the idea that the wiki-match will end in a draw.
    About Slavic language vs. Latin language: yes, most words are Slavic, but the basic vocabulary is Latin. So, both claims about the Romanian language are true to some extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a side remark: I have never stated that Romanian is a Slavic language. Borsoka (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, and as you told once there is a difference between discriminating against Romanian peasants and (ethnic) requirements for becoming a noble. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I cannot remember what you are referring to above. As far as I know there were no ethnic requirements for nobility in Hungary. Religion could be barrier, because Jews were not ennobled, and for a short period in a small region only Catholics could be awarded with nobility under Louis the Great. Borsoka (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu: most words are Slavic? Do you mind explaining? As far as I'm aware and every linguist in the world is concerned, Slavic makes up 10-15%, not "most" of Romanian. As for the discrimination, Ioan-Aurel Pop writes about it being a serious thing multiple times in the source I linked. The decree's effects weren't limited just to nobility, contrary to what Borsoka is claiming.
    Yup, not counting neologisms. Anyway, the gist is that Romanian nationalists are more fanatical and more misbehaving in their claim they have WP:THETRUTH than Hungarian nationalists. It's not their POV which is a problem, but their behavior.
    I have to tell you that in many Western countries Romanian language is taught together with Slavic languages (at faculty level). tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a side remark: I have never stated that the "decree" (I assume the Decree of Torda/Turda) was limited to the nobility. Borsoka (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I conflated you with someone else:

    such like second class citizenship did not exist in the country, the rights of the nobles were different than the peasants, regardless, of ethnicity, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

    Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    About WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT: I have seen enough walls of text from Romanian nationalists and these walls promise nothing good. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed a pattern of behaviour that's worrying and thought to bring it to the attention of admins. Not sure what the walls of text of past Romanian nationalists have to do with me or any future reports though. Like I said, I'm open to any investigation but for the time being I'd just like to focus on Borsoka instead of the constant deflecting. The regular subtle changes to promote immigrationism he does might not be damning, but mass removals of sourced text? I don't see how that's constructive, especially when it's done for whitewashing. Also, regarding language, even if not counting neologisms, Slavic words still don't make up "most" of the language. OUT 16:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the POV of the Romanian nationalists is this: if they do not engage in full-blown nationalist propaganda, Romania will lose Transylvania any time soon. I'm not saying that either nationalist side is right; I am saying that Hungarian nationalists learned to behave and they integrated fine in the system of Wikipedia Community, while all Romanian nationalists who posted WP:WALLS in the past got either indeffed or topic-banned. Those walls are their modus operandi. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You may want to comment on the relevant article's Talk page about the "mass removal of sourced text". I do not remember any case of whitewashing. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what I am telling to Romanian nationalists isn't Hungarian nationalists are right, but: learn to behave and become integrated into our Borg hive mind. So, a side is well-behaved and integrated, while the other side shoots itself in the foot time after time. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My last comment was to focus specifically on the examples I gave instead of deflection and instead I just get more talk about sides, nationalists and other users. OUT 18:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My point: such approach failed time after time. What makes you think it will succeed this time? Also, the WP:MEAT evidence is pretty damning: not only writing WP:WALLS, but also writing style, e.g. use of bold letters and other sorts of headings, which are rather unusual at Wikipedia.
    It's either too many bold letters or all caps (shouting): [271], [272]. Seems copy/pasted from a nationalist propaganda website.
    Oh, yes, I forgot: WP:BOOMERANG, meaning the complainer is not exempted from criticism.
    I think it is an well-established fact that extreme right publications abuse bold letters or all caps. Anyway, among intellectuals such abuse is not appreciated, see e.g. https://www.asice.se/index.php/tep/guidelines tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, you're right. I'm a full-blown extreme-right nationalist meatpuppet despite never having edited history pages or pushed views like these before. I noticed POV pushing and made sure I compile a detailed list because I don't believe throwing around accusations without evidence but that's much less believable than the absolute damning evidence of me using bold.
    I retract this whole report. It was clearly a waste of time thinking I could come here to receive independent review of a consistent pattern of abuse. OUT 19:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All I am saying: such reports have been made before, and your writing style has similarities with such past reports. See also https://people.ok.ubc.ca/rlawrenc/teaching/writingTips.html
    Also, for an editor with 61 edits in article space and 8 edits in article talk space, you must have paid an incredible amount of research effort for edits that happened since many years ago, or else you have showed it off. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it must take a true detective to notice a pattern here. Anyway like I said, I'm retracting the report so you can stop beating a dead horse.
    Please sign your messages. Please also read the article's talk page to understand the reasoning of the changes if you want to make others believe that you are a "true detective". I also suggest that before filing a report completed by a banned user you should check its factual accuracy. For instance, an editor who has not edited an article for years could hardly be accused of owning it. Borsoka (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They have reverted a lot of additions actually says nothing (we all did). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing block evasion from Ninenine99

    Ninenine99 was blocked indefinitely earlier this year and has become increasingly persistent with block evasion - 2603:8000:B01:8AD4:DD28:CA5C:B909:FE36 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the most recent, active today.

    There has been a succession of /64 ranges blocked but it appears that Ninenine99 has learned how to get around them.

    Past IP ranges have included:

    Is a wider rangeblock possible? --Sable232 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Yes — 2603:8000:b01:8ad4:dd28:ca5c:b909:fe36/46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) incluses all of these ranges, and almost no one else. All IP's geolocate to the Gateway Cities area. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Content dispute with DonFB amounting to personal attack

    Talk with DonFB

    I'm having extreme difficulty talking with DonFB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) justifying his rewrites/revert over my edits. We have unresolvable conflicts of interest, and just like policy states, the repeated undos is aggravating and stressful. I would like an administrator's opinion, whether his behavior constitutes to personal attack, particularly when he would slyly pick at old wounds, like mentioning the previous ANI incident, or smugly bragging that his edit would remain stable for the period of a page protection. I've reposted this from the administrator's noticeboard.

    Recent:

    [273]

    Archive [Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings/Archive 2] "brevity". I rest comfortably knowing that my improved version will be stable for the next four days.... :-) DonFB (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC) {ping|DonFB}} 133 KB (14,999 words) - 12:04, July 15, 2021

    Shencypeter (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - this seems to be a content dispute between the two of you. I've asked at WT:AV for others to join in and help find consensus. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oklo Adiga Using Wikipedia For Promotional Purposes

    Oklo Adiga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I would have taken this to COIN but this doesn’t involve one article but a pattern of creating rather dubious articles. Their Talk page tells the whole story and the aforementioned pattern.

    I think that they aren’t here to build an encyclopedia is pretty much overt. Celestina007 (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Coal Press Nation/Archive. This may be yet another WP:PAID sockpuppet specialising in promoting Nigerian musical artists. User:Olakunle Rufai also (example of promotional editing). Citobun (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely worth flagging. Their determination to get Da Great and Bayo Ododo onto Wikipedia is quite remarkable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User: IP 2a02:ed0:4290:8400:50c5:4f63:d2ef:8f84 (IP fluctuates)

    The disruptive editing of this user can be seen in the edit history and talk page of Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids.

    They consistently edit the Vegan/Vegetarian section falsely implying that E471 is vegan. They never change any sources, resulting in the article contradicting its sources.

    The user has neglected to discuss their edits after I requested they do so twice.

    Their IP address is never constant, making it difficult for me to post on their talk page. I have, however, posted on two of these shifting IP talk pages.

    I have reverted their edits six times now and don't know what to do. I'm not experienced on wikipedia and this isn't a particularly high traffic article.

    Many thanks for anyone's help here! Hereditorygrass (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hereditorygrass: I semi-protected the article so the IPs will not be able to edit it for some time. Let me know if the problem resumes. It would be better next time to make your post on the article talk page a little more inviting: don't talk about the IP and how you've reverted them. Instead, say that you have reverted the changes because [brief reason here] and invite a response. I checked the VeganCateringForAll.pdf ref and indeed the IP's edits do contradict that. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Potato concerned about pumpkins

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Potato geography politics blocked by Yamla for WP:NOTHERE and possible sockpuppetry. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Potato geography politics (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC) this is involving [[274]] they have discriminated repeatedly with warnings on the wiki page "pumpkin" - Potato geography politics[reply]

    also im going to bed so i wont be able to respond for a while

    The countries mentioned already had wikilinks elsewhere in the text. Wikilinking every single mention of the country is WP:OVERLINK so I think that Favonian was correct to revert and I don't believe that they need to be blocked. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok but what he was doing was discriminating because he was indirectly saying “hey your country doesn’t deserve a link” which is discrimination and against Wikipedia rules - potato geography politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potato geography politics (talk • contribs) 11:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not much I can add to Spiderone's assessment, but would someone with diplomatic skills more developed that mine please tell the OP about Wikipedia's policy regarding personal attacks? Favonian (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Potato geography politics, nonsense. Favonian was absolutely not saying that. Favonian was saying you need to abide by WP:OVERLINK. There's no reason to link every single instance of a country, you normally would just link the first instance. I very, very strongly suggest you apologise and drop your complaint. Your complaint is completely unfounded, Favonian was correct and was trying to be helpful to you, and you should take the time to read and understand WP:OVERLINK. --Yamla (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok first my name includes politics so if anyone knows about diplomacy, it’s me and it’s not overlink it’s not too many links and their policy regarding personal attacks the first thing it says is the DEFINITION of discrimination and I said he is INDIRECTLY saying country no deserve link and it’s very offensive to people that live in those countries also I added links to things that actually needed it like thanksgiving which In Many countries isn’t a thing so they need it - potato geography politics

