Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Wikihounding by user Trangabellam

I am seeking an admin intervention to finally put an end to constant wikihounding by user Trangabellam. I am really tired of this user's relentless pursuit of me, aggressive rhetoric, incivility and never-ending bad faith assumptions.

I do understand if some users track other users' edits for collegial or administrative purposes, and with good cause, but the aforementioned user tracks me everywhere with a sole intent: to cause irritation, annoyance, and distress. This sticks out of a mile when you check his/her attitude and these mocking statements directed at me such as (you keep writing nonsense.., you won't learn anything..., The OP exhibits a IDHT attitude and is unaware of where his competencies lie) . Besides, this user has recently posted an over-the-fence “no-edit order” at my t/p (diff 1), which grossly violates WP:NOEDIT: no editor may unilaterally take charge over an article by sending no-edit orders, and create his/her own policies. All editors have equal rights to edit all articles, templates, project pages, and all other parts of Wikipedia if not blocked by level of protection.

A couple of days ago (I took it as a point of no return and the latest evidence of her wikihounding on me, after which I decided to take my concerns here), Trangabellam again tracked me and cattily joined the discussion (diff 2) at the t/p of the page, which again, has never ever been edited by him/her since that article was created in 2005 (diff 3) (search for user Trangabellam if you find one). Trangabellam, as expected, sided against me and threw away such mocking adjectives as “ridiculous”, without presenting a reasonable argument to defend his/her stand on the issue.

This wasn’t the first time it happened. For instance, I got in on the act to figure out the reason behind the revert of my contribution by user F&F at this t/p diff 4. Just after I made my case known, Trangabellam was there before you know it, responding first and quickly siding with user F&F, again without providing any argument for doing so:

[Detailed reply incoming]. Broadly, I am in agreement with F&F. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

As expected, this user's detailed reply is still on its way since July 5, 2022. (diff 4.1)

According to WP:HOUND: "The offender usually singles out an editor by maliciously joining discussions on multiple pages or topics that editor may regularly contribute to and in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". It continues with: "Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place-to-place on Wikipedia, and often can be identified by reviewing the offending user's contributions." Trangabellam even tracked me up to admin Yamla’s t/p to whom I appealed looking for advice to tackle his/her behavior of wikihounding (trying to resolve it without creating too much drama) and posted my concerns there (diff 5), notwithstanding the fact that I didn't even ping this user (diff 5.1). Moreover, Trangabellam’s countless false accusations, like the one where he/she accused me of adding "nonsense" to the page, she has never contributed before (diff 6 (diff 7), eventually turned out (diff 8) to be actually this user’s own contribution (diff 9).

Trangabellam wouldn’t discontinue this, and after a short passage of time he/she again falsely accused me of edit-warring here (diff 10), and distorted facts from my discussion Talk:Babur#Verse from Babur's poetry. There was no edit-warring, I didn’t undo the revert even once. The history of the page is for everyone to see (diff 11) (see June 5th, 2022). In fact, it was another, experienced editor who undid the revert (diff 12), diff 13) and actually supported my addition to that page. Instead of Trangabellam’s imaginary edit-warring, I decided to find a compromise and created a whole new section (diff 13.1) in that article, which definitely improved the page. But of course, this user won’t ever mention that and my other similar contributions.

I’m open to work and collaborate with everyone, but in a healthy, mutually respectful environment. I proved it this when recently Trangabellam claimed that addition of translated material (even if a little re-worded) was against Wikipedia’s policy on plagiarism (diff 14). I presented my opinion regarding that with civility and immediately stated that if proved wrong by a competent admin, I would have no objections to removing those sentences. This was not a deliberate disruption, since even the complainant admitted that this was in fact Wikipedia’s grey area (diff 15). Also, one of Wikipedia’s long-serving and in my opinion, outstanding editors, user HistoryofIran, also cast his doubt whether this can qualify as plagiarism (diff 16).

I strongly believe that all of the above bear a close resemblance to wikihounding. Besides Trangabellam constantly exhibit the patterns of behavior with arrogance, ridicule and satire. This is one of the latest examples ([1]). This user did his/her best trying to ridicule me and my work again, showcasing him/herself as a history expert while goofing on the Soviet academic he/she didn’t know, instead getting humiliated him/herself at the end of the day. Lately, he/she addressed in the same uncivil way to a user, who happened to be the GA reviewer (diff 17) of the page nominated to GA by me.

Furthermore, this user's ominous "I will keep a tab over your editorial activities" diff 18 posted at my t/p is basically a confession in Wikihounding for me.

Finally, this user's actions are accurately summarized in WP:Hound, which says that the important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing. Following another user around, if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

I kindly ask admins to take their time and look at every single diff carefully. This behavior does cause profound stress, is disruptive, and should be stopped. Thank you, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• When you are mentioning other editors like @Fowler&fowler, you need to post a notification at their t/p. As F&F and admins like RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Bishonen, Abecedare et al can attest to, I am among the most prolific editors of pages concerning S. Asian history including the Mughals. In contrast, how many topics on S. Asian history have you edited? As to my charges of edit-warring, I repeated what administrator Abecedare told you at the t/p (vide, @Visioncurve, I (Abecedare) am disappointed that an experienced editor such as yourself is edit-warring in article-space instead of discussing the issue here to arrive at a consensus.) It might be that you were not edit-warring but you need to introspect on why so many experienced editors including me, Ab, F&F and others tend to oppose your edits or characterize your editorial activities in an unfair manner.
  @ANI audience: This thread is a response to User_talk:Visioncurve#Turkoman_(ethnonym) and User_talk:Visioncurve#Machine_translation:_Plagiarism_and_Copyright. The OP has a long history of misrepresenting sources (see this thread for an egregious example) that warrants scrutiny. Fwiw, a year ago, the OP had apologized to me for their "frustrating response to [my] decent remarks".
  I spot that the OP has written an entire paragraph on his copyright violations where he presented [his] opinion [] with civility and immediately stated that if proved wrong by a competent admin, [he] would have no objections to removing those sentences. I will leave administrator ToBeFree to be the judge of the situation; VC's defensive responses that had incurred a block-threat from ToBeFree is emblematic of his problematic approach to editing guised under "civility". Civility does not allow you to post machine-translate of vernacular translations and then, request for evaluation from "competent admins"; civility does not allow you to misrepresent sources etc.
  As to my "no-edit-order" (huh - ?) at Tuqaq, it was a request and I was terribly frustrated with how he went about editing topics on Sejuq history using fringe (Soviet) sources which, now, appears to have been machine-translated. I regret that I have nothing but satire to offer when VC uses romantic fiction novellas to write articles on Seljuqid history.
  I will post about a dozen examples of egregious misrepresentations of source and other issues from the OP (please keep an eye at this page) but need a day to compile them, before invoking WP:BOOMERANG. Some examples can be found in Talk:Tuqaq#Maintenance_Tags, Talk:Turkoman_(ethnonym) etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  TrangaBellam, I was just looking at one of the diffs and noticed [2] and I wondering if you could explain what you meant by might I suggest that any improvements to Magtymguly Pyragy is an exercise in futility? Simply put, there does not exist enough reliable sources to write an encyclopedic biography of the subject. Gusfriend (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, @Gusfriend.

  There are many subjects who are deserving of proper historical scholarship but as of now, lacks it. The only way of writing something decent on our subject is using sub-optimal drivel sources from Turkmenistan. VC had once used such sources to push the article past GA before I critiqued the sources alongside the inaccuracies in the content; a Community-Reaasessment was launched by me, and was failed by an uninvolved editor. That section is worth reading in entirety; for every criticism I made of the content, VC subjected me to random accusations like "negative opinion against Turkmenistan arising from my stay at the country", "fondness for some [Western] scholars" etc. Despite the tonne of criticism that I presented against state-sponsored scholars of Turkmenistan, he remained oblivious to their unreliability. Though, in fairness, VC did apologize to me a year later for their "frustrating response to [my] decent remarks".

  So, a month ago, when I spotted VC devoting another round of efforts to the article (once again, using mostly-vernacular sources), I left a note. Does that satisfy you? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  That makes sense. Can I suggest, were such a situation to arise again, giving the GA context, perhaps something like sufficient for the article to reach GA status." at the end? Gusfriend (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, that is very agreeable. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Gusfriend In the meanwhile, I am adding to User:TrangaBellam/VC. Will like to hear your opinion. Ty! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hey TB, just a note: After you've finished gathering evidence [which I presume you'll post it here or AE or somewhere relevant?], would you mind deleting that page? :) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Dax, I will be moving a boomerang proposal shortly. Thanks for the pointer to U1 though. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Now that I clicked on every diff mentioned in the OP's post, it appears that the comments, which the OP took as "a point of no return", were misunderstood (do not ask me, how) to be against them, when they were actually in the OP's favor. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's irrelevant as it doesn't cancel the fact of your latest wikihounding me.

You were quite right when you mentioned that I had apologized to you initially and gave props to your respective remarks. You knew I was open to cooperation and work with you to improve those pages (diff 2), I even posted 3 similar messages in your t/p (1, diff 3, diff 4) and waited for your positive response. Little did I know back then how mistaken I was that your true intent was not to collaborate, but undermine and ridicule as can be seen through your derisive language and uncivil rhetoric in the messages you posted at my t/p (diff 5), Tuqaq's talk page (diff 6) and countless other places (see the above diffs). Who would choose to cooperate with you after all this or reply to your respective inquiries when you always assume bad faith and exhibit patterns of disruptive behavior? Accordingly, I have decided not to respond to your latest walls of messages, but your latest tracking me to Kutadgu Bilig's talk page was "enough is enough".

Besides, I believe that all your above-mentioned reasons and explanations don't grant you an exclusive right of wikihounding others, undermining or taunting them. I am not a serial plagiarist, vandal, POV-pusher or under a temporary unblock truce to deserve the kind of monitoring enough to try the patience of a saint. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 15:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You engaged in the same behavior with me, accusing me of roughly the same things, a year ago. Then you went on a year-long break, came back after a year to concede that your editing and responses was indeed inappropriate, and went back to similar editing. Shall I expect you to do the same now or shall I proceed to initiate a boomerang?

I expect that editors, irrespective of their skills, have integrity. That they shall not misrepresent sources. That after using machine translations, they shall not claim to the contrary. Writing must be enjoyable but only for those who can write without resorting to academic malpractices. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I am active in similar topic areas. My view is that while TrangaBellam has been hounding Visioncurve to some extent, this has been done in good faith; the latter's edits needed to be brought to administrator attention sooner. Visioncurve is supremely unwilling to change their editing habits, most importantly their proclivity to misrepresent sources. This can be seen in this very ANI post, where they misrepresent the community consensus at this discussion to be that of a question from HistoryofIran, rather than the conclusive points of two administrators, ToBeFree and Dianaa. Strong WP:BOOMERANG needed — Visioncurve is capable of producing good content, but seemingly prefers not to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, I agree with your characterisation. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• The Original Post by Visioncurve is too long, didn't read. If they have something to say, they can say it concisely. If they have something to say and have to provide a lot of background (which they didn't), they can say it concisely and provide the background material on a subpage. I will read the boomerang proposal in a little while. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• I am not involved in this dispute.

(Later: I am striking some parts of the following because while they are true in the context of the complaint I am writing I cannot fairly ascribe them to TB, who is the sole person in this complaint. I should probably have done this last night but was uncertain what to do about the wrong-subject-of-the-verb problem But in an ANI I need to be completely fair to the person being scrutinized and I apologize for not figuring out sooner how to amend TL;DR=1st AfD, Kautilya3 2nd TB and Kautilya3) But there is no question in my mind that TrangaBellam engaged in hounding(Kautilya3) and biting a new editor named Minaro123 all through a number of related articles over some sort of political point that apparently in TB's mind amounts to righting the great wrongs of Hindu nationalism.

While I might even agree that the latter is a problem. I noticed the dispute I am describing when TB Kautilya3 tried to AfD an article (Aryan Valley) over its content. While doing due diligence, I noticed TB Kautilya3 removing material in another article as "OR" that was in fact sourced to Al-Jazeera. I found, on talking to the newbie, that nobody had as yet explained the reliable sources policy to him. TB Kautilya3 had just serially removed material while citing it. The editor, btw, is responsive and trying to do the right thing, and his work has vastly improved since I first began to work with him.

When the AfD for Aryan Valley closed as keep, TB essentially bulldozed the article's content, leaving only a discussion of how the inhabitants of Aryan Valley are not actually Aryan, which btw the article specifically had not claimed. This was cited to a genetics article. Uninvolved editors had already explained to TB Kautilya3 at the Aryan Valley AfD that the genetics source was irrelevant to an article about a location, but apparently TB Kautilya3 did not hear that.

Then a sock (since blocked as such) filed another AfD for an article about a subset of the region's villages, Dah Hanu, which is still open, and where TB taunted me for objecting to TB's behaviour, begging me to file a complaint and claiming that DS sanctions are not in effect with respect to the India-Pakistan line of control. I believe that I got the acronym wrong, and perhaps someone can educate me on this point, so that I can file that complaint as requested, in the proper venue.

If admins would prefer to focus on one thing at a time I can understand that, and will confine myself here in the meantime to suggesting a second look at whatever the problem is here, since I find it entirely plausible that TB has hounded and dismissed a new editor in a very high handed manner, and soon will be officially saying so. I am busy RL and probably won't have my diffs together for about a week, if that helps anyone to decide whether to ask me questions here about what I am describing. But seeing this post made me wonder if there is a pattern beyond just opposing any mention on Wikipedia of a small and remote ethnic group, and gaming AfD to remove mentions of it that do make it in. Elinruby (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• I wonder what happened at the article t/p. Maybe two longstanding editors — Kautilya3 and JoshuaJonathan — supported my edits?
  Btw, that Minaro123 has edited a single article till date, hard to prove that I was hounding him. Anyway, "gaming AfD" is a serious charge and I will prefer that you open a fresh thread with all the evidence than hijacking one. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, I did not ask *you*. It is indeed a serious charge, and I stand by it. But I am not going to go into it in this thread unless asked. I have had a bit of a look at this now and it looks complicated enough, and with enough of a learning curve, that it probably should be dealt with without additional moving parts. Nor does the the OP look blameless, though I am still reading. And yet there is an echo ...you seem to have claimed that "drivel" Turkmeni sources should not be used for an article about a Turkmeni writer. Surely you aren't saying that all Turkmeni sources are drivel. Who better to discuss the father of Turkmeni literature? But don't answer that, I am still digging; I find I have some time on my hands unexpectedly and am quite interested suddenly in your views on ethnic identity. Cheers. Elinruby (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a public forum; I have a right to reply to your baseless accusations that ignores a t/p consensus in my favor. That aside, do whatever without derailing the thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hahaha. I am not taking that bait. I have said I would not reply further unless asked a question. However there is an error one of my facts, I have since realized, and I feel the need to mention that. However, on reading this thread and its links, I do see a familiar pattern, particularly the fixation on certain sources as correct while dismissing others. But this complaint is complicated enough on its own, and probably the two matters are better handled separately. I just came back here to note the error. I also feel a need to add that I question whether all Turkmeni sources are drivel.Elinruby (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess that I shall thank you? You are obviously free to bring a separate thread against me.

As to the latter question, it is probably worthy of being discussed at RSN. Fwiw, I do wish to correct you that I did not claim all "Turkmeni" sources to be drivel (that will be racist) but rather "sources produced by scholars affiliated with Turkmenistan government in any manner" (which, in an indirect way, equals all Turkmeni sources after 1992) to be "drivel". I stand by my characterizations.

Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

yes, it does sound very bigoted, but more importantly it's a misunderstanding of our policy on sources. A source can be reliable and still be wrong or biased or mendacious. We discuss that, we don't suppress it. Elinruby (talk)

I've had a look at about half of the OP's diffs in context. In several places, TrangaBellam comes across as brusque or unnecessarily bitey: such tone should ideally have been avoided, but it's also not unrelatable. That Visioncurve would be frustrated at the attention TrangaBellam has directed at their contributions is also understandable, but I don't see that attention as unwarranted given what appears like a long history of sourcing problems. – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Boomerang for Visioncurve

As AirshipJungleman29 notes above, "Visioncurve's edits needed to be brought to administrator attention sooner. Visioncurve is supremely unwilling to change their editing habits, most importantly their proclivity to misrepresent sources [..] Strong WP:BOOMERANG needed."

So, without further delay, I wish to attract the attention of the community and its administrators to this subpage, where I document a multitude of misrepresentation of sources alongside use of unreliable sources, pushing of fringe POVs etc. Accordingly, I seek for appropriate sanctions against Visioncurve.

• Support as nom - I propose that Visioncurve be banned from editing any article on history for an indefinite period; however, they can propose edits to the articles using talk-page. On a succesful probation of six months, Visioncurve can appeal before the community at AN/ANI for repeal. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. The problems outlined are serious and cast serious doubt on the editor's ability to contribute acceptable content in this topic area. Much of the problematic content was originally added in 2020 or 2021, but there are at least two edits that were made in the past month [3] [4]. Visioncurve, I would like to hear what you may have to say here. – Uanfala (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Uanfala Fwiw, Visioncurve took a eight-month-long break from October 2021 to June 2022. That explains the scarcity to an extent. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  AirshipJungleman29, I wonder how you'd explain then TrangaBellam's mocking rhetoric at my t/p (diff 1), bad faith assumption (when he/she called my (Soviet and Turkish) sources "shabby" and failed to recognize a well-known Soviet historian, later embarrassing him/herself) and expert on that issue (diff 1.1) (diff 2) and ended with him/her embarrassing him/herself, and false accusations of adding "nonsense" (diff 3 (diff 4), (diff 5) when it was actually his/her addition to that page (diff 6) and of edit-warring when it has never happened (diff 7), (diff 8) (see June 5th, 2022), (diff 9), diff 10) as well as maliciously joining discussion to just oppose me (without providing any argument for his/her stand on the issue) at Talk:Mughal_Empire#Persian_influence as a good cause wikihounding?

  Robert McClenon, I believe that's the reason why a couple of editors I'm happy to know advised me not to take my concern to ANI, because they believed that usually first complaint (and its respective diffs) were not thoroughly checked, and that it was better to read immediately-posted replies or the last lines of discussion, or counter accusations (like Boomerang), as in your case.

  TrangaBellam, as for you, your allegation regarding misrepresentation of sources or lack of sources were left without my attention, since:

  1) I told you before that I refused to reply to your inquiries because of your long history of disruptive behavior towards me;

  2) As the admin, and by chance, GA Reviewer of my page Lee_VilenskiLee Vilenski rightly noted: (when you rushed to his/herthat user's t/p after he/she had presented my page with GA status) and employed similar aggressive rhetoric towards him/her (calling him/her "oblivious" and suggesting that he/she doesn't understand English) (dif 11) - you were not a nominator of that page.

  However, I have come to conclusion to respond to your latest "allegation" in order to prove my stance. Besides, I hope respective admins would notice that your inequitable request to indef block an editor (with a probation of 6 months) who hasn't vandalized, made personal attacks, constantly edit-warred or committed similar gross violations of Wikipedia policies basically proves your true intent and disruptive attitude towards me. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  You made the same allegations when you opened the thread against me. More importantly, why are you indenting this post as a reply to me/Uanfala? What a mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  I will address the only new concern raised against me which allegedly proves my "true intent": first things first, I did not request any indefinite block but rather, an indefinite T-Ban.

  Leave me aside. Why do you think that Uanfala, who has no bone in the dispute, finds that [t]he problems outlined are serious and cast serious doubt on the editor's [Visioncurve's] ability to contribute acceptable content in this topic area? Or, AirshipJungleman29, who found that you have a proclivity to misrepresent sources? Do every other editor - me, F&F, Uanfala, AJM - has some kind of axe to grind against you? Have you read WP:1AM? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hmmm. Although that reply is a mess, and some of it doesn't make sense, there are some good points in there. TrangaBellam should have brought your issues to administrator attention sooner, instead of doing what can probably be defined as hounding, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Visioncurve, I appreciate that it may be annoying or even upsetting to have TrangaBellam go after your edits. However, what I'm interested in hearing from you here is your take specifically on those of the points that TrangaBellam has made on this page that relate to those two of your edits: [5] [6]. You can reply whenever you have the time and headspace, I'm not in a rush. – Uanfala (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, Uanfala, and thanks for your understanding response. AirshipJungleman29, my apologies for the last post of mine being indeed messy and comprised of a number of flaws; it was written in a hurry. I've amended it now without altering the core structure of my post. So, my apologies again. Regards, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 06:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Visioncurve, I did say I was not in a hurry, but I am expecting your response to the issues outlined by TrangaBellam. – Uanfala (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I have reverted VC's edit which tampered with their previous posts, after they had been already replied to, for violating WP:TALK#REPLIED.

  Fwiw, a new case of misrepresentation, about a month old, has been discovered at User talk:Uanfala#Note. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I've restored that edit: it didn't change the meaning of the post (if it's about the bit about "embarrassing", that was repeated from earlier in the sentence). TrangaBellam, you're involved here, so please don't try clerking the discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Noted, Uanfala. But I am unhappy about the removal of the qualifier "embarassing"; VC alleged that I had "embarassed" myself while challenging the source, which was since discovered to have been misrepresented at the thread on your t/p. I will leave to your discretion. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  The "embarassing" bit is still there, it's just not repeated twice in the same sentence. – Uanfala (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  After all what's said and done, it surprises me that you still try to contest me even at such minor and insignificant things as my previous edit which attempted to bring order to my own mess, comprised of the same repeated words, broken links (Lee Velinsky one) and gender pronoun issues such as he/she. Moreover, you didn't embarrass yourself by challenging the source; you humiliated yourself with failing to recognize a well-known Soviet ethnographer and historian, while trying to showcase yourself as a history ace or hotshot, initially making fun of his name and calling him "shabby" (diff 1), (diff 2). Uanfala, I am really sorry for taking so long, but I will start posting my response regarding those two edits of mine you identified above, starting from tomorrow. Thanks, Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 13:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  "Making fun of his name" - Huh? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  To clarify, Visioncurve, the points in question are #2 and #10 from the current revision of this page. They pertain to two of your edits from December. – Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I've removed the collapsed evidence listing: it duplicates the subpage linked above and causes hiccups with the automatic archiving. – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Visioncurve has responded to the first of those two points; the response and the follow-up discussion are now on this subpage. The short version is as follows: a piece of article text added by Visioncurve stated that A was the father of B. That statement wasn't found in the source cited, but there exists another, related, source, which notes that, according to what seems like a semi-legendary narrative, A was the grandfather of B. Yes, this is not an end-of-the-world mistake, but it only concerns a single short sentence. The only thing that the original got right was the existence of a relation between A and B, but it was wrong about the nature of the relation, it was apparently wrong about the historicity of that fact, and it cited the wrong source.

It's especially concerning that this issue (along with the the second point here: that's #10 in the linked page) was brought up by TrangaBellam in October 2021 at Talk:Tuqaq#GA_Reassessment, but Visioncurve brushed it off and then a year later re-inserted the problematic content. They have responded to some previous feedback, but that appears to have been the exception rather than the rule. It's normal to occasionally make mistakes in understanding the sources, we all have done that. But to ignore the feedback when someone points these out and to continue making the same mistakes, that's not alright. The list of problems at User:TrangaBellam/VC are probably enough for a topic ban from content work in the area of history. In my opinion, the only thing that can avert that, Visioncurve, is for you to take the criticism on board. It's up to you to reflect on things and figure out what can be done so that these problems don't arise again. And you really need to be more receptive to legitimate criticism of your work. – Uanfala (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hounding and edit warring by Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)

I have already had several runnings with this person on the Simferopol article, as shown from my POV here (you're welcome to read the entire Simferopol talk page and form your own opinion), which in fact resulted in me significantly reducing my participation on Wikipedia because I have neither the time nor the desire to waste hours dealing with this person's accusations, given that nobody seems particularly interested in telling him off. However, today I woke up to find that he had gone through my edit list and undid 4 of my last 5 edits (I initially mistook one of his reverts for a previous user re-introducing his changes) in a handful of minutes (his diffs [7], [8], [9], [10]), without even checking what he was reverting, let alone the talk page. I reverted (manually) some of his changes trying to address his concerns and he once again mass reverted, again without checking (to the point of re-introducing stuff he had previously removed), and paid a courtesy visit to a discussion page (because I prompted him to) merely to drop a one-liner to justify his revert.

All of this, plus the fact that he had literally zero edits on any of these pages previous to this episode, suggest that he explicitly looked my profile up and went through the contribs page to undo my edits, likelier than not to spite me, as this is not the first time he comes after me following a hiatus - the last time, after 10 days without intervening on Simferopol, he came back out of the blue to accuse me for the nth time of being a "sleeper single purpose account" planted to disseminate Russian nationalist disinformation. I have no interest in engaging in an edit war with this person, or engaging with this person at all, but he seems hellbent on trying to annoy me. I'm not planning on responding to anything he has to say about this here, but I'm happy to address anyone else's concerns. Ostalgia (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

1. These pages were on my watchlist.

2. These were all bad edits, with the account "Ostalgia" edit warring with other users (in particular User:Mzajac [11])

3. Aside from one instance there was no participation on talk from Ostalgia

4. This is an account which was dormant until May 2022, having made only a dozen edits prior to that. Some of the edit summaries suggest this isn't their only account [12] (again? when did they interact or edit that article previously?)

Volunteer Marek 16:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Have both of you guys tried to resolve the dispute via discussion at talk page or WP:Dispute resolution? I think it would be better for both of you guys to not go through ANI in this case. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia - You were told (that was only 3 months ago) to seek consensus and dispute resolution last time you were blocked, didn't you?