    Also I am fine to just accept an apology now. That is generous for this much discrimination -potato geography politics

    I have blocked this user indefinitely. WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, whatever. --Yamla (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block, and I have the feeling we're being trolled here anyway. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yamla: Is this a sockpuppet of user:Cheese editor by any chance? Adding wikilinks to countries in the Pumpkin article was something that cheese editor was doing before being blocked for socking as User:Dairy editor [275] and i find it odd that nother editor would show up to make the same kinds of edits to the same article [276] [277] [278]. The username, edit summaries, use of visual editor and article overlap all seem eerily familiar. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Possible, based on technical evidence. I've tagged the account as a suspected sock. While the technical evidence isn't conclusive, I strongly think you are correct, on behavioural grounds. --Yamla (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    (I protest. This thread grossly unfair toward those with pumpkins for heads. --The Headless Horseman --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

    Editing by IP 121.7.130.157

    BLOCKED
    121.7.130.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by Doug Weller (talk · contribs) for 3 months, and Garfield 3185 (talk · contribs) confirmed as the sock master. The latter user was already indeffed by Kinu (talk · contribs) on 28 June 2021 for making personal attacks on their talk page. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP 121.7.130.157 recently began editing on 2 July 2021, a few days after a user called User talk:Garfield 3185 (contributions here) was blocked on 28 June 2021‎. The IP has an obsessive tendency to randomly edit pages of Singaporean politics like Garfield by blanking and removing contents without reason and refusing to use edit summaries despite requests. Similar pages edited include List of TVB dramas in 2020 and List of political parties in Singapore.

    The IP is very clearly aware of their talkpage, having tried to revert my notification they should not be editing if they are Garfield, and completely failing to respond to concerns raised on their talkpage thus far.

    I have done my best to assume good faith, but the current bout of editing where they broke nearly 10 pages at one go has convinced me that the IP is a net negative to the project, and barring a refusal to either communicate or outright disclaim they are Garfield, should not be allowed to edit any further. Seloloving (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator Doug Weller has taken the necessary decisive action to block the IP for 3 months. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict):@Seloloving:, thanks. Our editor interaction analyzer shows clearly that they are the same person.[279] Doug Weller talk 12:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP 74.88.193.39

    Blocked for 6 months this time. Black Kite (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Same editor, still making unconstructive edits after two blocks, most recently on Interstate 287, and not saying a word. Needforspeed888 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    45.115.89.36 is attempting to alter a direct quote that is referenced on Ramachandra Deva I and after being reverted and warned repeated the action with an edit summary saying "Don't chanr next time otherwise be ready for Legal Action". Notfrompedro (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Notfrompedro: The IP had not been warned about legal threats; I've advised them with a {{uw-legal}} warning. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I was unaware of that template. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Notfrompedro: No problem. And thank you for bringing this IP to the attention of the administrators. If their disruptive editing continues they will wind up blocked, legal threat or no. —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "White-supremacist" term: a request for clarification

     Courtesy link: Talk:Germanic peoples § Let my people go

    Now that some of the problems with the Germanic peoples article are being worked on, I feel it necessary to raise a separate issue. Recently on the Germanic peoples talk page Berig used the term "white supremacist" in the Let my people go thread (which I started). Here's some of the context, beginning with a statement by Carlstak:

    Yes, and putting the words of Moses at the top of the apologist diatribe is beyond the pale. The very first sentence saying "This comment is made pointedly toward improving the general tone and direction of the article" is beyond satirization. My father's mother was German, I fit the stereotypical blonde-haired, blue-eyed Nordic type in appearance, as do some of my Jewish friends, and I am outraged by the comment. Carlstak (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

    And my wife is Jewish, as are technically my children. I just don't understand why this discussion has to be so polarized. Correct me if I am wrong, because I might not be smart enough to grasp this, but it is like either the article will cater to the delusions of white supremacists, or it has to be a deconstructionist essay. Can it be possible to write an article where we are just honest with how little we know and present opinions as opinions, and theory as theory?--Berig (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

    I responded and further objected to other derogatory remarks in the thread:

    Whether the concept of the Germanic people is being treated by scholars under a general cloud of prejudice is, of course, up for debate. The fact that I believe it strongly likely does not make me a "white supremacist", a term I consider to be offensive and racist. It is interesting that my title and comments aroused such vehement reactions and quickly provoked the bigoted stereotypes which in fact are frequently and offensively applied to Germans. Trump is German-American, so I can be compared to a Trumpista?. Auschwitz must be interjected for no known reason. Berig wonders why this discussion "has to be so polarized" and so do I. But I am not the one calling names. Dynasteria (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

    Now, I don't believe Berig was overtly calling me a white supremacist. However, I was the only person to whom it could logically apply. Piling that on top of other borderline slurs was objectionable. I decided to forget about it until Srnec on this page remarked that I found the term racist. Then EEng repeated his accusation that I am somehow pro-Nazi:

    This ANI thread has certainly brought out the worst in Andrew, but a different user recently posted to the article talk page a Germans-as-victims screed under the heading "Let my people go" and complained that "white supremacist" was an offensive label. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

    @Srnec:: I am that "different user". You are welcome to your own opinion but I do not have to accept your slurs as examples of the "worst" in someone. My thread was not some superfluous "Germans-as-victims screed" and it is un-Wikipedian behavior to be dismissive toward me. Primarily, though, the fact that I consider "white supremacist" to be a racist term, because it is, is outside your province of review. If you are defending the use, then you are guilty of a racist (or is it political) attack on me. You know nothing about me, do you? Dynasteria (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

    Other than that you advocate for voluntary amnesia about the catastrophe that was 20th-century German history, no, nothing. EEng 14:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

    So not only do I object to the racist/political slurs against me, I object to the characterizations of my posts as a "screed" or a "diatribe". Then, additionally on this page, Landroving Linguist characterized my contributions (among others') as "rhetoric". This last is mainly problematic in that it is one of those buffering words that conceal the attack and insult. I put a lot of effort into my posts and don't appreciate having them denigrated.

    My question here is whether this is acceptable behavior and language on the part of Wikipedians. Should I just roll with the punches like any grownup? Hey, we've all had derogatory terms used against us from time to time and none of us felt the least bit slighted. Right? Or is this, as I suspect, a sign of latent bigotry and a double standard? I shouldn't have to say this, no one here really knows anything about me.

    @Berig, Srnec, Obenritter, Alcaios, Ealdgyth, Srnec, Avilich, Dynasteria, Yngvadottir, Austronesier, SMcCandlish, North8000, Krakkos, Bloodofox, Carlstak, Ermenrich, Landroving Linguist, Andrew Lancaster, EEng, Ealdgyth, and Doug Weller: And anyone else who feels like contributing. Dynasteria (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As to your claim about me, I did not relate the word "rhetoric" to your contribution on white supremacists on that talk page, but to your and other's complaints against another user in a different ANI thread. So I don't see myself involved in this. LandLing 22:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dynasteria, I'm sure I must be misunderstanding, but just to be very, very clear: you seem to be arguing that the term "White supremacist" -- the term itself, like the n-word -- is racist and offensive and doesn't belong in discussions here on WP? —valereee (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: Basically, yes. Throwing the term at someone because he is white (suspected) and because he is arguing in favor of some aspect of Germanic peoples is by definition racist. Naziism lasted about 15 years and ended 75 years ago. Conflating Germans with Nazis and other white supremacists is in itself racist.Dynasteria (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose if someone actually is a white supremacist then the term would apply without objection. Dynasteria (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dynasteria, so you're saying the term itself is not racist and offensive? —valereee (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: Right. The context makes the difference. In the American high schools where I've spent a lot of time, you can hear the N-word about a thousand times a day and nobody is offended. Conversely if something is used as an insult then it is one. Here, if it was used in the innocent belief that I was in fact a white supremacist Nazi, then I feel I'm owed an explanation. Thank you for being reasonable. Dynasteria (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, if you're hearing the n-word 1000 times a day and not objecting, I'd start objecting. If you ever get famous someday, someone is going to bring that shit up. —valereee (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Without comment on anything else, a link to the actual discussion would be helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Blade of the Northern Lights, see the courtesy link. TSventon (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: It's from the kids. Part of their culture at large (applicable to all races and generations) and they'd be really offended if you tried to change them. Dynasteria (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-topic, taking to user talk. —valereee (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dynasteria: I think Berig meant that it is better to write an article where we are just honest than to cater to the delusions of white supremacists or to write a deconstructionist essay and they hoped and expected all participants in the discussion to agree with them. Hopefully they will speak for themself in due course. TSventon (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am really sorry that you feel offended @Dynasteria:. I honestly did not think about you when I wrote it, and what TSventon wrote above is exactly what I meant.--Berig (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Berig: Thanks for your apology. I didn't really think you were the type to resort to name calling. What is important, to me, is to address a general atmosphere of guilt by association between present day Germans, historical Nazis, and a kind of free-floating, all-purpose racism (just any old racism that happens to arise). Perhaps that atmosphere is exemplified by the automaticity with which one or two others piled on after my response to you. I feel that most people are unaware of any such bigotry and certainly don't accept that it exists. Regarding the issue of deconstructing the concept of a Germanic peoples in the article, some users point to various scholars who write and publish in German (i.e. Austrians and Germans) who refute the idea that a pan-Teutonic culture or ethnic group ever existed. Certainly those scholars can't be prejudiced. (?) To that I would say that the worst form of bigotry is practiced by the members of the very group toward which it is directed. If you feel tainted by being part of a group, then surely you want to disassociate yourself from it. This is what I find wrong with the Germanic peoples article.