Quote: ..you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution..[13] - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't get your point. For starters, this is not a content dispute. If anything, you could say I'm in a content dispute with Mzajac, with whom I am in fact engaged in a talk page discussion after he reverted an edit I made to a page he had last edited weeks ago, a bold edit that was reverted by someone else and for which he, by the way, did not seek consensus.

Fundamentally, however, am I supposed to discuss and seek consensus (?) with Volunteer Marek prior to editing a page where he has never edited in the past? How exactly would that work? Ostalgia (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia please ping me if you to start arguing our content dispute elsewhere.  —Michael Z. 17:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, but since you had been mentioned right above me I assumed you were already aware of this discussion (and I assumed correctly, I suppose, seeing as you had actually already replied by the time I posted the message you're responding to). Ostalgia (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

(And not that I need explain myself, but the dubious string of edits on and after December 30, that wiped out solidly sourced information on the subject’s identity, is why I came back to restore the lead in that article.)  —Michael Z. 17:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia What are you doing here? Provide links to discussions you initiated and then to dispute resolution please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

If you read my message you'll get a pretty clear idea of what I'm doing here, and it has nothing to do with a content dispute, as I have already told you (and you seem only too happy to ignore). Ostalgia (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So no links? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia: Then you'll need to explain what behaviour issue is so intractable that you felt the need to go straight to ANI, rather than discuss the issue at all with Volunteer Marek, or provide links for any prior discussion. Remember, ANI is a last resort. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 20:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in the very first line of my post, I have already had issues with Volunteer Marek on the Simferopol article. I provided a link to a summary of my previous interactions with him. This is the link, again - it leads to a previous ANI case. As explained there, I previously attempted to engage him by opening a discussion on the talk page, where he repeatedly and routinely dismissed sources, but fundamentally, where I was accused of pushing nationalist disinformation, being a sleeper single-purpose account, pushing putinist irredentist propaganda, being a sockpuppet and WP:NOTHERE. As can be seen in my summary, I also hit back at Marek. You can check the entire talk page discussion here. I hope you'll understand why I am reluctant to engage with him in any sort of discussion again lest it devolve into that once more. Ostalgia (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I second the call for peace talks, or at least a civil truce.

The fact is that scholarship on Ukraine is being decolonized, resulting in sources’ viewpoints being revised[14] (e.g., Degas’ Ukrainian dancers’ name corrected).[15][16] This process started in the mid 20th century, accelerated after 1992, 2014, and 2022, and will continue being an issue (remember, we retitled not only Odessa and Kiev, but also Kharkov back in 2004).

It is easy to find support for widely divergent views on these things and for conflicts to arise. I suggest everyone become familiar with the essay WP:BIAS and consider that much of Western historiography on historical “Russia” in the broad sense is dated in some ways, but also that we should choose up-to-date sources without anticipating (WP:CRYSTAL) and losing track of Wikipedia content guidelines. And if you find yourself writing a personal message in an edit summary, better pause and take it to talk.

This won’t go away soon, so we need to learn to set an example and continue cooperating, not just these two editors.  —Michael Z. 17:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry, I can sort of engage in a civil debate with you because even though it is clear that we have very, very different viewpoints, at least you are open to dialogue and maintain a generally respectful approach to discussions. This has proven impossible in my dealings with Marek. Ostalgia (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

You could still find yourselves needing to coexist in this website, weeks or years from now.  —Michael Z. 18:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the edits in question, it would seem the edits by Volunteer Marek and perfectly correct. Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've found some of Volunteer Marek's edits in the Ukraine-Russia war space to be a bit strident and strong... Perhaps that's because they've had to put up with so much BS like this. What's in the linked diffs does not appear to be hounding and VM appears to have been willing to engage in discussion on the disputed points. The only thing that comes close to crossing the line is the "sleeper SPA" attack which doesn't appear to be justified based on the account's edit history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Horse Eye's Back The account (Ostalgia) was dormant from 2020 until 2022 (2 years) and then they jumped straight into the edit war in Russia-Ukraine topic area without showing signs of being a new account. It’s obvious. This behaviour continues despite the recent block. GizzyCatBella🍁 20:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That justifies "sleeper" but their editing history appears to be over a wide variety of topics. I wouldn't argue with someone who called them disruptive and suggested a topic ban but a SPA they are not (even if we are only looking at their 2022 edits). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back There is a history related to an extreme harassment of VM by new sleeper and sock-puppet accounts. I’ll not go into it now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Above does note refer to @Ostalgia - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

And what the heck does that have to do with whether or not the account is SPA? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I made edits more or less on a yearly basis since creating my account, but never in a sustained manner. I eventually got hooked by this event because it's an area I'm more or less familiar with in a professional capacity. I focus on topics mostly related to history (while avoiding stuff too closely related to my specific area of research, so as to not fall into a conflict of interest) and I have tried to steer clear of anything even remotely linked to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with the except of a paragraph on my article on the Ochakovo brewery in which I mentioned the brands they introduced, after the war resulted in an exodus of foreign companies. Since you're parroting the same accusation as Volunteer Marek, and for you It's obvious, I would like for you to tell me a) what is wrong with me not having been as active on this encyclopedia until an event caught my eye and b) what my single purpose is. Alternatively, you can retract your accusations of me being a SPA and a sockpuppet. Ostalgia (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia Done - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Appreciated, although it's hard to assume it doesn't refer to me when it literally has my name. I'm not picky, though. Ostalgia (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A "new" user making Russian nationalist-like edits is reverted, rightly. Comes to ANI to complain. Seems like a rebound is in order, of a topic-ban at the very least. ValarianB (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if adhering to WP:KYIV, MOS:ETHNICITY and MOS:PLACE is "Russian nationalist-like" then we've all lost the plot here. Ostalgia (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek following other editors to the point of WP:HARASSMENT? I'm afraid this may be a recurring behaviour. I know this is completely useless, but what can you do? So here are few diffs:

1. 03:00, 3 December 2022 I create a new article Ruslan Kotsaba, "the article is still incomplete and I will finish it in the next few days". From 18:47, 3 December 2022 to 19:15, 3 December 2022 VM makes 17 consecutive edits (!) with massive removals of sources and texts. I spend hours cleaning up the mess and bickering with him and his retinue.
2. 19:35, 6 December 2022-10:15, 7 December 2022 I restore, update and expand the section on language rights (5 edits). 07:28, 12 December 2022 VM removes the whole section. It will take lengthy discussions with the usual load of personal attacks [17] to reach a consensus on the highly reduced and revised text published at 02:31, 14 December 2022 by Masebrock.
3. 15:08, 13 December 2022 I add text and source (Amnesty) to the very sketchy lead. 17:15, 13 December 2022 VM reverts "Per talk, obvious POV and lack of balance". Human rights in Ukraine remains without a lead.
4. 12:28, 30 December 2022 I remove tag:cn and vague/unsubstantiated reference to "Russian media" citing favourably Katchanovski's theory. 05:31, 31 December 2022 VM removes four references (Ishchenko, Sakwa, Cohen, Moniz Bandeira) citing favourably Katchanovski's theory: "remove some of the usual flat fringe and conspiracy theorists". Eventually a well-researched paragraph on the reception (supporters and critics) of Katchanovski's theory is removed due to lack of consensus.
5. 15:50, 6 January 2023 I add content and sources about Roger Waters being listed in the Myrotvorets database of "enemies of Ukraine". 20:12, 7 January 2023 VM reverts "Really not significant".

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Gitz6666 popping into any discussion that involves me despite having been asked multiple times to stop WP:STALKing me? I’m afraid this is recurring behavior. The best part is how he, who’s been following me around for several months now, is coming here to complain about supposedly me following someone else around. You just can’t make this up. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh my god. Human rights in Ukraine remains without a lead. You. JUST. Removed most of the text from the lede yourself literally seconds before coming here to post your accusations [18]. So let's see. You remove most of the text from the lede. Then you immediately run over here and try to make it seem like the fact that this article "remains without a lead" is somehow my fault? Is this typical of your approach to editing the encyclopedia and involving yourself in disputes Gitz6666? Volunteer Marek 05:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WP:HOUNDING applies to noticeboard discussions such as the current one and the recent discussion on Issues with civility regarding Volunteer Marek, in which you most recently accused me of WP:STALKing you. As Levivich noted, you don't complain about wikistalking when GizzyCatBella joins your discussions or when My very best wishes joins (by the way, for some reason he hasn't yet commented here: shall we ping him? My mistake, he had already commented here below. Thank goodness). I'm disappointed because I hoped you had appreciated my silence in this discussion at 3RR/N about your edit war in April 2022 (result: page protected) and in this discussion about your edit war and aggressive talk in October 2022.

Anyway, I don't stalk you. If I talk here and elsewhere about your behaviour, I know it's irritating and I'm sorry, but I don't do it to spoil your pleasure in editing here or to create annoyance. And I don't follow you from place to place: on the contrary, sometimes I try to avoid you, as I've done in your reign of terror at Sevastopol [19]. And I must insist: I'm pretty sure that your behaviour at Ruslan Kotsaba and also at Roger Waters and possibly at Ivan Katchanovski as well were all cases of you wikihounding me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC); edited 17:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't stalk you. Gitz6666. You keep a blacklist/attackpage on me in your sandbox which you periodically update. Yeah, you're stalking me. This is as transparent as your recent attempt to remove most of the lede of an article and then try to blame me for it [20]. Volunteer Marek 18:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

My recent revert at Human rights in Ukraine is based on the same reason I gave in the talk page discussion here [21] and in my edit summary here [22] after you had reverted my last attempt to engage in cooperative editing with Adoring nanny and others and to write a decent lead [23]. Apparently Human rights in Ukraine is a highly contested topic, with its powerful conciseness and abruptness, pretty much says everything there is to say on the topic, or at least everything we are able to say, as it reflects the lack of consensus that has emerged from this disappointing and unproductive discussion I opened on the talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I liked your old signature more. Why did you change it? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You removed most of the lede from the article. Seconds later you came here and tried to falsely blame me for the fact that the article had only one sentence for a lede. You know people can read, right? Volunteer Marek 18:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll just address the "17 consecutive edits (!)" part, because I had to stop there: Why does the number of consecutive edits matter? Wikipedia isn't edited in one-person time-alotted editing sessions where people take turns. You added content to Wikipedia, he selectively removed some of your additions while giving his reasons in summaries, and then instead of discussing it with him, and coordinating the effort, you mass-reverted him while also saying how you are "going to address the issues raised" yourself (you hadn't even provided a reason for why you disagree with his changes in the summary), as if you have some privileged role in deciding how the article will be worked on. You then complained on the talk page how it took you three hours to review his edits and respond to them, which you did at some length on the talk page, starting a whole series of sections, while also accusing him of "obstructing [your] work on the article". Basically, none of this is terrible, but his edits were normal and you could have responded to them much more "economically", in terms of the amount of reverting and talking required to get to the same end result. —Alalch E. 01:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I should have done a blind revert. It was a herculean effort of AGF on my part to address each and everyone of his comments, especially because a fair share of them - let's say 2/3 - where completely groundless, and when I say "completely" I mean they were not the kind of things where different views are possible. To that end, to address all of them, on the 4 December I opened no less than 6 threads on the t/p and gave detailed answers to his edit summaries. At the end the talk page was like this - please, have a look [24]. I did my best to reply to his comments and restore the materials he had removed. And what were the reasons for this? The reason was that he had removed a mention to Kotsaba from the article Human rights in Ukraine [25] (a fellow editor and registred user had already vandalized Kotsaba's name and made it Kotsababy). I became curious about who this prisoner of conscience "Kotsababy" was, I researched it, wrote an article about it, announced it on the talk page [26] and what did I get? instead of some cooperation, I got 17 disruptive edits plus the tag:notability [27] on the page. Yep, I think it borders on harassment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, no. And how many times have I asked you to stop following my edits? Four times? Five times? Trying to accuse others of "harassment" as a deflection tactic really takes some chutzpah. Volunteer Marek 08:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Behavior that looks driven by following an editor is hounding and should be addressed. Even if it's just to admonish then to "stop doing that" which IMO (admittedly just from a read of this thread, not an in-depth research) is appropriate here. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t follow them. All articles are on my watchlist. All were, as already pointed out by other editors here and elsewhere, bad edits. They were all of the same nature. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• It seems that main purpose of some edits by Ostalgia (such as [28] or [29]) was replacing Kyiv by Kiev. Well, this is Kyiv now, that was established during a big RfC. Please respect WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not consensus for historical topics. Quote: "For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content." In other words, it wasn't Kyiv then, so don't fix what isn't broken. Next time, read the policy you cite. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 07:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• I see. WP:KIEV says: "For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content." But that is not what Ostalgia does. In two diffs above she substitutes names that are currently common names or correctly transliterated names (e.g. Makhnivka, Khmilnyk Raion, Vinnytsia Oblast in first diff or Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv in 2nd diff) by other (Russian) names. This goes against WP:COMMON NAME. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  First of all, MOS:PLACE instructs us to avoid anachronism, so for consistency I tend to use the historical name of locations. For instance, Sacher Masoch was born in Lemberg, and Liubomyr Vynar in Lwów, not in Lviv, even though it's the same city. You'll also note it was Marek who reintroduced Makhnovka (Komsomolske Village) to the infobox, not because of any love for the Soviet period, mind you, but because he just insta-reverted whatever I did without even checking (I had made the same mistake myself in my previous edit, in fairness). Same with changing the name of the university - given that the sentence is about a historian studying the university at the time Antonovych worked there, I used the name the university had at the time. Alternatively, you can continue to cast aspersions that I'm some sort of "Russian nationalist" and just ignore anything else. Ostalgia (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I see: Avoid anachronism. An article about Junípero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico, not in California, because the latter entity did not yet exist in Serra's time.. But the entities in the diffs did exist in previous times, this is different. Whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

How is it different? To use the example above, in 1836 the official name for the city of Lviv was Lemberg, as part of the Habsburg Empire, and in 1932 it was officially Lwów, as part of Poland. The city existed, yes, but not the entity, just like the territory of what is now France also existed at the time of the Romans, but the country (the entity), France, did not. I would also appreciate it if you didn't edit messages after they've been replied to. Ostalgia (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

[citation needed]. I don’t believe that is true.  —Michael Z. 00:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by citation needed, but my point is that a city is not just a location marked by coordinates but a place that is also (and is fundamentally) a political entity with officially defined boundaries, an official name, within (and with) a political structure, etc., and that is what we list. Ostalgia (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean “the entity did not exist” is something you made up, and as far as I know reliable sources don’t say anything like it. They might tell you the official name of the city was changed, but even that is an oversimplification, only indications that a national or imperial government took control that uses a different language, and not even necessarily the one used in local government. Lviv’s name hasn’t changed during its existence, and its residents continue saying Lviv, Lwów, Lemberg, and Lvov depending on the language they’re using.

Elsewhere you’ve tried to use a version of this entity business saying that Ukraine did not exist to justify ignoring reliable sources and wiping out Ukrainian identity. It is offensive colonial nonsense, echoing Putin’s essay and speeches inciting genocide in Ukraine. —Michael Z. 15:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you think Vienna is the same entity as Vindobona? Did Moctezuma rule from Tenochtitlan or from Mexico City? Closer to us in time, is it the same to say Kant was born in Königsberg than to say he was born in Kaliningrad? Grass in Danzig or Gdánsk? Manfred von Richthofen in Breslau or Wrocław? I do not think you would say yes. This is the first point.

The second point is that there's a big difference between daily, colloquial usage and official usage. People are more than welcome to name a city according to the language they're using both here and in their daily lives (and, of course, in the different wikis in different languages!) - I do not call London "London" (or Moscow "Moscow", or Lviv any of those names!) in my native language either, for instance. This is exacerbated in multilingual countries, for sure, but when we have to pick one we very much do go by the official name, which may not correspond to the name used by the majority of the local population. To use an example you mentioned earlier, the predominant language in Odesa and Kharkiv is Russian, but have we not agreed to call them Odesa and Kharkiv in English because they're Ukrainian cities? Given that you're accusing me of inciting genocide, an accusation I of course resent, I'll make it as explicit as possible that speaking Russian doesn't mean being Russian or pro-Russian or justify an intervention in defense of the "rights of Russians/Russian speakers".

Finally, you are bringing an unrelated content dispute here, and I already explained my position according to policy (MOS:PLACE and MOS:ETHNICITY). You may disagree with me, but you'd be disagreeing with these policies, not to mention the fact that you consider your sources to override every other source as well. I will happily continue this particular discussion in the appropriate place, for, as I mentioned, it is a content dispute unrelated to the issue at hand. Ostalgia (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I did not accuse you of genicide incitement, merely made it plain that in recent years and months offensive comments such as yours are even more inexcusable.

I don’t know what your background or language knowledge is. But I do know some of the arguments you continue to defend are based on indefensible interpretations of the guidelines and are used to justify incorrect and offensive positions on Wikipedia subjects while refusing to listen. It is unrelenting pushing of an unacceptable POV.  —Michael Z. 16:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You accused me of echoing Putin’s essay and speeches inciting genocide. If echoing a position inciting genocide isn't inciting genocide, what is it? Ostalgia (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No we don’t use spellings like Lviv either because they are official nor because they are Ukrainian. Please review the naming guidelines and the relevant RMs.

And what you stated elsewhere is relevant when you are trying to normalize a light version of the same invalid argument here. —Michael Z. 17:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by common name which does not necessarily correspond to an official name, but very often does. Furthermore, I was referring to English language usage, not exclusively Wikipedia usage. I believe we have reached a general-ish consensus in English language media, social media and daily communication when it comes to using the official, Ukrainian name for most cities, a consensus that actually formed relatively quickly (spurred, no doubt, by the war), and while in cities like Kyiv or Lviv it corresponds to the language of the majority of the population, in cities like Odesa and Kharkov it does not, and we have settled on the official one and not the alternative, more locally popular one.

I would also note, while we're in the topic of policy, this discussion reminded me of WP:OTHERNAMES: Alternative names may be used in article text when context dictates that they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). I believe this is much more on topic than our brief digression which, I hope, will return to the apropiage page for further discussion. Ostalgia (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Three decades and counting is not relatively quickly.  —Michael Z. 19:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? There are languages that to this day call Tbilisi Tiflis, when not even Russia does. For historical standards, English has been quick in changing a very established spelling. Ostalgia (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia moved Bombay to Mumbai less than ten years after it was renamed. Moved Barrow to Utqiagvik, Alaska less than two years after name change. Moved Astana to Nur-Sultan two months after it was renamed, and then moved back to Astana within days of it being renamed again. Moved Asbestos to Val-des-Sources within two days of the official name change.  —Michael Z. 20:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about the English language, not Wikipedia, but if we're at it, 3 out of four of your examples are from countries where the, or one of the official language is English, and the remaining one isn't really a place with an established spelling. Kyiv had been Kiev for centuries. I'll also note that Wikipedia did follow the official name change, because well, general usage did. But once again, we disgress, and this is not the place for this discussion. Ostalgia (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Kyiv had been “Kiev” for only two centuries. Mumbai Bombay for four and a half. These are all interesting facts but don’t change the fact that three decades is not a relatively quick adoption of official local names.  —Michael Z. 21:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

3 decades, in history, is the very short term. Furthermore, as mentioned, their official language is English. India has probably the largest, or second largest, number of native English speakers in the world. You're comparing apples to... chairs. And at this point I can only assume you're intentionally spamming/derailing, so I guess this ends this exchange on my part, at least, although you're welcome at my talk page. Ostalgia (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Its not different at all... If you want edits to condemn the OP with these are not them. They actually look better and better the deeper we dive into this, which is IMO not what normally happens at ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. It's really off-putting to have wasted 3 weeks of my life (back in September-October) dealing with Marek and his accusations, not wanting to do it again, and after posting this have him come here to repeat his accusations of me being a sockpuppet and a SPA "sleeper" and see a handful of people pop up and repeat that, and even worse, cheer him on in his fight against "Russian nationalism", without even checking what I did or why I did it. I get the impression that it's always easier to just side with the guy who has a lot of edits against the guy with <1k edits assuming the latter is in the wrong, which granted, might in general be the case, but isn't necessarily so.

Anyone who accuses me of being a "Russian nationalist", a "Putinist" or anything in that vein could check that, among other things, I have made significant contributions to the article on Drahomanov, and minor edits to the university named after him. I also made major additions to the article on Ukrainian jurist Ioaniky Malinovsky, basically doubling it in size and linking it to other articles, and helped clean up the article on the Skoropadskys, as well as dealing with presumably pro-Russian unexplained removals of content from the Brotherhood of Cyril and Methodius. I have added the Ukrainian version of the name of several historical subjects who were Ukrainian or relevant to Ukrainian history: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], and even did so for Kuindzhi, where I was later involved in a talk page discussion with Mzajac (because I disagree with labelling him Ukrainian, but I do not disagree with his relevance to present-day Ukraine and Ukrainian art and culture) before Marek decided to just come and revert my edits out of the blue. As stated above, I have tried to work within the policies/guidelines that I'm familiar with, and while people can still disagree with my edits (that's always a possibility), I find the accusations levelled by these users to be absurd and irksome. Ostalgia (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I striked through my comment. To be honest, I did not really think about it. So, for example, one city (Saint Petersburg) should appear under three different names on the same page, depending on the period of time it was mentioned. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It potentially could, yes. And even if the person was maybe born in St. Petersburg in, say, 1910, and died in St. Petersburg in 1995, in between he could've studied at the Leningrad State University, which should be labelled as such and not as St. Petersburg State University, or Saint Petersburg Imperial University, or Petrograd Imperial University. Ostalgia (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are 3 different names of the same city on one page. Looking at 4 diffs you brought to this complaint, I can see discussion on talk page of only one of them (and the matter has been resolved on talk!). So, I would simply recommend opening a discussion on talk of every page where you have a disagreement, prior to bringing a complaint to ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what concrete diff you're referring to, but as mentioned here, I once made the mistake of opening a talk page discussion and pinging Marek for his input. It ended in a three week edit war and talk page shitfest in which I was accused of a lot of stuff, where he refused to even look at my sources, and from which he disappeared after he received no support from any other editor only to pop up 10 days later with the same accusations and the same attitude, and continued trying to edit war. Months later he still accuses me of the same things, as can be seen on this same discussion, and I believe that is why he just blindly reverted me on these 4 pages. I am not prepared to go through the same process again, having neither the time, the effort or the patience. Ostalgia (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Here is what I mean. You made nine reverts on page Theodosius Dobzhansky without talking, most recently this [37] where you said yourself in summary "Millionth +1 revert". Were you right by making such reverts? No, you were wrong - in terms of behavior and even probably in terms of content - see my comment on talk. To resolve the dispute, you must start a discussion, like I did [38]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I am aware of the way that works, but you'll find that a) there's a 2011 (!) attempt to start a discussion on the topic with zero replies (it's a low traffic page after all), pointing out why the current description is ok, b) I have provided more detailed descriptions of the edits, justifying it with arguments often taken from that attempt at a discussion and c) most of the changes are introduced by IP users or accounts that go dormant immediately after their edit and who do not engage in any manner whatsoever. I resorted to more laconic/despairing edit comments after the futility of trying to engage with them became evident (you can see I asked editors to at least read previous edit summaries) but even in the diff you mention I explain the reasoning behind the revert, some of which echo the arguments presented in the 2011 post.

  Fundamentally, however, the issue is that I tried to go down that route with Marek when there was a content dispute, to no avail. In this case I do not even believe there is a content dispute, it's just him chasing and blindly reverting to trigger me even against policy, and I'm not ready to waste time and peace of mind in a gruelling fruitless discussion-into-edit war with him again. Ostalgia (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I have restored Kiev when dealing with historical topics only, and if My very best wishes had stopped his combing of my edits in October instead of September he might've found this message correcting a fellow editor for disparaging the use of Kyiv in an edit summary. Ostalgia (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this diff shared by Ostalgia [39] shows that perhaps they are not nationalist POV pushers after all, and this diff [40] with Volunteer Marek restoring the Soviet "Makhnovka (Komsomolske Village)" is also surprising. WP:KYIV suggests that in some cases there may be room for reasonable disagreement and discussion. Since VM was not just enforcing policy, perhaps he should have been more careful about the content dispute.

With regard to WP:HOUNDING, however, I'm not sure the issue has been adequately addressed. I've checked and can confirm that VM had never edited before at Volodymyr Antonovych, Aleksey Alchevsky, Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky and Arkhip_Kuindzhi. Could you please tell us VM why these figures of historical interest where in your WL? Or did you follow Ostalgia because you thought they were disruptive? Everyone can make mistakes from time to time and if one apologises maybe nothing too serious has happened. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a reminder that you don't need to have edited a page to add it to your watchlist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Gitz, for you to demand an apology from someone who did nothing wrong, while there's a proposal for a topic ban for you on the table really takes the cake. Volunteer Marek 22:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ostalgia: have the problems continued or stopped over the last few days since you've posted this here? Levivich (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have barely edited since posting this. I wanted to see if the matter could be somehow settled so as not to have a repeat of this in a couple of days/weeks/months, which seemed likely seeing as the replies I got here, with one or two exceptions, appear to indicate that my edits are not welcome. In this period, in terms of mainspace edits, I only fixed a typo I myself introduced to an article and fleshed out another article that someone else had asked me to check for vandalism a while ago. Those edits have not been reverted or objected to. Ostalgia (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Boomerang for Gitz6666

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

---

• A boomerang for Gitz6666 should be strongly considered; I think this discussion and their contributions and attitudes in talk discussions show they have significant behavioral issues related to WP:PA, WP:POV, WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND. From information they've posted to their user page, I think they've had similar issues on other wikis that have resulted in community action and now they are here.  // Timothy :: talk  18:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban as proposer.