    All that is a long-winded explanation of what I object to about using the term "white supremacist" except where it actually belongs. Dynasteria (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is starting to feel like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS at this point. If you’re going to make such broad speculations about a group of scholars you at the very least need a source which says the same... You can’t just call them practitioners of bigotry and expect that argument to fly unsupported. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Horse Eye's Back: Thanks for your response. It's a perspective I hadn't considered. In fact I'm not speculating about a group of scholars as actually being "practitioners of bigotry". Rather, I'm pointing out that their ethnicity is no guarantee of their objectivity or lack of bigotry, bias, etc. I should provide a link to that area of the talk page on Germanic peoples where the relevant discussion occurred, and I'm working on figuring out how to do that. Dynasteria (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take careful note, Dynasteria:
      • With respect to: EEng repeated his accusation that I am somehow pro-Nazi –
        (a) I said nothing like that;
        (b) How fucking dare you say make such an accusation without notifying me as required in the huge box at the top of this page, and in the editnotice that pops up each time you edit it? The reason for that requirement is that inexperienced editors such as yourself, as they flail about, often don't know basic stuff like how to trigger a ping properly, and then people get super pissed off that you're talking about them behind their backs, even if inadvertently;
        (c) I strongly suggest that within the next 12 hours you either add diffs to all your junk above (showing the context of material you're quoting) and notifying, on their talk pages, everyone you're bitching about; or (way better for your) close this misbegotten thread. If you do neither of these things I'll take the initiative to close it for you.
      • With respect to: Naziism lasted about 15 years and ended 75 years ago – Seriously, just how ignorant are you?
    You're way out of line and making yourself look like a complete ass. EEng 01:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Also, long-winded takes a hyphen. I've got half a mind to sic the hyphen police on you. Then you'll really rue the day.[reply]
    @EEng: Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take care of the notifications soon. Unfortunately I don't know how to add diffs. Perhaps an administrator could step in and provide instruction. I'm not aware of flailing about, as you put it. Dynasteria (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DIFF is a good start. Or try Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have 6 hours left to supply the diffs before I hat this. Still waiting for you to address your frightful ignorance of history and lying about me. Probably best if you defer editing in grownup topic area until you've obtained an education. EEng 11:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dynasteria: Please refrain from filing ANI reports if you don't know how to provide evidence of the claims you are going to make about other editors' behaviour. If the problem is that you do not have access to such evidence because it does not exist, then please apologize and retract the offending remarks.
    EEng: If you look at the talk page section linked at the top of this thread, it seems the OP is quite confused about the difference between "Germanic peoples" and "German people" ("German diaspora"?) despite the former term being pretty well defined in the opening sentences of the article in question. Compared to this, a confusion of "Naziism" with "the Third Reich" seems pretty... well, it's not "tame", but it's more believable that an editor acting in good faith could be ignorant of that history as long as they are not actually editing articles specifically about Naziism or the Third Reich. (Read: I would expect a member of "the general populace" to be more familiar with Naziism than with the ancient Germanic tribes, but the same would not apply to someone engaged in lengthy back-and-forth on the talk page of our article on the Germanic tribes.)
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a more kind and forgiving heart, Hijiji, than do I, but dissecting the precise metes and bounds of Dynasteria's ignorance seems to me an unprofitable investment of time. EEng 11:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hijiri: Lack of knowledge about procedure is not a bar to filing complaints. (Go to federal court and scrawl your complaint in crayon and they'll accept it.) I shouldn't have to hire the equivalent of a lawyer to be here. Please be advised that the Germanic peoples article has been altered radically since I started participating on the talk page. I'm not aware of confusing Naziism with the Third Reich. I associated a sly "Arbeit Macht Frei" jab with being called a Nazi. What would you like to say about EEng's leveling threats at me on this page? Is that OK? Dynasteria (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah well, see, Gideon, this isn't federal court and we don't have to waste our time with people scrawling in crayon, so if it's your plan to continue the cluelessness act you'd better find another one. You don't have to to hire the equivalent of a lawyer to be here (though maybe this guy [280] can help you) but you do have to be able to read directions; you've already been pointed to the box at the top of this page, and someone has helpfully linked the tutorial on diffing. I renew my exhortation that you close this thread voluntarily and go edit in less fraught topic areas while you educate yourself (on things including, but not limited to, how Wikipedia works) before you talk yourself into a WP:CIR block. EEng 13:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Hijiri How am I "quite confused" about the difference between Germanic peoples and German people? The beauty of being quite confused, as with being ignorant, is that often one has no idea about one's state of mind. I would genuinely like to clear up some issues but I need you to address me directly. Also, I don't like working under a general threat so please address EEng directly about that. Dynasteria (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dynasteria: this isn't federal court. NZ is not a federation, there's no such thing as a federal court anyway. The vast majority of us are not lawyers. Many people here are also not that technically competent. Still most experienced editors learn how to supply diffs. If you are unable to learn the unfortunately it is correct you probably should not file complaints at ANI. If someone else is aware of the problem, talk to them about it and ask them if they can help you bring a complaint. If no one else is aware, then unfortunately you may just have to leave it be until someone else notices the problem. I'm fairly confused though. People have provided you two guides above. Have you read them and made an effort to learn? Because if you haven't, I'm not sure why your convinced you cannot learn. I suggest you just try. It will be far better for you and for everyone, if you take the time and find out how to and then supply diffs rather than continuing this conversation. Whatever you may feel about what EEng said in this thread, they have a point that you've made a very serious allegation and so far failed to back that up with evidence. Failing to do so will likely be seen as a personal attack leading to a block so you either need to do so or withdraw the allegation and apologise. So if you're unable or unwilling to do so, please just withdraw the allegation and apologise. If you are or might be able to, I suggest you spend your time learning and doing so rather than wasting time on this diversion. If you really want, you can get back to it once you've supplied diffs for you serious allegation. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I don't know much about US federal courts assuming that's what you meant but I strongly suspect you're mistaken. Sure you may be able to file a complaint with crayon, but if you fail to provide any evidence, it's going to be thrown out. If it actually comes before a judge and the judge asks you for your evidence and you just say 'I don't know how to provide evidence your honour, hopefully a judge can do it for me', you won't get very far. (Not that admins are judges.) At best they may offer you guidance and suggestions (and frankly the main one will probably be to hire a lawyer) and cut you a lot of slack from the normal rules, but ultimately you are the one who needs to learn from them and be able to provide the evidence. If you can't or don't and your complaint gets thrown out, you'll likely find if you keep doing it you'll get in trouble even if you use pen. We could cut you a little slack here, instead of a diff ask for a link to the discussion and a quote of the statement where EEng repeated the accusation, and for that matter where they first made the accusation; but you're going to need to do something other than arguing about what you're confused about. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nil Einne: You're right, I did leave out some of the more objectionable wording. But in fact I have already provided some evidence. This is from the Let my people go thread linked at the top of this thread:

    You’re missing the point, Dynasteria, that in my experience numerous German and Austrian scholars (Walter Pohl, Helmut Reimitz, Sebastian Brather…) including the current editors of Germanische Altertumskunde Online, deny the existence of “Germanic peoples”. This has nothing to do with anti German sentiment in the anglophone world, it has to do with dismantling 19th and 20th Century nationalist and essentialist ideas about language and ethnicity. We can’t ignore the consensus of scholars, that goes against Wp policy.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

    What are you thinking, Dynasteria? "Let my people go" is a completely inappropriate heading for your statement in this context of what you say about the racism of the Nazis. Of course you know that "Let My People Go" is a phrase from the Book of Exodus 5:1: "And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness." I am astonished and amazed that you transpose the pleas of the Israelite leaders before the Egyptian ruler onto your screed made on behalf of people of German descent concerning modern-day prejudice against them. You should strike it. Carlstak (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

    At least it wasn't 'Arbeit macht frei. EEng 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

    I would like to think that the heading was chosen in haste, without thinking through the implications, because it's the sort of oblivious remark that one expects from Trumpista fascists rather than an intelligent WP editor like Dynasteria. Carlstak (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

    Given Dynasteria's plea that It is time to release the Germanic people from the chains and shackles of being enslaved, I'd say that's wishful thinking. But ya know, as Tom Lehrer put it, Once all the Germans were warlike and mean, / But that couldn't happen again. / We taught them a lesson in 1918 / And they've hardly bothered us since then. EEng 17:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

    Nil Einne You can hardly expect me to become fully proficient overnight. His bringing up a famous slogan associated with Auschwitz, along with other remarks, in my view is tantamount to calling me a Nazi. Now, I didn't know until today the gravity of that accusation so I'm willing to withdraw it. However, as I said before, I refuse to work under threat. Tell EEng to lay off and I'll get right on it, fixing my earlier oversights. I've placed in bold some of the comments and issues I find troubling, but even that will prove insufficient explication. I was trying to simplify things but have only made them more complicated. If anyone really wants to get involved it will require some catching up, as it did me at the beginning. And I'll probably have to repeat myself as I've already done, well, repeatedly. Dynasteria (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued edit warring by User:David-dalus

    This user has continued to edit war on the The Secret of NIMH dispute being warned, twice.