   // Timothy :: talk  02:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure this is not retaliation for my criticism of the way you handled your content dispute with User:Joaziela and the arguments you used? E.g. on this page above at 14:26, 8 January 2023, arguing that Thomas Jefferson is far worse than Stefan Bandera. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban for Gitz6666 from the Ukrainian-Russian conflict broadly construed and a warning to be more careful in the topic area tfor VM and Ostalgia with an emphasis on AGF and civility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by your view, Horse Eye's Back. Where did I make personal attacks on Volunteer Marek or anyone else around here? I believe his behaviour is uncivil and disruptive, but I've raised the issue only at the appropriate noticeboards and have tried to avoid being unnecessarily offensive in doing so. I don't follow his edits. Plus, I've always complied with WP:NPOV in that I'm not a pro-Russian user, as shown by many of my edits (e.g., a few days ago this one [41]). And I am a productive editor, meaning that I've added a lot of content and sources to the EE area articles: nearly 1/3 of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which is a huge amount of work.

Volunteer Marek, on the other hand, in his long career has certainly done far more for the encyclopedia than I have, but on countless occasions he has been rude towards me and other users during talk page discussions and in the edit summaries. It's quite likely that he occasionally follows mine and other users' edits. In the EE area, he is openly an anti-Russian POV-pusher and always has been (at least since 2010 at WP:EEML). His work here is not so much adding content and sources as removing content, sources and users that do not fit his POV. And he performs this task in close cooperation with other users. Under these circumstances, it is hard to justify a topic ban for me and a warning for him.

However, do what you think is right: as I once said to Volunteer Marek [42] nobody really gets hurt. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

In the EE area, he is openly an anti-Russian POV-pusher and always has been You might want to strike that false personal attack (and probably some of the other WP:ASPERSIONS you make above) Volunteer Marek 22:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban aligning with Horse Eye's suggestion. Its seeming more and more inevitable that it would come to this, as this issue keeps popping up and has been brought up by multiple other editors as diff'd by VM (03:58, 11 January). I worry that the more times a topic ban for Gitz6666 is mentioned but unactioned the more times our eyes will glaze over the concept every subsequent time we see it. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Beyond the topic ban though, I think Gitz6666 is losing sight of the purpose of the project as seen through their attitude. This diff, curiously provided above by Gitz6666 themselves, seems to be an attempt to elevate themselves and show maturity. But I can't be the only one who looks at that comment and is shocked at the held double standard (Only I know myself but I know you too), unwillingness to accept suggestion (anyone who disagrees is categorically wrong or non-neutral), and conviction to get VM sanctioned in some way (I've done my best to expose the way you behave and will continue to ask the community to uphold its policies). Finally, their statement of If in the process I get topic banned or blocked [...] I'll work on other projects and I'll be content with myself has interesting implications when connected with their user page section on their previous blocks on other wikis. Even assuming that they won't again block-evade or use socks, I think their willingness to get banned/blocked and just go somewhere else to start the process over again raises questions of why Gitz6666 is here. Taking a block over preferred content isn't good, but its constructive in spirit at least, but taking a block because you want to powerbomb another user with you is another thing entirely. Because I hope this is the result of a slow (if perhaps repeated) mental shift and not a conscious decision, I'd like to call Gitz6666 to ask themselves verbatim if they are still here to build an encyclopedia. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand this "call". Certainly I'm not on this website to argue with or about Volunteer Marek, if that's what you're asking me about. Am I "still" here to build an encyclopedia? Well, I'm relatively satisfied with the contribution I've made so far. Arguing with/about VM has been about 1% of my work here, not the most pleasant part. Your summary of my conversation with Volunteer Marek, built as it is on a single diff, lacks context and may be based on a misunderstanding.

  With regard to context, we were not dealing with some editorial disagreement on article content there. Volunteer Marek had repeatedly claimed that I was a pro-Russian supporter, and that I believed that kidnapping children after murdering their parent was not a war crime. That was ludicrous and insulting to me. He was constantly attributing mean intentions to me and other users during talk page discussions, as he often does. I had asked him to avoid personal attacks and gross misrepresentations of my views, and he had not complied, so I had opened a discussion at ANI, which didn't go well. Some users immediately agreed with his slunders and some even asked for my topic ban. I got the impression that AN/I is not the right place to have our policies applied impartially to polarising issues such as the war in Ukraine.

  That is the context of our conversation. With regard to the content, what I told Volunteer Marek was twofold. First, that those hostile reactions by editors were not a reason for me to change my views: I know that I'm not a pro-Russia supporter. Your "unwillingness to accept suggestion" does not persuade me, because those were "suggestions" that no one can or should be willing to accept. Secondly, I told him that I was not too concerned about the consequences (sanctions) of defending my integrity from his insults. That was not a threat, "I will ruin your life!", but rather a warning: "If you misbehave, I'll ask the community to uphold its policies".

  You can do what you want with my account, but blaming me for holding "double standards" is quite unfair. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• The suggestion of a topic ban for Ukraine-Russia related topics for Gitz6666 has come up several times before (more or less every time this winds up at ANI): [43] [44] [45] [46]
• Also, Gitz is now using his sandbox to "send" personal attacks to me indirectly [47] [48]. Volunteer Marek 03:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Well, two of the diffs you shared showing users who call for my topic ban come from the same user, and another user changed their mind and said so explicitly in the very same discussion you're quoting from [49], so it's unfair to share what they said and then retracted.
  • Could you please stay away of my sandboxes? Often I write drafts of comments that I'm not sure I want to post and contents that I'm not sure I want to publish; after a few hours or days, I re-read them and decide with a cool head whether they are worth sharing or not. Since you've already shared my comment, there's no reason to keep it in the sandbox: I'll post it here below. It is absurd to interpret it as an indirect way of sending personal attacks. If it is a personal attack, which I don't believe it is, you will now have it openly expoused in the discussion; you can read and ponder it. I was replying to your comment You might want to strike that false personal attack (here at 22:41, 10 January 2023)

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have not done anything to your sandbox. I've only requested that you remove the personal attacks and false WP:ASPERSIONS which you're making there (directly addressed to me in fact, using the "you" pronoun which weirdly enough indicates that despite your "stay away from my sandbox" request here, you actually WANT me to read it). Volunteer Marek 17:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

We already had a conversation on my talk page on this (here) where I explained to you that the sentence you are complaining about was part of my June 2022 report at ANI against you (this one); it was published there and it is stille there. I copied and pasted it into my sandbox only because I needed the diffs, which in fact I shared here below (at 11:23, 11 January 2023). Since I've already explained this to you, your claim that I "WANT you to read" my sandbox is absurd. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• You might be right, I can't read your mind. But there must be a forum where editors can express their concerns about the behaviour of other editors, and this looks like the right place to me. Since you have accused everyone of being pro-Russian propagandists, and you've done it everywhere (edit summaries and talk page discussions), you won't get too upset if someone tells you here, in the appropriate place, that you are an anti-Russian POV-pusher, will you?

  I could be wrong, but I sincerely believe this is the case. We've interacted closely in the EE area for many months now and I'm entitled to an opinion. I first formed that opinion when I saw you deny that shooting Russian prisoner of war in the legs should be described as "torture" [50] [51][52] and I have never had a reason to change it since. Admittedly you also make good contributions to the encyclopedia and sometimes you've been right and I've been wrong (e.g. about including the mistreatment of maurauders and migrants in the article on war crimes), so you're also helpful in your own way. But you're a POV pusher, no doubt, and an edit warrior, and you're also prone to personal attacks and incivility. This is a matter of concern for the community, since every month there is a discussion about you on the various noticeboards, and the case of Ostalgia is quite telling: you probably targeted them based on their username (Ostalgie) and a couple of their edits you had misunderstood Nationalist editing may be inevitabile, but is disruptive and must be contained.

  Having said that, I have said it all. I will never discuss your behaviour again in general terms. I mean, obviously if I don't get banned; if I do get banned, I won't even have the opportunity to discuss your specific behaviours. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Since you have accused everyone of being pro-Russian propagandists" I have done no such thing and this right is a personal attack and a false WP:ASPERSIONS. You really should strike it. You on the other hand are making a personal attack right there with your "But you're a POV pusher". Let me explain the difference here even though this is sort of elementary:

Saying that a piece of text is Russian propaganda is different than saying someone is a Russian propagandists. Sometimes people put in Russian propaganda without realizing it, as you did for example on the Ruslan Kotsaba article which I've tried to remove a few times [53] - the source you added is a straight up Russian propaganda outlet run by one of Putin's professional propagandists, Konstantin Rykov [54]. The problem of course is that 1) you should've checked what the source really is, but you didn't, and 2) didn't listen when someone removed it as unreliable. Instead you just did blind reverts and started an edit war. Oh and then you tried to turn it around and complained and tried to make it look like my fault because I made "17 consecutive edits" (each with an appropriate summary) rather than just blind reverting like you do. In this case saying "this is Russian propaganda" is accurate but it is not a personal attack since it's discussing CONTENT not an editor. OTOH, saying "But you're a POV pusher" as you do (here and in many other instances) is discussing a PERSON and does in fact constitute a personal attack.

Also, I haven't 'targted' anyone, whatever their username. This too is a personal attack on your part. Yeah, sorry, but a topic ban is long overdue. Volunteer Marek 17:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your 17 consecutive edits each with an appropriate summary were all full of your usual condescension and contempt.

You opened a thread on the talk page titled And right off the bat... followed by ... we have misrepresentations of sources (and you were wrong, there was no misrepresentation of sources); failed verification, once again [55] (and you were wrong, in was fully verifiable and is still on the article); this is manipulation too. Prokhasko just said that Kotsaba was voicing the fact that many people were afraid of the war [56] (and again you were wrong and had misunderstood Prokhasko); He is not a “prisoner of conscience”. He is not even a prisoner. Even “conscientious objector” should be attributed [57] (he is a prisoners of conscience according to Amnesty and all human rights organisations, including Ukrainian ONGs and journalists' association); and on top of that you put the tag:notability [58] (he's obviously notable).

This is not cooperative editing: this is WP:STALKING. Obviously I did a blind revert: the only reason you were disrupting my article - a good article, as anyone can see - is that you wanted to pick up a fight with me. Anyway I AGF and replied to each and everyone of your edits, as anyone can see on the talk page.

Re Russian source: I don't trust the way you deal with sources. If they are Russian, you blind remove, but that can be done by a BOT, we don't need editors to that end. When you removed the Russian source yesterday (the diff you provided), I didn't revert, I opened a talk page discussion. And that source was not even supporting a controversial statement, but a statement of fact that was supported also by other RS. Yes, we can get rid of it - no harm done, and you were not reverted. However today I reverted this [59]. Why on earth do you remove a fully legit Ukrainian local press outlet making no WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Why are you surprised by Horse Eye's Back view? This is the view of one of our best administrators. I wouldn’t be surprised at all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Gitz6666. This has gone on long enough and the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems are continuing and ongoing (see for example here, pretty much a textbook case). Volunteer Marek 14:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Ukraine-related subjects or any other topic bans or other sanctions. WP:BATTLEGROUND, edit warring against consensus, for example here, the worst case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have ever seen, making WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:BLUDGEON. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

User Gitz666 has close to 6,000 edits. His editing focuses on the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. He is pushing the view that the both sides are guilty, in violation of WP:GEVAL, which leads him to over-emphasize a few alleged but poorly documented war crimes or other misdeeds by the Ukrainian side. Such editing leads to constant disputes with other contributors. He is trying to resolve it by filing litigous complaints about users with whom he has content disagreements to ANI or AE. There were such postings/discussions by Gitz6666 about at least 4 contributors. These litigous discussions were very long, led to a significant waste of time by many people, but resulted in nothing. He also complained to individual administrators and made many postings on other noticeboards, such as NPOVNB, RSNB and BLPNB, postings that usually had no merit. I think the disruption has come to the point when an action is necessary. My very best wishes (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• As a recent illustration, Gitz wanted to create a section about "sexual violence by Ukrainian forces", which in fact were cases of vigilante justice with regard to looters by Ukrainian population, as described in sources [60] and an unverified threat of sexual violence with regard to a single soldier. He failed to get consensus for such inclusion on article talk page [61], but resorted to reverts [62],[63],[64],[65],[66] After seeing that he edit war against consensus, he resorted to WP:FORUMSHOP, simultaneously on NPOVNB and RSNB. The result? The enormous waste of time for everyone involved in the editing and these discussions. If anything, this is WP:DE by Gitz. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  The discussions on NPOVN and RSN concern two different and unrelated subjects. The second one was immediately withdrown by me because I agreed with MVBW that the appropriate venue was not RSN but rather NORN, since the lead's claim (in wikivoice) that the Russian army has committed "mass rape used as a weapon of war" IMHO is not adequately supported by sources. So far VM, MVBW, GCB and TimothyBlue disagree with me, while one uninvolved user agrees; the discussion is still open and ongoing (also on the t/p).

  The first discussion on NPOVN is the one MVBW just misrepresented. Gitz didn't "want to create a section" on sexual violence by Ukrainian forces: that section has always been there, as it was already included in the article when it was created by Boud in April 2022 nooldid=1083271633. Since then, the section has been removed no less than 8 times: 6 times by VM, 1 by MBVW and 1 by GCB, and has been restored 7 times by Boud, me and another user (diffs in my OP). This situation was clearly unacceptable, so in December I opened the discussion at NPOVN. Sexual violence by Ukrainian forces is immensely less widespread and less vicious than sexual violence by Russian forces, and yet it has been reported by no less than 4 OHCHR reports and arguably deserves inclusion (at least to prove that we have nothing to hide and comply with NPOV). So far, 4 users support the removal (VM, MVBW, TimothyBlue and one uninvoled editor) and 3 users oppose the removal (me, Horse Eye's Back and one uninvoled editor). I asked for a formal closure and, if nothing changes, IMHO the closer we'll have to take the hard choice between applying WP:NOCON (no consensus for removal) or WP:ONUS (no consensus for inclusion). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In June 2022 I filed a complaint at AN/I about Volunteer Marek and in November another one about Cambial Yellowing (here below supporting my ban) and another user. The discussions were indeed very long - possibly because my complaints were not totally groundless? In August I also filed a request at AE against My very best wishes. No action was taken, but the closer commented Not necessarily the best behavior by MVBW, who took the committment not to edit Lyudmyla Denisova for a while - so again, maybe not a totally groundless action on my part? The truth is, had my complaints been gratuitous and purely aggressive, I would have already been banned and VM and MVBW wouldn't be here trying again to remove me from the EE area (in July MVBW filed a request at AE against me, VM concurring: no action taken). And the same can be said, I believe, about by threats on other noticeboards: I tried to involve the community in our EE discussions because I felt there were problems there, and sometimes the community agreed with me: see for example this discussion at AN in December 2022, where I succeded in stopping VM from delating an article via redirecting (MVBW and GCB concurring) and this discussion at NPOVN, still open, where there is no clear consensus for VM and MVBW removing a section on sexual crimes committed by Ukrainian forces (GCB and TimothyBlue concurring).

Later I will address other points raised by MVBW that I disagree with - in particular the misconception that I am pushing the view that the both sides are guilty. This is false, it's not what's happening here, but I'll explain this (and provide diffs) later. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Gitz, I realize you're probably not aware of it, but this comment once again really nicely illustrates the underlying problem with your approach to editing. When you file a complaint against someone then it's "because of disruption" and "the complaint is not groundless". But if someone files a complaint against you or suggests a topic ban for you then they're "making threats" or "trying to remove you". That right there is textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND and speaks to a pretty deeply ingrained lack of self-awareness.

You also continue to misrepresent the nature of discussions that took place and keep claiming false consensus and misrepresenting discussions. With Zaverukha the discussion was basically "you should take this to AfD rather than edit warring about it", NOT "Gitz succesfully stopped VM" (even the wording there is again, WP:BATTLEGROUND) (and yes, I disagree strongly with the outcome of that AfD). With the NPOVN discussion, there it's really "oppose" (Gitz's position) and people telling you that you're the one who actually needs consensus and that you don't have it. But you turn that around into "VM doesn't have consensus". This is textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

On top of all that you are simply unable to ever WP:DROPTHESTICK and let things go when (probably because you seem to unable to consider the possibility that consensus could be against you). Look at the Zaverukha article. I personally believe that was like the dumbest outcome (not blaming the closer but rather the discussion) and that article has no business existing here. But you know what? I think our entire AfD process is broken and this is just a symptom of a bigger problem and since I'm not going to solve it myself, I haven't purused the issue further. It is what it is. People disagree with me. It happens. So I've left it alone. That's called "dropping the stick" which you really need to learn how to do. Volunteer Marek 17:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

MVBW, you keep modifying your comments, which is annoying because one replies to something that is no longer on the page. Anyway, you said (and then retracted) that I'm exclusively focused on the EE area. This is false. A few days ago I published this small article on International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia; in August I published something more substantial, Indiscriminate attack; in January 2022 I published my chef-d'oeuvre, Hugo Krabbe, which took a lot of work and research and which I submitted to GAN (not yet reviewed). My activities on it.wiki can be read on my user page. I'm mainly interested in history of legal culture, political philosophy, human rights and international law. I'm not particularly interested neither in RUssia nor in Ukraine (contrary to you and VM), which doesn't make me "neutral", but surely I'm not nearly as biased as you are. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed that in my article on Indiscriminate attack I wrote "During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia has repeatedly carried out indiscriminate attacks in densely populated areas." On the Russian POV pusher accusation more to come. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban, for the reasons given by Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes, to which I can also testify. Gitz6666’s unsupported contributions (with tenacious efforts to add them anyway) and misrepresentation of sources are a huge and pointless waste of editor time. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - reluctantly but still - after analysis of evidence and the edit history, I believe I'm inclined to ask the same question as Black Kite did - why? (Perhaps broadly from the Russian invasion of Ukraine (TP) only? Would that prevent further disruption to the Russia-Ukraine topic area?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No. I don't recall seeing him at the main article. He is interested in creating spinoff articles of what he believes to be Ukrainian war crimes and human rights violations, and in minimizing Russian actions. (See argument to not to count death of full-time fetus in bombing of Mariupol maternity hospital) It would need to be a topic ban. Elinruby (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that I shouldn't reply to this... but I must say: no, obviously Elinruby didn't understand what I wrote. I never argued for god's sake not to count death of full-time fetus in bombing of Mariupol maternity hospital. In the diff I notice that while we were reporting "4 deaths, 16 injured", the source we were quoting was saying "3 deaths, 17 injured", and the more recent OHCHR report was saying "2 deaths (including the unborn baby) and 16 injured". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I will take another look in a few minutes and strike if so, shrug. And apologize, even, if I misunderstood. It's not as if there is a shortage of examples. Elinruby (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

sigh. So what was your point exactly? That you did not argue that the full-term fetus didn't count? Actually, you didn't -- you just flat-out didn't count it. (neither she nor her baby survived"...(only one dead - the pregnant woman).) Granted that there's a fine ontological point about whether the baby was at any point alive, it probably would have survived if the Russians hadn't lobbed a bomb at that hospital, a tragedy you callously blew off so that the death count would be lower. There was still a discrepancy of two deaths, and you argued that we should use the lower number, and therefore, since you didn't count the baby, maybe only one person died. This is actually a fine example of what you do to other editors' sanity. What is all the minimization in aid of? Granted that you said "maybe", but civilians died and what was important to you was that we use the lower death toll. (Maybe the mayor was wrong... If so, the final account of casualties would be 16 injured and one dead) Not because that number was better sourced *or* more recent really (24 hours), but because "maybe" it was true and for reasons you did not express, I guess you liked the lower number better. Because hey, the Russians bomb a hospital but "maybe" they only killed one civilian. I need to go wash my hands after typing that. Seven months of this and you dare reprove VM for sometimes not being nice to you. Ugh. Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I was only arguing that we should use the most recent and authoritative source, OHCHR report (26/03/2022) instead of "Euronews" (10/03/2022). My "only one dead" refers to the sentence in the lead, which accounts also for the stillbirth: instead of killing at least four people and injuring at least sixteen, and leading to at least one stillbirth (as it was then and as it still is now) we should have had "killing at least one person and injuring at least sixteen, and leading to at least one stillbirth". I repeat Elinruby: "1 person killed + 1 stillbirth + 16 injured", that's what OHCHR says. However, I myself forgot about this macabre but all in all irrelevant accounting and I left the (possibly mistaken) information in the article. In fact, I made only one edit to Mariupol hospital airstrike, this one: [67]. Please take a look at it Elinruby, and tell me, how would you describe and explain the content of the one edit I made to the article? What do you think was the purpose of that single edit I just shared? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC).

I was intellectually prepared for your usual SEALIONING but I am still washing my hands at the moment and can't come to the phone just now. In the second look that I took following your earlier denial, I saw two OHCHR sources dated one day apart. I suppose that assuming good faith requires that I look again and will do so later today and look for this Euronews source. But I am fighting hard to against the urge to tell you what I really think. Yes, the discussion is macabre! Why did you engage in it? Masem among others has urged us to be aware of the fog of war. That entire discussion was unnecessary and I am quite certain that I am not the only person who finds it distressing. Elinruby (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you don't want to answer my question about why an editor like me, who is interested only in minimizing Russian actions, as you claim, would be willing to publish the diff I shared above. It's all right, no one is entitled to an answer.

Re "fog of war": this is precisely the reason why, in the talk page discussion you shared and actually in every other discussion I've participated in, I've always suggested following the most recent and authoritative sources (in that case, OHCHR). Dispelling the fog of war is why here [68] I updated the section on Mariupol Theatre air j on the basis of the report by Amnesty adding to the article that Amnesty concluded that the attack was a war crime and in all probability a deliberate attack on a civilian target. Dispelling the fog of war is why, following the release of an official statement by OHCHR in July 2022, I specified that the numbner of bodies of civilians found in the Kyiv region was 1,200 instead of "over 900", as originally reported [69]. And I'd like to add that here you have your Russian POV-pusher adding the number of children killed to the lead section of the main article on war crimes in Ukraine [70].

If you ban me, I wish you more Russian POV-pushers like me soon. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, note to myself, assume good faith even with respect to people who do not do the same. Gitz, I didn't immediately answer your question because I was doing my best to remain civil and needed to take a break in order to do so. There is no deadline, right? Particularly with respect to barbed questions from editors with wounded egos. I understand that you are only now understanding that not everyone shares your opinion of your efforts, so I will ask this as gently as possible. Why would you muse about whether the death toll "maybe" was lower?

I don't know why you added the part about candlelight. I don't particularly object to (or admire) that edit, nor does that one edit change my mind about the general tenor of your work. I do think that minimizing the death toll in a particular instance has the effect of minimizing the harm of the invasion, so I don't feel a need to strike, but I will at least listen if someone uninvolved tells me that I should. Probably it would be best if I just added some more examples in the section below where I vote, vs this one, where I am just explaining to GCB that banning you from the TP of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would not solve the problem as I see it. I do see the Euronews article further up the TP section from my quotes, but its existence doesn't really speak to the apparent minimization that concerns me. Maybe I should strike the part about your source not being newer, come to think of it, but that was a side issue, just an attempt to divine what you were thinking.

With respect to OHCHR reports, btw, I've confined myself so far to complaining about the lack of page numbers in your many citations to 50-page reports, but I don't agree with your near-exclusive use of them either, which seems to stem from some sort of dismissal of the entirety of non-Russian world media, and also to reflect a misunderstanding of their purpose. They are gathering reports of events for investigation, without initially applying any filter for plausibility or notability or verifiability, it seems to me, and using them exclusively deprives us of a robust diversity of views that I would like to see in these articles. They are of course reliable sources, don't get me wrong, and have their place. But I can't help but suspect that you go there looking for possible wrongs on the Ukrainian side, since very few are showing up in media reports. I hope I am wrong about that. I don't see why you're trying to get me to express approval of given edits, which seems a bit childish; you probably do have some ok edits, if that makes you feel better. The one about candlelight would be one of them, sure.