    Their edits ([281], [282] and [283]) are identical to edits made by various IPs ([284], [285]. [286]) and are likely the same person. The article was protected in on June 28 due to vandalism by the IP and they clearly created a user ID so they could get passed the lock.

    The edits concern the "....which ends with the dying Sullivan killing Jenner and saving Justin's life". The user has continued to remove the bolded line dispute being given this justification for its inclusion and has refused to explain themselves or discuss at the talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be worth reporting them to WP:AN3. MiasmaEternalTALK 09:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GeneralLeeStudiosOfficial

    New disruption-only account. Contribs are self-explanatory. Could an admin please block and if needed revdel? Thanks, Levivich 03:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure anything needs revdel'ed, but the user has been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! (I'm not sure anything needs revdel either, I never know exactly where that threshold is.) Levivich 03:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violations about Mark Skousen

    At [287] an IP has stated that Mark Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon, and did not provide a WP:RS for their claim when asked, repeatedly. They are past level 4 warning for WP:BLP violations. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The evidence was provided repeatedly that he was involved with fringe groups in the religion, which is the original statement that tgeorgescu demanded. After providing that evidence, this user began harassing me and making threats of reporting on both that thread and my personal talk page, despite me providing the evidence they asked for. They falsely kept claiming that I had not. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a verbatim quote from a WP:RS which explicitly shows that Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon? You were asked repeatedly to provide a WP:RS for your claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked specifically for evidence that he was involved with fringe groups. It was provided. Only then did you attempt to move the goalposts, and started spamming my page with warnings as threats, as well as spamming the talk page on the noticeboard with threats and false claims that no evidence had been provided. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what you claimed: Please note that tgeorgescu falsely represented someone involved with fringe groups of the religion as a "Faithful Mormon," ... This means you have explicitly denied that he is a faithful Mormon. Provide evidence for your claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked specifically for proof that he was involved with fringe groups as the basis of the claim. I provided exactly what you asked for. You yourself based whether or not that claim met BLP criteria on whether such evidence was provided. Only then did you attempt to move the goalposts and change what had been requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At [288] I wrote You denied that he is a devout Mormon, you have to provide evidence for it. No compromise is possible. Don't tell me that you have not read my message, since you have replied directly below it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That was only after you attempted to move the goalposts. When I first posted the claim, your actual response was "According to WP:BLP, you have to provide evidence for him being in the fringe groups of the religion ASAP." Which is exactly what I did. So your later attempts to move the goalposts and threats of reporting are a clear attempt at harassment and intimidation. I will now no longer respond to you until admins get involved, as I have already decisively shown that you moved the goalposts and lied about what was actually requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At [289] I wrote the following: "You called Mark Skousen someone involved with fringe groups of the religion without evidence (guilt by association isn't evidence: I mean, he could be wrong, be he still is a devout LDS Church member)." Did not read that, either? I have corrected my typo at [290], before you had replied to it. You have also replied to Let me put it this way: many Catholics have false beliefs, but as long as they are not outright heretical, the Pope has no business chastising their false beliefs. from [291]. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, take note that tgeorgescu is once again attempting to move the goalposts after the fact. The quote they just gave was responded to with one showing that it was not guilt by association, that continuing to openly advocating for the beliefs of the group decades after that has been disavowed and warned is in fact involvement with the group. Tgeorgescu did not dispute this, but then switched to their goalpost moving and warning spamming, while changing the question from then on to be specifically not be about that portion of the statement. They maintained that line of reasoning on this noticeboard. And now, in the middle of it, they switched back again, even though the sequence of their statements and comments is openly available for all to see and thoroughly proves their moving of the goalposts and changing of what they claim to have requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have provided this source: https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ Therein is simply Mark Skousen appearing on Glenn Beck's show in order to speak about the book written by Mark's uncle. No mention of any fringe groups involving Mark, in fact there is absolutely no mention of any group Mark would belong to. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tgeorgescu is once again openly lying. The article specifically mentions that the book was published as advocacy for a disavowed foundation. Calling on the group leader's nephew to present that advocacy decades after the disavowal is evidence of that nephew's involvement with the group. I am done for the night, I can take no more today of tgeorgescu's constant lying, moving of goalposts, harassment, and knowingly and verifiably false attempts at intimidation. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a verbatim quote from https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ ? Prove me wrong, for all to see! Provide a quote wherein https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ says that Mark Skousen belongs to any group (fringe or not, but we're especially interested in fringe groups).
    He surely belongs to several groups, but the given source does not claim that Mark would belong to any of the groups mentioned in it. Perhaps he does, but your source never stated that he does.
    So, the claim that he belongs to any group (fringe or otherwise) is not verifiable in the source you gave us. If you think otherwise, provide a verbatim quote showing that I'm wrong.
    Your source does not even verify that Mark is a Mormon (faithful or otherwise), let alone that he would belong to any of the groups mentioned in the article. And it certainly does not verify the claim that Mark was chastised by the LDS Church. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Tgeorgescu

    tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in an extensive campaign of harassment against me today. While I was involved in a dispute with another user over some NPOV violations that they insisted on including in the Prosperity Theology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology) article, this user spammed my personal talk page with warnings and accusations of being a paid poster. While I was busy creating the section on the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology) that they demanded I create, they did this multiple times, and also then posted the accusation on the talk page. Once I had finished creating that section on the talk page, I responded with the information that I am not a paid poster and their accusation was false. They then joined in on the talk page harassing me and making numerous personal attacks on me alongside the user I had originally responded to. Even after another user that I do not know joined the talk to concur with my reasons for the removal of the section and its violation of NPOV, tgeorgescu kept making personal attacks, accusing me of attempting to censor criticism of my religion despite me repeatedly stating my support of leaving in sections of the linked article that didn't violate Wiki rules, and making false claims that no evidence had been provided. After a back and forth, this user finally opened a section on the neutral point of view noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard), and then immediately resumed personal attacks and false claims about me there after another editor there concurred with my reasons for disputing the inclusion of the specific section in the Prosperity Theology article. As I responded to their attacks and false claims in that thread, tgeorgescu began once again spamming my personal talk page with numerous different warnings, a clear form of harassment and attempt at intimidation. No other user supported them while they were doing this on the NPOV noticeboard, but they kept repeatedly responding to me with insults, accusations, and different warnings and threats to report on my personal talk page. This behavior is extreme and unacceptable, and I request that admins take action to halt it immediately. I fully admit that I insulted this user in response to their personal attacks on me, but it was always in response to their personal attacks, insults, and repeated false accusations and harassment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:300:13f:848a:7df8:a2c8:e34 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide evidence for your claims, e.g. for the claim that Mark Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon. I have repeatedly warned you because you were making unverifiable statements about a living person without providing any evidence that he isn't a faithful Mormon. See WP:BLP. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You demanded evidence to support the claim that Mark Skousen is involved with fringe groups of the religion. That is specifically what you asked for. I provided it. Only then did you start tonight's segment of your sapamming of my talk page with warnings and of the noticeboard talk page with threats to report and knowingly false claims that I hadn't provided any evidence. It's there for all to see. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have explicitly denied that Mark Skousen is a faithful Mormon. You still did not provide any WP:Verifiable source for your claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I already provided the evidence that he is involved with fringe groups that you requested as the basis for that claim. Once I provided that evidence, only then did you attempt to move the goalposts and claim that's actually not what evidence was requested or required. I will no longer respond to you here until admins get involved, as you keep repeating this pattern of knowingly falsely claiming that I didn't provide what you requested, as a form of harassment and intimidation. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At [292] I wrote You denied that he is a devout Mormon, you have to provide evidence for it. No compromise is possible. Don't tell me that you have not read my message, since you have replied directly below it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    tgeorgescu is now spamming the same comment on multiple posts, and it has already been addressed. This came significantly after they responded to the intitial claim with "According to WP:BLP, you have to provide evidence for him being in the fringe groups of the religion ASAP." Which is exactly what I did. So this user's later attempts to move the goalposts and threats of reporting are a clear attempt at harassment and intimidation. I will now no longer respond to this user until admins get involved, as I have already decisively shown that they moved the goalposts and lied about what was actually requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At [293] I wrote the following: "You called Mark Skousen someone involved with fringe groups of the religion without evidence (guilt by association isn't evidence: I mean, he could be wrong, be he still is a devout LDS Church member)." Did not read that, either? I have corrected my typo at [294], before you had replied to it. You have also replied to Let me put it this way: many Catholics have false beliefs, but as long as they are not outright heretical, the Pope has no business chastising their false beliefs. from [295]. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, admins, tgeorgescu is spamming the same thing in different places, and actively moving the goalposts. The quote they just gave was responded to with one showing that it was not guilt by association, that continuing to openly advocating for the beliefs of the group decades after that has been disavowed and warned is in fact involvement with the group. Tgeorgescu did not dispute this, but then switched to their goalpost moving and warning spamming, while changing the question from then on to specifically not be about that portion of the statement. They maintained that line of reasoning on this noticeboard. And now, in the middle of it, they switched back again, even though the sequence of their statements and comments is openly available for all to see and thoroughly proves their moving of the goalposts and changing of what they claim to have requested. 2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 (talk) 04:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @El C: After the IP stated they do not do paid edits, I no longer pursued that lead. But in fact the whole dispute is Mormon in-fighting. The professor who stated that Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids is a faithful Mormon. So, in fact a Mormon thinks that another Mormon is libelous about Mormonism.
    • And we simply got irritated by the amount of hubris from IP's talk page statements. They insisted they are absolutely right and we are absolutely wrong. They called us So you are fools, and also outright liars, if you attempt to dispute that. These were not bona fide attempts at WP:CONSENSUS, but they made clear that it is their way or the highway.
    • The whole point of IP's edits is to show that Mark Skousen is a heretic and a slanderer of the LDS Church. It is a smear campaign, if we are to call a spade a spade. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tgeorgescu, acting aggressively toward someone repeatedly would have that effect. I'm not saying it's optimal conduct, but it isn't one-sided, either. Anyway, you call it a "smear campaign" — is there a way for you to verify that without the need for an outside reviewer to wade through walls of text? El_C 06:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @El C: At [296] they provided a (1, one) source for their claim that Mark Skousen isn't a faithful Mormon, in its turn that was a claim made at [297]. The provided source is https://www.salon.com/2009/09/16/beck_skousen/ . This source does not verify that Mark is a faithful Mormon, it does not verify that he is an unfaithful Mormon, it does not verify that he is a Mormon, it does not verify that he was chastised by the LDS Church, it does not verify that he belongs to any of the groups mentioned in this source. I have repeatedly asked them for a source that would verify their claims. I have asked them for verbatim quotes. They have never provided any other source for their claims.
    • To put it bluntly, this is all the information about Mark from this source:

    • In March, with the new book available, Beck invited Skousen's nephew Mark onto his Fox show, where the two men discussed splitting up the United States. (Mark would later say that between commercials, Beck told him that a friend had sent him "Leap" and that the book "changed his life.")

      — Alexander Zaitchik, Meet the man who changed Glenn Beck's life
    • Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is not evidence of me running a smear campaign, because tgeorgescu is being openly disingenuous here. TGeorgescu only brought up the Mark Skousen angle and made up from thin air the claim that this was all more in-fighting after significant other harassments and personal attacks by them and GenoV84, and attempted to use it as a derailing after another user on the NPOV noticeboard agreed that the inclusion of the disputed section was problematic. TGeorgescu then responded with " Please note that the guy who stated Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids is a cheerfully libertarian professor of economics and a faithful Mormon. So, IP's ire is towards one of their own. It seems like in-group fighting." this is the first time that Tgeorgescu has introduced this opinion in the entire conversation throughout the day. I saw it for what it clearly was, a clear attempt at derailing after their opinion had already been rebutted by other editors who hadn't been involved firsthand in the initial dispute like Tgeorgescu was. Also disingenuous, as it tried to present the individual in question as a "faithful Mormon," as if he represented the mainstream views of the church, and seemed to be intentionally obscuring the fact that he is affiliated with fringe groups that have openly been disavowed and warned by the LDS church. So I responded to that by pointing out what tgeorgescu was misrepresenting, and that's when they demanded evidence. I provided evidence. They initially attempted to dispute parts of it as evidence, but they dropped that after a few posts.
    • The article in question does in fact mention in different sections that the book Mark Skousen was advocating to Glenn Beck was initially made specifically as advocacy for a group lead by Mark's uncle that the LDS Church disavowed and warned. TGeorgescu is also lying in saying that they repeatedly asked for a source after this to verify Mark's involvement in fringe groups. Tgeorgescu instead suddenly changed to personally accusing me of smearing Mark with the words "faithful Mormon," the same words Tgeorgescu had used in the comment that this was a response to. That's a clear moving of the goalposts after I provided evidence. I did not engage with his further demands and threats that I immediately provide a source specifically with the "faithful Mormon" term or else get reported, even as they continued to spam my personal talk page with a whole heap of various different warnings and claiming it was based on me smearing Mark Skousen. I was not going to play along with someone who had already harassed me vigorously and personally attacked me repeatedly suddenly switching the goalposts as a means of deflection
    • Once that occurred, they then changed what they had previously been saying and suddenly started spamming my personal talk page with multiple different warnings and accusing me both there and on the NPOV board of personally smearing Mark Skousen. Their strategy changed back and forth several times. Now we see that tgeorgescu has recently asserted "The whole point of IP's edits is to show that Mark Skousen is a heretic and a slanderer of the LDS Church. It is a smear campaign, if we are to call a spade a spade." This was newly invented by them in the last hour, and is easily debunked by reading through the earlier portions of the talk page on both Prosperity Theology and on the NPOV board. I made clear from the beginning that portions of the article that didn't violate NPOV and that didn't attempt to pass off unsupported opinion as fact were perfectly fine remaining in the article. Somehow, more than six hours later, tgeorgescu decided to make Mark Skousen as an individual the crux of the entire thing, after plenty of back and forth clearly showing that wasn't the case, and I hadn't brought up his status in the LDS Church at all up to the point, instead focusing mainly on how the quote from him was presented in the Wiki article as if it were evidence-based, when it was in fact pure opinion. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, what are you waiting for? Provide the verbatim quote which proves me wrong. You can't, because I have already quoted everything that source wrote about Mark Skousen. And none of it verifies any of your claims about him. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I already summarized the parts that you openly lied weren't there. So here are some of them verbatim, spread out in different parts of the article. "Before he died in 2006 at the age of 92, Skousen's own Mormon church publicly distanced itself from the foundation that Skousen founded and that has published previous editions of "The 5,000 Year Leap." "Skousen was unbowed. In 1971, he founded the Freeman Institute, a research organization devoted to the study of the super-conspiracy directed by the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. (The institute later changed its name to the National Center for Constitutional Studies, which has offices in Malta, Idaho, and continues to publish Skousen's books, including Glenn Beck's favorite work of history, "The 5,000 Year Leap.")
    • By the end of the 1970s, the death of Skousen's biggest allies within the Mormon church hierarchy cleared the way for an official disavowal of his work. In 1979, LDS church president Spencer W. Kimball issued an order to every Mormon clergyman in the U.S. stating "no announcements should be made in Church meetings of Freemen Institute lectures or events that are not under the sponsorship of the Church. [This] is to make certain that neither Church facilities nor Church meetings are used to advertise such events and to avoid any implication that the Church endorses what is said during such lectures."
    • "In March, with the new book available, Beck invited Skousen's nephew Mark onto his Fox show, where the two men discussed splitting up the United States. (Mark would later say that between commercials, Beck told him that a friend had sent him "Leap" and that the book "changed his life.")" Anyways, I need to get some sleep now, so it will be a while before my next post of any type on this thread. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Friend, you're seeing things which are not there: the information about Mark's uncle is not applicable to Mark himself. He is not his uncle. The source does not claim that Mark is part of any of the groups mentioned therein. The source does not even claim that Mark is a Mormon. The source never claims that Mark was chastised by the LDS Church.
    • The source does not mention Mark's religion. It does not mention any relationship between Mark and the LDS Church, be it belief or disbelief, approval or chastisement. It does not mention any group Mark belongs to.
    • Conflating Mark with his own uncle is called WP:FRANKIE. I asked for WP:Verifiable information about Mark Skousen, not cock and bull stories about conflating him with his own uncle.
    • This is a WP:CIR problem in regard to reading a written text. I don't know why this is a problem, since there are many free text to speech engines available. Why is this a problem? Because you have been smearing Mark for several hours and you still did not recant. Don't you think that unfaithful Mormon is a smear? It certainly violates WP:BLP if you do not WP:CITE evidence to that extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I disagree with your tone towards the IP, let me just say this - if they read the source that they provided, they would realise that the article is referring to Willard Cleon Skousen, not Mark Skousen. This is something called WP:SYNTHESIS. MiasmaEternalTALK 08:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MiasmaEternal: I think they do not have a great ability of reading with comprehension. Either that or they are intentionally vexatious.
    • Why the tone? The IP depicts themselves as having done nothing wrong, not even the smallest mistake, and me and another editor which reverted and criticized them as purposefully violating the rules of Wikipedia in order to smear the LDS Church (in fact, the IP, who is a member of the LDS Church claims that another member of the LDS Church smears the LDS Church).
    • They also made the preposterous argument that only early conclusions are reliable and all later conclusions should be discarded, meaning all my statements made a hour or more after their initial edit are to be discarded: This was newly invented by them in the last hour... Somehow, more than six hours later, tgeorgescu decided to make Mark Skousen as an individual the crux of the entire thing... That a statement could be both new (recent) and true did not cross their mind. Oh, wait... isn't Joseph Smith a rather recent prophet? tgeorgescu (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So this whole argument seemed to have started with an addition to Prosperity gospel which incorrectly (and with copyvio, which I've removed) asserted that Harper's had called Mormon financial teachings "the protestant work ethic on steroids." In fact Harpers didn't say that, Mark Skousen did. (I've removed that, too; no objection to something actually correct being added back in.) The IP objected to quoting Skousen on Mormonism, calling him at a noticeboard not a devout Mormon, then supported that assertion by providing evidence that (starting to get lost here) one of Skousen's relatives was considered fringey by the church? While that's not ideal, it's absolutely ridiculous for tgeorgescu to be treating this as if it were an attempt to insert libel into a BLP. I'm seeing a lot of problematic behavior here from tgeorgescu toward an IP who, while they may need to learn a few things, does not seem to be ill-intentioned. —valereee (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is looking like BLP is being used as a blunt instrument to browbeat a content opponent, at least that's the impression I got. First, the IP's good faith edit is reverted as "vandalism," then they're told that because they're a member of the LDS Church they have a conflict of interest about LDS content matters. I know I'd be upset if I were they. El_C 11:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: Hi Valereee, I lost track with the wall of text about Skousen but I'll get back to read it later. I believe that neither the IP nor Tgeorgescu are ill-intentioned in their respective propositions; however, we can't simply overlook the fact that the IP's aggressive behavior and engagement in personal attacks, accusations, and blatant insults directed towards me and Tgeorgescu has occurred since the very beginning of the discussion on the article's Talk page and revision history, which continued to escalate throughout the discussion despite my repeated attempts to settle a dispute resolution and finally reach consensus together, with proposals about what we should do with the paragraph discussed and the cited source. The IP repeatedly claimed that the cited source misrepresents or smears the LDS Church's official stance on prosperity gospel, and ordered to remove the paragraph entirely. I told him/her to calm down and follow the rules, because pretending to be in a position to give orders to other people is extremely inappropriate and ridiculous (to say the least...), and is not the way Wikipedia works. After more quarreling, the IP proposed to reword the paragraph and I agreed to do so along with adding more quotation marks to it, in order to highlight the author's opinion expressed in the cited source. As a matter of fact, the IP never answered to any of my proposals even though I agreed with him/her to reword the paragraph. GenoV84 (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GenoV84, further up, I've warned you against your own aggressive conduct in this dispute —misconduct that in some ways was worse than Tgeorgescu's— so, I dunno, maybe acknowledge that I said that. Because the warning is real, I assure you. El_C 12:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GenoV84, it can be pretty confusing to edit as an IP, especially when you're new. Just within this thread, the IP has changed.
    IP, there are many advantages to creating an account, not least of which is that when other editors can see your well-intentioned edit history, they're less likely to misinterpret your edits as vandalism. Do be aware that the fact others are being uncivil to you doesn't justify you being uncivil back. As we see at Talk:Prosperity theology, that just escalates the situation, which is counterproductive to persuading others to see your point. When another editor is uncivil, instead of dishing it right back out, ask for help. (If you'd let me know you've seen this, I'd appreciate it; it isn't possible to ping an IP, and since yours changes, leaving a message on your current talk also doesn't guarantee you'll see it. Another good reason for creating an account.) —valereee (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: Yes, I have seen it. I have specifically avoided creating an account up to this point because I was concerned about harassment from exactly the type of editors that tgeorgescu and VGeno84 turned out to be. Honestly not sure if I want to have to deal with that sort of thing long term. And yeah, me dishing it back at them didn't help, but at the time, since it was two different editors with lengthy experience treating me like that, I assumed that there was some sort of unwritten rule I was unfamiliar wit that long-time editors like them were allowed to break the rules. It was only later in the day that I realized that both were just acting nasty and enough other users were pointing out issues wit their behavior that it was clear to me that they were in fact not allowed to be doing what they were doing.2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User_talk:2601:681:300:13F:848A:7DF8:A2C8:E34 has user warning templates in the double digits that concern this dispute (several of which the IP editor has responded to directly). That is not what user warning templates are intended for. El_C 12:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: I already did that. I replied to LindsayH after she posted a message on my Talk page about the warning templates that I left on the IP's Talk page; I recognized the fact thay I have been precipitous in labeling the IP's edits as vandalism, in fact I proceeded to remove the warning template and invited the IP to open a new section on the article's Talk page to discuss about the reason for his edits.