Lastly, I called for a block from the topic area, not a "ban", but despite your use of "you" I myself don't have or want the authority to do this unilaterally. If you are capable of accepting friendly advice right now, mine would be for you to go for a walk or in some other way take a break so that you can be more dispassionate in your answers when you come back. Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Coming back to an earlier question I said I would address: I did not say that you quoted TASS with respect to Ukraine's language law. I said Perhaps due to sincere beliefs, he really does closely follow Kremlin talking points (See RfC on TASS), which are often inaccurate (to say the least) when it comes top this war and related matters like Ukrainian language policy. I admit that the sentence is overly complex, but you have angrily rejected the idea that you might have trouble reading English, to the point of complaining about it on some drama board, as I recall, so I wasn't making a special effort to simplify my sentence structure. But here we go:

1. "he really does" refers to you, Gitz.
2. "closely follow" = adverb + verb
3. "Kremlin talking points" is the direct object of the verb. This is what you closely follow.
4. (see RfC on TASS) is intended to provide an example of you doing this. I meant to provide a link, and will fix that, especially since you seem to want to dispute that this is an example of you supporting Kremin talking points.
5. "which are often inaccurate (to say the least)" - this subordinate clause refers to "Kremlin talking points". It is Kremlin talking points that I am saying are often inaccurate to say the least.
6. "when it comes to this war and related matters like Ukrainian language policy" - this additional subordinate clause modifies "often inaccurate to say the least". I admit that this seems clear to me based on word order alone, and I can't quite explain why. However while I could see someone misconstruing the sentence to mean that you are often inaccurate, that isn't what it says, what I meant, or how you read it, if you think I said that you quoted TASS about language policy. Just in case, I will endeavor to form my sentences with fewer parentheses and fewer subordinate clauses in any future edits to this boomerang thread. As best I can tell however, you were simply throwing generalized denial at the wall to see if it stuck. Maybe I should clear my schedule for tomorrow also. I had forgotten how mind-numbingly exhausting it can be to discuss things with you. I probably should provide a link here to VM saying pretty much the same thing about another thread where you thought you had prevailed in a discussion and VM informed you that the other editors were merely exhausted. Elinruby (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

..And...it seems that I *did* link to the RfC, thus illustrating comments about what a timesink it is to deal with Gitz. Since he seems to want to dispute my reading of his vote on the RfC, the text he quotes from his RfC vote exists there, yes. However it is followed by a big old "but", in the same sentence. He also says that TASS' casualty figures for the Donbas are "accurate". While we are on the subject of misrepresentation, he says on his user page that he was blocked from es.wiki "for no reason" but the linked block appeal includes a long diatribe about some nefarious archvillain whose actions absolutely must be countered, which...sounds familiar.Elinruby (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the last 1,098 words you added to this thread with your last three consecutive edits.

My draft on language policy in Ukraine [71] did not closely follow Kremlin talking points, as you claim, since it was based on Carnegie Europe, Radio Free Europe, Reuters, an Ukrainian webstite specialised in language policy (language-policy.info), the Venice Commission, Human Rights Watch, and the OHCHR. My draft was not inaccurate at all, and I don't think you are in a position to assess its accuracy: your repeated erroneous claims that Ukrainian language policy is similar to Canadian language policy [72][73][74][75], along with your equally erroneous claims that prior to 2014 Ukraine was ruled by the already dissolved Soviet Union [76] and was a Russian client-state [77], show your lack of WP:COMPETENCE to identify bias in my edits. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

FFS I diagrammed the sentence for you! I don't want your thanks, I want you to freaking read, and stop misquoting me, not that I am holding my breath.

I said "Kremlin talking points" were inaccurate. Not your article text. It probably is also, but I hadn't said that yet. Certainly, your arguments were inaccurate. I talked about Quebec's language policy, not Canada's. These are different things, and both are different from the Canadian content laws, which have been on force since the 60s. I don't remember if I specifically said that Russia's influence over Ukraine was de facto not de jure, but IMHO I shouldn't have had to, especially since I am pretty damn sure that I was talking about the ownership of the broadcast outlets when I said that, and that oligarch whose rights you were so concerned about in particular.

Or was that one of those unacceptable suggestions you were talking about way in the beginning of this thread? I've linked to both of the discussions on language policy, as well as summarizing it above. People can read, you know. But go ahead and insult me some more, that'll convince everyone! Peace out, dude. Elinruby (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose singling out one editor for WP:PA, WP:POV, WP:IDHT, or WP:BATTLEGROUND when the topic area is chock full of it. Recommend this dispute go to Arbcom, as ANI is completely unsuited to look at something like this, for several reasons. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those reasons seem correct. If other editors have behaved badly, they should also be reported. I see no evidence of that, but even if they did, it would not excuse Gitz6666 behaving badly so it's a moot point. Same goes for the argument ANI is "completely unsuited" to deal with topic bans. Quite the contrary, it's standard procedure. Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Much of the topic area is subject to WP:general sanctions under Eastern Ukraine and the Balkans, and under WP:GS/RUSUKR. If it is chock full, then perhaps it indicates an under-enforcement problem, which can only be improved fairly one editor at a time. (How would you not “single out” violators, by topic-banning everyone?) —Michael Z. 20:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

So you are also supporting my T-ban. Correct? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have not voted.  —Michael Z. 23:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you know that, while we have different views pretty much on everything related to Ukraine, I am a good faith editor who complies with policy. I believe that you understand well the dynamics going on here - where the criticisms come from, what they are directed at. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There are active noticeboard threads here, at AE, at BLPN, and at NPOVN regarding behavior in this topic area. You'll see many of the same names in each dispute. I don't find it fair to target one editor here in a small spinoff discussion when the dispute is much larger. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie, many noticeboard threads sounds like individual content disputes and behavioural problems are being dealt with, so this one is not bing singled out, no?

Is there a larger dispute that needs to be addressed? If so, how would you define it?

I see individual disputes over content between – very, very broadly – editors along the lines of the two sides in Russia’s war in Ukraine, but that is a content issue covered by our guidelines like following RS, and avoiding FRINGE views and a false balance. It is inevitable, as there is a range of opinions on some of these questions in reliable sources, there are grey sources along the fringes, and a documented large volume of disinformation. I don’t see how we can change this with a discussion, but glad to hear ideas on it.  —Michael Z. 21:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Gitz6666 from topics related to Russia and Ukraine, especially in light of the evidence presented since this discussion started. Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  May I ask, which evidence in particular did you find most compelling? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban for Gitz6666 from Russia and lUkraine. I have called for one in the past, more than once I believe, and the very consistent minimization of Russian wrongdoing, and eagerness to prove that Ukrainians do wrong also, has only become more consistent and POINTy over time. Special mention for the topic of rape in this war, which I have [Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 9 more than once] had to leave in the hands of VM for my own mental health and serenity. Every time he appears at ANI (usually to complain about others), and is not boomeranged, he continues in the same path believing he's been validated and is justified in defending the invasion against the unfair portrayal that he believes it receives. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
• Note most of the support voices above are from editors who had extensive content disputes with Gitz and follow recent closures Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 21#RfC on military objectives near civilians and Stara Krasnianka attack and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vita_Zaverukha. PaulT2022 (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a very broad and facile statement. I am doing my best to not be insulted by the fact that it follows my comment. It does however remind me that I meant to mention a pattern of new editors appearing out of nowhere (See Just Prancing, also see Mrboondocks) to agree with Gitz. I am not sure exactly how and why this happens, as some of them do seem to be separate editors; others not so much.

The other editors in the support column above are capable of speaking for themselves, but I for one was not involved in the closures you cite, and am getting mighty tired of pointing out that I have zero ties to Ukraine beyond a playmate I had when I was six. I became involved in the war crimes and human rights spinoff articles as part of an initiative to lean down 2022 Russia invasion of Ukraine when it started to get big. I became of aware of Gitz when he insisted that a source that reported on a social media propaganda video was in fact reporting the rumor as fact. Since this was one incident in a larger picture and the dispute required knowledge of French to appreciate, I let it go, especially since I had urgent offline matters. I have since chimed in several times when Gitz's arguments have reached the RS or NPOV Noticeboards, which has been often.

I am cursed with a vivid imagination and have had to walk away several times from endless bludgeoning discussions with Gitz, of, for example, whether this or that horrific Russian action was really notable or really a war crime. There is never however any question in Gitz' mind however as to whether any given suggestion of Ukrainian wrongdoing should be discussed in great detail in a stand-alone article. Nor am I particularly aligned with any of these other editors. I have in the past had quite acrimonious disputes with both VM and GizzyCatBella. But I do agree with them about many of their complaints here about Gitz, and also urge that his behaviour be addressed. If doing so would require splitting off a separate discussion and going full diffs and analysis, just ping me and I will have quite a bit to say.

It needs to happen and I say this knowing that Gitz will post walls of text (he always does) and will claim bad faith and/or ignorance on the part of everyone involved. He always does. Dealing with Gitz is a full-time job,(Rape as "weapon of war" in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) particularly at ANI. He really needs a dedicated fact-checking team. (Months after Bucha, still fighting to say the Russians do not rape) He says he is productive, but it would be more accurate to say that he is prolific. Perhaps due to sincere beliefs, he really does closely follow Kremlin talking points (See RfC on TASS), which are often inaccurate (to say the least) when it comes to this war and related matters like Ukrainian language policy. Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That's two separate statements: a) most (not all) voices in support are expressed by editors who were engaged in content disputes with Gitz and b) this discussion follows closures of two related RfCs, in one of which closer directly addresses use of sources echoing "Kremlin talking points". PaulT2022 (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OK. "Or" would have been better than "and", but I accept that you did not necessarily mean to include me. Peace. I have no issue with you and don't think I have ever encountered you before, which is why I was slightly taken aback. It may still be a pretty broad statement but I will leave that call to others. Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry about my walls of text, Elinruby, in the future I'll try to aspire to the Attic brevity of your comments.
• Your Months after Bucha, still fighting to say the Russians do not rape is just slander. The link points to this discussion at NOR/N where I didn't argue that Russians did not rape.
• Your he really does closely follow Kremlin talking points is more slander. The link points to a RfC on TASS where I !voted for the status quo ("Unclear or additional considerations apply") and argued that

  I don't trust TASS because of general common sense considerations (it's owned by the state, that state is not a pluralist democracy where political parties can compete freely, Russia is ranked 155 out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index, many journalists have been murdered, etc.: see Media freedom in Russia)

• Your inaccurate (to say the least) when it comes to ... Ukrainian language policy is inaccurate, to say the least. In the discussion you linked I did not quote TASS; the text I proposed for the article (see "Draft on linguistic rights in the collapsable here [78]) was entirely accurate/verifiable and in fact was largely included in the article as it is now.
• The difference between you and me is that I know I often don't understand what you say: I understand that I don't understand you.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

See my reply to your other reply above. I am not at this instant available to go down various rabbit holes on individual edits with you. However, since this seems to be the rare occasion when multiple other editors in the topic area both have had enough of your antics and yet are not sufficiently upset to need a wikibreak, I will freaking clear my schedule to provide a fuller answer later because of this.

I would however like to deal with some of the lower-hanging fruit. 1) I have never claimed to be immune from error and as a matter of fact have more than once said that in many ways editing Wikipedia helps a great deal in cultivating a sense of humility 2) You are right to say that I do not understand why you act the way you do, which strikes me as very wrong, at a bedrock level. 3) I don't think I said that you quoted TASS with respect to the language policy. Not on purpose anyway. I will look at that when I come back and amend if needed, for example because of any missing words. 4) The discussion on language policy is a good example of your modus operandi. I expressed alarm that your statements were not only mistaken but could be twisted into a validation of one of Russia's excuses for this invasion. I also pointed out that a) the law was just now taking effect but was passed in a prior administration years before the war and b) Quebec has had a very similar law for years if not decades, without any English speakers dying untreated in hospital waiting rooms, contrary to your hyperventilating on the subject, nor has the United States felt a need to invade Canada over this. France also very definitely has an official language and yet does not seem to be in contravention of those lengthy regulatory documents you were bandying about.

(As a side complaint and also a point that is somewhat in your defense, I would like to mention your proclivity for very long reports by international agencies, often cited without a page number, and your heavy reliance on Google Translate, which may cause some of these disputes. I have noted elsewhere that you are involved in Wikiproject Law. You were in fact correct when you said that the invasion was not a war crime, which some other editors found outrageous. But a war crime is indeed committed by an individual not a country, and the invasion is actually a crime of aggression or perhaps a crime against humanity. So with respect to the terms of art you were correct. But when I later said that I was willing to help with any language issues, you took this as an insult aimed at you, even though several of the editors in the topic area are not writing in their maternal language, including me btw, and it is possible that other disagreements here have some similar root).

4bis) If your proposed text on language policy was included unaltered, I don't think it means what you think it means. I guess I will take another look later since we're now at ANI discussing this, but I did not get the impression at the time that you were paying any attention at all to my concern about whether given the Russian claims in their domestic headlines it was DUE to include a discussion of suggested improvements to the previously-passed Ukrainian language law, in view of the need to integrate it into the cadre of EU law in future given the application to join the EU. I stopped beating my head on that wall as I recall, and imho this is why so much of the text in the topic area is written by you. You ask legalistic questions and when there is pushback you skip off to do the same in a different article. Elinruby (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I usually disagree with Gitz's edits, but I agree with Mr Ernie that in situations where a topic area is routinely disrupted by the ill behavior of several competing editors, focusing on just one of them is both unfair, and worse: can result in content bias, since it amounts to silencing one position to the benefit of others. Moreover, when one problematic behavior is instigated by another (see Gitz's observation, and the preceding evidence by Michael and Mellk, here), resolving the former without addressing the latter all but guarantees that we'll be in the same place again in a few months' time, just as we have a dozen times before. François Robere (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The topic ban is precisely meant to address the "dozen times before" issue since all these "times before" involved Gitz, and every of those "times before" involved someone, including uninvolved editors, proposing a topic ban for them. So you actually kind of have it backwards. Volunteer Marek 16:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Here a small selection of diffs where I report Russian war crimes, remove Russian propaganda, remove pro-Russian vandalism and add pro-Ukraine contents. [79][80][81][82][83] and more recently [84]. I have nearly 50 of those, from 24 March to 15 July 2022, some of which are easily accessible in my sandboxes (which VM knows so much better than me) here, because I decided to share them in reply to the AE request MVBW filed against me in July.