    @Valereee: It can be difficult to edit as an IP, I agree about that. But the point is, even if initially the IP got angry due to my warning templates, that's not an excuse to insult other users anyway. In fact, I explicitly asked the IP if the warning templates were the reason for his/her aggressive behavior towards me. GenoV84 (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    False personal attacks... Seriously? The only person you seem to be preoccupied with on your talk page and the revision history of this article is me: "GenoV84 here", "GenoV84 there", "GenoV84 is this", "GenoV84 is that"... I never attacked you in the first place, while you seem to be quite upset and bitter towards me. For what? Because I reverted your edits while you never thought about opening a new section on this talk page and discuss about that paragraph until I suggested you to do so? GenoV84 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [diff] GenoV84, I think that sort of speaks for itself. WP:BITE is an important component of Wikipedia's WP:PAG ethos. El_C 13:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's the question that I was referring to when I asked the IP why he/she was being aggressive towards me on the article's Talk page, because I didn't figure out why he/she was behaving that way. As I said before, I recognized that I've been precipitous in my judgement, I made a mistake and removed the warning template, but I never meant to bite nor harass the IP. In fact, I invited him/her to open a new section on the Talk page in order to find a resolution and collaborate together. GenoV84 (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GenoV84, I hope that by "invitation" you don't mean this, because as far as invitations go, it isn't great. Stressing also that I like my evidence in the form of diffs. Anyway, please feel free to point out if elsewhere you had said to the IP editor (expressly) something to the effect of: 'sorry I called your edit vandalism when I reverted it, let's discuss.' Possibly I missed it. El_C 13:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No I didn't apologize for it, I removed the warning template and invited the IP to open a new section on the Talk page: Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you think that the source itself or the content of the paragraph should be changed, you can open a new section and discuss about it on Talk:Prosperity theology. Thanks. GenoV84 (talk) 10:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC). GenoV84 (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so you didn't acknowledge your own error beyond converting the vandalism warning with a WP:POINT one, then you invited the user to the talk page. You are not required to apologize, of course, but saying something to the effect of: 'I recognize that my vandalism warning to you was in error' — that's sort of the least I'd expect from you. El_C 14:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I've been precipitous in my judgement and I didn't handle this discussion in the most appropriate way, although I meant to do things right. I should have dealt with the IP in a more thoughtful and polite manner since the beginning, as I said I didn't mean to offend or harass anyone. I will proceed to offer my apologies to him/her. GenoV84 (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, GenoV84, I appreciate that. El_C 14:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: So, what is wrong with my reasoning? Mark Skousen stated that Mormonism is the Protestant ethic on steroids. The IP stated that rendering such view is purposefully smearing the LDS Church. But of course, the smear argument breaks down when we understand that Skousen is a faithful Mormon. That's why the IP had to claim that Skousen is not a faithful Mormon. If they did not say that, they would have admitted they are wrong. So, it boils down to: according to the IP Skousen is a heretic and an slanderer of the LDS Church. So, in order to claim that we smear the LDS Church, the IP had to smear Skousen. If there is any flaw in my reasoning, please point it out. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tgeorgescu, I'm not the one who edited the article, that was Valereee (diff). El_C 18:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tgeorgescu once again misrepresents the entire case. I objected to the fact that the quote was used in the way it was in the article to attempt to connect Mormonism's strong work ethic with all of the baggage and issues of prosperity theology. It was even prefaced in the article with "However," and was inserted directly after the quotes from Dallin H. Oaks condemning prosperity theology. That's such a clear and blatant attempt to influence readers to think that Oaks is hiding something and the LDS Church is firmly connected with all the baggage and issues of prosperity theology. I did indeed say after that that there was no reason to include that line in the article at all, as it still seemed like an attempt to warp POV by GenoV84 and Tgeorgescu, given that there were portions of the Harper's Magazine article already in the "Relationship with other movements" section of the article that presented the factual basis for the assertion that there were similarities between some elements of LDS beliefs and Prosperity Theology. Tgeorgescu got really insulting and accused me of censorship and said that I wasn't allowed to oppose the inclusion of any criticism of religion in the article at all, despite the fact that I had clearly already demonstrated I wasn't attempting to remove assertions that provided evidence of similarities in the "Relationship with other movements" section.
    Tgeorgescu eventually tried to bring up their assertion that Skousen is a faithful Mormon as some sort of magic bullet that eliminated all of the issues with the usage. Besides the obvious issues with that approach, I pointed out that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. Then tgeorgescu became apoplectic and attempted to change what the entire argument had been, and continues to misrepresent what I actually did. They even keep attributing nefarious motives to me that are easily disproved by what I actually said earlier on in the talk section of the Prosperity Theology article before tgeorgescu attempted to move the goalposts. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You have still presented absolutely no evidence that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. That's a WP:BLP violation. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were already warned by admins as attempting to misuse BLP here to try to browbeat a content opponent. This line of argument you are using has already been rejected. What I presented was not "absolutely no evidence." Admin said that it might not be ideal, but that it's enough to make your accusations of BLP violations inappropriate. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, you mentioned absolutely no WP:RS which WP:Verifies your claim that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church.
    And even if we admit that most Mormons do not vote for the Libertarian Party, being a libertarian is not a heresy. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, please take note of the continued dishonesty, repeated intentional misrepresentations, and attempts at browbeating that tgeorgescu is still involved in even here. I will not directly respond to tgeorgescu from here on out, as it is just feeding into their continued misbehavior that amounts to a form of harassment, and they keep persisting in the same behavior they have already been warned about. Severe action needs to be taken against them for what they continue to do. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that WP:RS WP:Verifies your claim, you have a serious WP:CIR problem, namely reading comprehension (you cannot make heads or tails of a written text). Or you are being intentionally vexatious, that's also possible. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, please note the severity of the baseless personal attacks, insults, and harassment tgeorgescu continues to engage in even in front of the admins. Users like tgeorgescu and what they are openly doing is exactly why I have been hesitant to make an actual account. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what are you waiting for? Prove me wrong! How many times do I have to ask you? Prove me wrong for all to see! tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, please note that after tgeorgescu was already warned by an admin that they were wrong and their claim of a BLP violation was false and being inappropriately wielded as a weapon in an attempt tobrowbeat me, they continue openly lying and stating that their assertion is completely true, while harassing me and attempting to demand repeatedly that I prove what was already shown. 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what do you wait for? Provide a verbatim quote which WP:Verifies your claim that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. You cannot eat your cake and still have it. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C: Please give them an ultimatum to WP:Verify their claim or get blocked. This is getting tedious. So, either because of a reading disability or because they are intentionally vexatious, the IP is publicly humiliating Mark Skousen without providing evidence for their claim. And nobody seems to care. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No doubt because of its explosive connotations, the Mormon church has officially distanced itself from the White Horse Prophecy, stressing that it is not part of approved doctrine [...] For what it’s worth, however, Mark Skousen cites the prophecy as the motive behind his uncle’s publishing and lecturing career (from the source in question: https://harpers.org/archive/2011/10/pennies-from-heaven). Maybe that's the connection being referenced...? Though I don't know if "official distancing" necessarily = being viewed as "fringe" by LDS orthodoxy. Doesn't seem like a BLP violation to posit in the course of discussing the subject matter, in any case. El_C 20:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: That WP:V that his uncle was fringe, it does not WP:V that Mark is fringe. Mark is not his own uncle.
    Besides, the IP did not WP:CITE Harper's, but they cited salon.com. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain to us why his uncle was fringe in your eyes? Also what is wrong with Salon.com?CycoMa (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not claim there is anything wrong with salon.com. I just stated that it does not WP:V the claim that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church. If you want to find out why his uncle was fringe, read the two articles (briefly: he, meaning the uncle, was a conspiracy theorist). tgeorgescu (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tgeorgescu, it was my understanding that they both followed the White Horse Prophecy. I haven't read the Salon piece, I read the Harpers one cited in the article. That's why I mentioned it. Anyway, maybe it'd be best that you do something else for the immediate moment... I don't think being so intensive (to the point of repetition) is advancing the debate at this point. Much of it is probably beyond the scope of this noticeboard, in any event. El_C 20:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C Now that this has been settled, can tgeorgescu's repeated harassment, insults, personal attacks, lying, and misrepresentation be addressed and handled? 2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get your hopes two high: those two articles prove eventually (at most) that Mark bought into a conspiracy theory. Neither WP:V the claim that he is not a faithful Mormon. Buying into a conspiracy theory does not preclude him from being a faithful Mormon. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever Mark Skousen believes, it does not mean either that Skousen has affiliation with fringe groups disavowed by the LDS church or that Mark is not a faithful Mormon. E.g. belief in conspiracy theories does not preclude one from being a faithful Mormon. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tgeorgescu, again, maybe give it a rest...? Two uninvolved admins have participated in this thread thus far, myself and Valeree. Sorry you take exception to our conclusions, but it is what it is. El_C 20:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, please note that tgeorgescu is continuing on with the same line of argument even after being told by an admin to stop. Please also note that the phrase "faithful Mormon" was first used by tgeorgescu, not me. They used it on the NPOV noticeboard after another user agreed that there were major issues with the disputed section that included the Skousen quote. Tgeorgescu attempted to use the phrase "faithful Mormon" as a sort of magic bullet that erased all of the issues pointed out. When I pointed out even a small issue with that line of reasoning (Skousen's involvement in fringe stuff denounced by the LDS Church) this is when tgeorgescu derailed everything and went on a crusade attempting to deflect from everything else and change the subject to relentlessly accusing me of BLP violations while harassing and insulting me.2601:681:300:13F:9D7A:9DC1:FB86:F765 (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) "Faithful" is a subjective word. If I claimed to be a devout or a practising believer, that would be easily disproved. If I claimed to be a faithful one, that would require some sort of an inquisition. As a historical example, both Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael I Cerularius of Constantinople declared themselves faithful Christians, but they excommunicated each other in 1054. Narky Blert (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    On the content call I think tgeorgescu is right, as it is my experience that they usually are in this field. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Users adding images to articles at a high rate of speed

    Yesterday, I noticed Siwema_Nikini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was adding images to the very top of articles (i.e, the first line of the articles) with the nonsensical edit summary "#WPWP #WPWPARK". Someone asked the user what they were doing but did not receive a response. The most recent edit under that account was roughly three hours ago.

    I just noticed the account Mary calist mlay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making the exact same types of edits on my watchlist at a particularly high rate of speed. In the last seven hours, they've added images to more than 250 articles, all with the same nonsensical edit summary (except now they've added "#WPWPTZ" to the list of hash tags). I did a spot check of the edits and while most of the recent image additions have been to the top of articles, many have been to the bodies of articles too. I left a message on the user's talk page[298] but they have so far ignored it and continued adding images to articles. I also noticed that the editing of both accounts have overlapped -- the switching of accounts was apparently not account abandonment.

    The images being added aren't wrong, at least from what I can tell (I'm not familiar with most of the features being referenced). In fact, some of the edits probably improved some of the articles. However, a lot of the edits seem unnecessary and they're being done at such a high rate of speed (with a misleading edit summary too under at least two accounts). Given their unresponsiveness to talk page messages, the use of multiple accounts, etc., and because I'm getting tired, I think this might merit another set of eyes. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a prize at stake. WPWP = m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021. WPWPARK and WPWPTZ are community identifiers listed on those pages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that explains it, please disregard. (It would be nice if the edit summaries were a bit more descriptive so others who weren't familiar with this knew what was going on.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) m:Guide on how to use WPWP Campaign Hashtags#How to use the #WPWP Campaign hashtag - 'The hashtag is not a substitute for a "a descriptive edit summary". The hashtag, #WPWP or the community-specific hashtag must be added to the edit summary box of pages edited alongside a descriptive edit summary.' A friendly word of advice might be in order. Narky Blert (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed Hormorkunmy doing the same thing. They have re-introduced an incorrect image to the Matthew Cream article, which was removed earlier this year. I have a COI so I am not interested in editing the article, and had actually forgotten that I saw it happen, until this thread popped up. (Will notify Hormorkunmy of this thread.) Daniel (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I removed the Matthew Cream image, and also put in a rename request at Commons, to hopefully prevent this from happening again. I notice that multiple editors have raised the issue in the past that the image does not depict the subject. (And my own research suggests the same.) Levivich 17:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Levivich! Daniel (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Purely for info - we have edit filter 1073 (recent hits) tracking all edits using the WPWP tags. firefly ( t · c ) 13:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which includes some of my undos, as I've added the tags and "photobombing" in the edit summaries. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More editors are joining in. Many of their contributions are helpful; some are not. At the risk of promoting a leaderboard, this list summarises the edits. It would have been nice to have some input into or at least notice of this initiative. Certes (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite frankly, I think we need to start giving out blocks if editors are noncommunicative and add images in a disruptive manner. A contest taking place is not a free pass for behavior that we would not tolerate otherwise. --Rschen7754 17:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the same redundant image from Mogadishu University no less than four times - each time it had been added by a different user. Apart from that, I have reverted a number of other image additions, and warned several users about disruption.
    Some weeks ago, I started a thread at m:Talk:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021#Cryptic edit summaries, and the replies there by T Cells (talk · contribs) are not entirely to my satisfaction - for example, there is no assurance that the contest organisers will check the participating edits, let alone revert the bad ones. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    T Cells did ask all part taking organizers of the different languages and communities to do so, but they might not check this on a daily basis. One global organizer (= T Cells) cannot be held responsible for all edits done in the total campaign, and individual users are always responsible for their own edits. If a user cannot or will not converse (even on a basic level) with the rest of the language community even though they keep on doing disruptive edits, I think a block is indeed appropriate. It is against the competition rules to add images to Wikipedia's without a decent description in the language of that Wikipedia, or for instance to add pictures in bulk, like adding complete galleries. The goal of the competition is to add unused images to articles without any images, and on a secondary level to maybe create a more cultural diversity in images used in an article if appropriate - but always keeping in mind proportionality of the amount of images in relation to the article text. Ciell (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these edits just don't seem right. Like look at this. Article is about HMS Havock (H43), but the picture is of HMS Hasty (H24) with the caption of "sister ship HMS Hunter"? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More edits by same user that I'm unsure about (ie, they could be fine, but just unsure of appropriateness myself): [299], [300] (adding a picture of apparently a U.S. Navy ship to an article about an Imperial Japanese one), [301], etc. Most seem fine though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar issues at HMS Exmoor (L61) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where two of the editors involved in this stupidity have added a completely incorrect image in the last 24 hours, despite the image including a very specific note about which ship it refers to. I don't see why the time of other editors should be wasted cleaning up the mess this is creating. FDW777 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with this contest is it values quantity over quality. TBH I don't think it's reasonable to expect the contest organisers to check 51,000 edits, but our volunteer corps can't either, so this is a conundrum. I think overall more edits are helpful than not, but the bad edits can be quite a problem. Apparently the comment by the organisers suggests local blocks for issues disqualify from the contest, so that should be an incentive to ensure accuracy. If the community wants, we could also do a local edit filter throttle reminding users of local policy requirements if they're adding images too quickly. Or we can just tough it out and deal with individual users if there are problems. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we be allowing someone who is banned from English Wikipedia to organise a contest that includes edits to English Wikipedia articles? Doesn't that violate the spirit of WP:PROXYING? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think next year the English Wikipedia must opt-out of the contest, and we must make it very clear. Yesterday the #WPWP edits which were on my watchlist showed an error rate of about 50% (bad quality, bad captions, sometimes the image did not show the subject of the article). I understand that some people need money and hope to earn some in this way, but for me 50% error rate is close to the point when I would just blank-revert everything without looking at individual edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The ip User:103.211.190.133 had made a legal threat on my talk page when raising issues regarding a content dispute. [302] and [303]. While one of the comments has since been removed [304], the ip still has left the comment that I have violated some law in India. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Special:contributions/103.211.190.0/23 for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncommunicative editor replacing logos and wordmarks with photos in infoboxes with photos

    Omolarabasirat‎ is replacing logos, wordmarks, and seals with photos in infoboxes (e.g., University of San Francisco‎, Phillips Academy, Citibank). Two editors, including myself, have left several messages in his or her User Talk page to ask for explanations about these edits (and the many, many other edits he or she is making to add images to articles) but he or she has not responded in any way. This editor is adding, and in some casing replacing, images to many articles quite rapidly. Some of the edits may be helpful but replacing appropriate and helpful images in infoboxes and ignoring all attempts at discussion is disruptive and needs to stop; please temporarily block this editor until he or she communicates with us. ElKevbo (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is related to a thread above ("Users adding images to articles at a high rate of speed") but this specific editor needs to be blocked now to prevent further obvious disruption. This is not a general concern about the use of these edit summaries and this contest but a specific problem with a specific editor. ElKevbo (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 31 hours per my explanation above. --Rschen7754 17:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated insults, WP:AGF violations, edit-warring by 213.172.123.242

    213.172.123.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was blocked by @Ymblanter: for vandalism by earlier this month, frequently insults other editors when they disagree with them and edit-wars. Diffs and links:

    I think that is enough material to warrant a block. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    [307] "You are a full flown complete special idiot". Note that I am not a fan of the behavior of Klõps either, who is not interested in looking for consensus, and would revert any mention that Estonia in 1940-90 was part of Soviet Union multiple times until their opponents get exhausted.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More was added to my Talk page after my report, and then removed [308]: "O. k. Then block me, aßhole. Wikiepedia is fucked up, anyway. Idiot." "Du deutsches Asshol. Sheisz drauf" Robby.is.on (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the IP tried to alter User:Robby.is.on's comments here, I think that some sort of escalating block is in order - after all they do appear to be literally asking to be blocked.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP just recently had a 1 week block for vandalism. I've given them 2 weeks for this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet of user:allknowingroger spotted

    The user who was the subject of this is back under the name User:Adorvisa. Given that they're focusing on the same thing and reverting my edits, it's pretty obviously the same person. Can I revert their edits? (And can we do a community ban of them?) Best, -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 18:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rockstone35, subject to what? The allknowingroger account is not blocked (nor have they ever been blocked). Their last edit was over a month ago. It's possible they lost their details and registered the Adorvisa username as a new account. If so, they should disclose that, but maybe they simply don't know they have to. El_C 21:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C, are both of them socks of blocked User:RogerNiceEyes? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C -- like Cullen328 said, they are sockpuppets of RogerNiceEyes. People just didn't bother blocking allknowingroger because they disappeared. This is part of their Modus Operandi. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kavkas dubious edits with a nationalist nature, same stance as sockpuppets which vandalised the page previously

    User:Kavkas is vandalising and falsifying history on Ingush people and Ingushetia. He has reverted and spammed the previous correct version from the 6th July. The current version of those 2 pages look to me like blog-entries which usually would be encountered on nationalist forums. Examples of falsified history >under the pretext of defense of lowland Ingush people from vassal Chechen, Kabardin, Dagestan and Nogai attacks, which were orchestrated by Russia<, >After multiple losses of Imam Shamil at the end of Caucasian War, Russians and Chechens unify their forces< and >Strabo first mentions Geli, or Galgai in his reference to a nation in the center of the Caucasus< (the Geli are confirmed to be the Scythian tribe Gelae, which doesn't stop Kavkas from pushing the narrative that the Geli are the modern Ingush, see here). Now to some of his accusiations against me: here he claims I "threaten" him while trying to involve me into a political/ethnical conflict and claims my "hatred toward the Ingush people is obvious". He also mentions "both North Ossetia and Chechnya seek to further carve up Ingushetia between the two republics, with backing from the Russian federal government (...) along with other forms of propaganda", which (claiming my edits are state-sponsored) is something previous sockpuppets have done, see this sockpuppet. The full archived investigation and list of sockpuppets can be found here. Another example of his similar/same stance as the sockpuppets. I hope the issue can be fixed and the articles return to a neutral state. ~Reiner Gavriel (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2021

    All my sources are referenced from American, English, Russian, German etc. neutral sites who have nothing to do with Ingush people or Ingushetia. "After multiple losses of Imam Shamil at the end of Caucasian War, Russians and Chechens unify their forces" these are Russian Evdokimov's words not mine. Geli as Ghalghai as Ingush mentioned by O.W. Wahl in 1875 in his book "The Land of the Czar" page 239 mentioned "These two opinions mentioned by Strabo come after all to the same point ; for the Legi are the modern Lesghi, and the Geli the Ingush tribe Galgai, and the Keraunian Mountains are the northern ranges of the Caucasus as far as the Beshtaú."[1] The same statement about Gelia being Ingush was made by a German professor Karl Koch in 1843 in his book "Reise durch Russland nach dem kaukasischen Isthmus" page 489.[2] Jacobus Van Wijk Roelandszoon, Jacobus van Wijk (Roelandszoon) in 1821 book "Algemeen aardrijkskundig woordenboek volgens de nieuwste staatkundige veranderingen, en de laatste, beste en zekerste berigten" page 1050 also mention that Gelli or Gelad are the Ingush people which is mentioned by Zonaras.[3] Stop your personal anti-Ingush attacks. Kavkas (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "The Land of the Czar". Wahl. 1875. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
    2. ^ "Reise durch Russland nach dem kaukasischen Isthmus". Karl Koch. 1843. Retrieved 2014-02-28.
    3. ^ "Algemeen aardrijkskundig woordenboek volgens de nieuwste staatkundige veranderingen, en de laatste, beste en zekerste berigten". Jacobus van Wijk. 1821. Retrieved 2014-02-28.

    Economy of West Bengal socks/trolls

    Economy of West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    This article (and related articles) were discussed here in June. Things died down after socks were blocked, but it's blown back up again. I can't work out who is driving which changes, but it's definitely in need of admin attention once more. pauli133 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I semi-protected the article for three months and am hoping pauli133 will clean it up. Ponyo commented in the "discussed here in June" link and may be able to work out what else needs to be done. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that's a start. Can that be bumped up to ECP? I'm already getting interference. pauli133 (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrassment

    Hi

    A banned user from fr:wiki insulted me again here after 2019. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked one month for personal attacks. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Devranzio

    Devranzio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted results from Olympic badminton pages, even after I warned him. Flix11 (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bbb23: He is using 180.252.29.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) now. Flix11 (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Farrel Alfaro Ho

    Farrel Alfaro Ho is continuing to add unsourced information to articles despite multiple final warnings and a ban earlier this month. Is currently active, and does not seem to have responded at all to any previous warnings. Meticulo (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Farrel Alfaro Ho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[reply]
    Lego Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ellen's Game of Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Vandalism on various economy pages

    There seems to be multiple pages being vandalized I.E changes being made with no RS, these pages include Economy of Kolkata, Economy of Chittagong, Economy of West Bengal, Economy of Delhi, Economy of Mumbai. Some of these pages have been semi protected but it doesn't seem to be working as the editors are confirmed. Tommi1986 let's talk! 13:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1035579487"