I started publishing about Russian war crimes even before the invasion on 24 February 2022: [85]. So I can prove that I at least try comply with NPOV. One may agree or disagree with my edits, but one cannot say I'm a Russian POV pusher. A pro-Russian supporter doesn't spend hours of their time publishing this sort of things on Wikipedia. On the other hand, VM and MVBW are devoted anti-Russian POV-pushers. For them it would be hard (and in the case of MVBW impossibile) to provide diffs showing that at least occasionally they have tried to be neutral. If you ban me and keep VM and MVBW, the EE will be severely unbalanced. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 So why do so many users criticize you, not them?

Do you know what bothers me the most about your approach to editing? The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Listen Gizzy, honestly, I don't agree with you, but I hear you, and in talk page discussions the "many users" are basically VM and MVBW; sometimes you join them. But on many occasions my views are shared by others, especially uninvolved editors, and sometimes, dare I say often, they achieve consensus. I avoid WP:CANVASSing them, and pinging them would also be very "noisy" and annoying, but you know, there are users who agree with me in t/p discussions, and in fact I've published a lot in the EE area. . Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 - Do you think you’ll be able to accept the view of majority more often? Like seriously, usually, if you don’t get your way, you keep arguing, and arguing and arguing on multiple pages at once. Peek at your edit history, you focus on one subject only - War in Ukraine and related. Why not take a breather and edit something else? Can you voluntarily stay away from Ukraine for say.. 3 months? If you promise that, then I swear, I change my ! vote to oppose. Hell, I'll do it in 2 seconds! - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

As I demonstrated here above (15:14, 12 January 2023) it's not true that I focus on one subject only. As for your proposal, I'd be happy to stay away from Ukraine 3 months, 6 months, a year, or even indefinitely, as long as VM and MVBW also stay away for the same period. In fact, I believe that they are relentless POV-pushers, very active in the EE area, who don't respect our core policies of NPOV, NOR and V, and I fear that, left alone, they could unbalance the whole area. Perhaps ARBCOM is the way to go, as El_C recently proposed somewhere - I don't know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, what El_C proposed was a full case @WP:RFAR I'm not sure I understand what this implies, although I fear what followed a major time investment and would like to spare myself that. Their comment is at 06:25, 15 December 2022 in this discussion at AN, where also François Robere and possibly other users mentioned ArbCom. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Why don’t you try and see? I think if you voluntarily withdrew from the area for a little while, they’ll also and naturally contribute less. Let’s be honest Gitz6666..you are forcing a certain POV with your edits (in my humble opinion very strong and firm pro-Russian point of view, distant from being unbiased). Are you even aware of that? Maybe not? .. and ArbCom is the last alternative solution not nessesarry yet. I believe we, a community, we can solve the issue here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not forcing a strong and firm pro-Russian point of view here and I've already shared many diffs showing that I edit for both sides of the conflict. I can provide many more similar diffs because for months, when an OHCHR report on Ukraine was published, I would read it and include its notable contents, and most of the times they were about Russian war crimes. If occasionally one of these contents was an allegation of Ukrainian war crimes, however, I was systematically reverted by VM and MVBW, whose editing in the EE area is completely one-sided, and who recently have even started WP:STALKING me around the encyclopaedia, to stir up conflict and white-wash any dark spot in the narrative the intend to promote.

So I definitely reject the label of "pro-Russia". If you want to speak about the opposing narratives, so to speak, about the different editorial approaches and the underlying value-choices, I'm redy to do so openly, but this cannot be framed in terms "Gitz is pro-Russia and VM and MVBW are pro-Ukraine", which would be totally false and misleading. Besides, I also resent the attempt to solve our recurring content disputes, that is, disputes between different views on how to build the encyclopeadia about Ukraine and the war, by means of decisive administrative action. While I always comply with policy, especially with NPOV, N, NOR, and NPA, most of the editors who support my topic ban have harsh content disputes with me (VM, MVBW, GCB, Elinruby, Cambial Yellowing and TimothyBlue). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Gitz is battlegrounding the issue of rape in the Russo-Ukraine war at two more pages:

• Talk:Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Streaming WP:Proseline
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: mass rape and rape as a weapon of war.

in addition to the previous discussions at

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 375#Rape as "weapon of war" in War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
• Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 9#Rape as a "weapon of war"

WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, WP:FORUMSHOPPING.  // Timothy :: talk  02:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that the first link is to a discussion where I just invited (a couple of hours ago) TimothyBlue and another user to express their views in the second discussion linked by TimothyBlue so that we can have an orderly and unified discussion and allow the closer, if there will be a formal closure, to take your views into account. If you review the two remaining discussions, the old ones, you'll see that three users agreed with me (Hawkeye7, Boynamedsue, Otr500) and four disagreed (VM, MVBW, Shadybabs, Ixtal). So, if anything those old discussions show that at the time there was no consensus for including "rape as weapon of war" in the article, which in fact was removed from War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine [86]. Yet VM added it to Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. WP:IDHT applies to him. You didn't review these discussions before posting them here, did you, TimothyBlue? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This is about your behavior, not a about content.  // Timothy :: talk  02:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: What does "battlegrounding the issue" mean? With all due respect, if you want to convince anyone of anything, it's going to take more than linking to some discussions and linking to some n doing in this discussion that violates policy? Looking at the underlying edit, Special:Diff/1131576255, which you reverted at Special:Diff/1132810424, I don't understand why you reverted it. I don't understand why you dispute his edit summary, "streamlining" as inaccurate -- that edit does indeed look like copyediting prose. I don't even perceive what of any consequence has changed in that edit (aside from rearranging the prose). I'm probably missing some detail or background, but this first example just looks like a content dispute that is being discussed on the article talk page, which is what's supposed to happen. What is the problem exactly? Levivich (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, this is about the links you shared, TimothyBlue. You said they were proving behavioural issues, but in fact in the two old discussions "inclusion" did not reach consensus, ok? So WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND applies to VM and MVBW, not to me. And to the first two discussions, WP:FORUMSHOPPING does not apply: I opened a discussion at NPOV to include more editors and I pointed the new discussion to editors who were still discussing in the t/p. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose singling out one editor for WP:PA, WP:POV, WP:IDHT, or WP:BATTLEGROUND when the topic area is chock full of it. per Mr Ernie. I've tried to follow this tortuously long discussion. One of the areas of disagreement appears to be whether rape was bring used as a weapon of war. The sources doesn't seem to support that they are, and while Gitz fights his corner tenaciously, he does so largely courteously. Pincrete (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand that Gitz6666 agreed that the rape as a weapon of war was used in the conflict, at least according to some sources. Here [87] he says that Our reliable sources are well aware of that meaning - or at least most of them are; maybe not all the journalists, but surely Pramila Patten, the U.N.’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict, knows what she says when she says that Russian forces are carrying out sexual violence as part of their military strategy. I agreed with him [88]. Basically, if the commander-in-chief (Putin) awards the military detachment that comitted multiple rapes, along with other atrocities in Bucha (as was widely publicized in media) there is no doubt that the military command in fact supports these atrocities. As about the teancious fight by Gitz, yes, absolutely. He is saying one thing, then something different, and contunue arguing to infinity. This creates waste of time and extremely long discussions that no one uninvolved can understand and interpret. That's the problem. Did anyone who actually interacted with Gitz in these discussions supported him here? My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The comment by Gitz above [89] is instructive. While he says that rapes have indeed been commited as a weapon of war according to UN, his comment was framed as an objection to my previous comment(s). I frequently had an impression that he is making these long discussions only for the sake of making them, so that others would leave these pages. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

You are are misrepresenting my argument. If someone had time to do so, they could easily verify this. I didn't say that rapes have indeed been commited as a weapon of war according to UN. This is not true: there's no official report or any official statement by the UN about rape as a weapon of war. If there were, I'd be happy to have "rape as a weapon of war" in the lead and would defend it against any attempt to remove it. We have, however, an interview by Pramila Patten, UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, where she says that rape is being used as a weapon of war [90]. The question currently under discussion is whether that's enough to support the corresponding statement made in wikivoice in the lead. However, what is not under discussion - and this is the point of the diff you just shared - is whether Pramila Patten understands the meaning of the expression "rape as a weapon of war". Obviously she does, while you don't [91]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I understand as follows from my next comment where I agree with you [92]. The problem here is different: you are making comments that contradict each other, it is hard to understand if you agree or disagree with something, and most importantly, others disagee with you in such discusssions, but you still continue your "teancious fight". My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Pramila Patten is the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict (Bio on UN) making statements to the press in their capacity as Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict. It is her job to make official statements and interviews on this subject, she is not an opinion columnist. Trying to frame this as just an interview is nonsense and disruptive as are the other claims they make against the other sources in the article.  // Timothy :: talk  18:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Timothy, it's an interview ok? I agree it's very relevant, but is not a press release or an official statement of her office [93], let alone a report of the OHCHR. And if you have finished editing the article, I'd like to remove the quotation you just added

When we surrendered Lyman, we slaughtered everyone out there, f**king khokhols [a derogatory Russian term for Ukrainians]... We raped them, slaughtered them, shot them. In Lyman and Torske, we just walked around shooting everyone. All the men who were younger were taken to us out there, and the women, young ones: they were all f**ked, slaughtered, shot

As I already explained, this is an intercepted phone conversation circulated by the Ukrainian security service (SBU); Ukrainska Pravda published it and YahooNews further circulated it; but the SBU is not a reliable source. When you first published it, it was in a footnote and the text explicitly acknowledged the source of the interception: The Security Service of Ukraine (SSU) has intercepted a telephone conversation between occupiers which testifies... [94]. It was questionable (I questioned it), but now you even have brought that text in the body of the article, that large and highly visible quotation, and have omitted mentioning the source of the interception [95]. Why did you do this? This is not OK. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Done: [96] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for lack of evidence. Everything Gitz is accused of doing (bludgeoning, edit warring, aspersions), many editors supporting the ban are also doing. Even here, there seems to be no problem engaging with Gitz in lengthy weeks-long multi-page arguments. If he's so disruptive, why do you spend so much time talking to him? In most of the content discussions, it seems about half the editors agree with Gitz. The reason Gitz never gets banned is because you can't ban someone because they disagree with you on content. It might help if those of you supporting this were more impartial: like you might want to actually comment on the OP instead of using this as an opportunity to remove a content opponent. Levivich (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Oppose group ban as well for the same reason: lack of evidence. I actually think in the long term, a group ban (meaning, topic-banning multiple editors from Russia/Ukraine) is what will happen. If this went to arbcom, I'd put money on it. But still, any proposal for such a ban needs to have evidence that topic banning certain editors is necessary to prevent disruption. That's lacking here. If someone wanted to make such a proposal, they should do it in a separate thread, with recent diffs for each editor who is proposed to be banned, etc. (There really should be no problem coming up with recent diffs from multiple editors, just from this thread alone.) Until then, it seems this is just yet another page where the same group of editors is having TLDR arguments, so my !vote for this sub-thread is close this subthread. And maybe then some editors would actually take up the complaint in the OP? Levivich (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no proposal for group ban. Probably because that would be absurd. Also, right now, since you bolded your statements, it looks like you're voting "oppose" twice. Can you move your second oppose somewhere else or de-emphasize it? Volunteer Marek 21:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I think this talk comment is very illustrative of their battleground behavior, I'd be happy to stay away from Ukraine 3 months, 6 months, a year, or even indefinitely, as long as VM and MVBW also stay away for the same period. In fact, I believe that they are relentless POV-pushers, very active in the EE area, who don't respect our core policies of NPOV, NOR and V, and I fear that, left alone, they could unbalance the whole area. I read this as if I can't win, I want my opponents to lose with me and I will continue until I win or we all lose.  // Timothy :: talk  14:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, even if Gitz didn’t deserve a topic ban before, it’s hard to see how a comment like that doesn’t merit one. Kind of tipped his hand there. Volunteer Marek 15:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: I read it differently: "instead of trying to figure out who's right and who's wrong, let's just remove both sides from the equation". Haven't AE and ArbCom done the same on numerous occasions? François Robere (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, François, that's exactly the argument I was trying to make. If editors have a battleground mentality, Wikipedia effectively becomes a battleground, and the question of who started to erode the collegial spirit is more difficult to answer, and all in all less important, than the question of how to stop the battle.

I fear that there may be an ongoing editorial battle in the EE area. The editors I mentioned in that statement shared by Timothy (VM and MVBW, occasionally supported by GCB and Elinruby in t/p discussions) have been engaged for months in a systematic activity of removing from the encyclopaedia any content that might cast a shadow over the Ukrainian government. They removed, or attempted to remove, any allegations of Ukrainian war crimes, and these attempts were rejected in various talk page discussions and in one and possibly two RfCs I have opened (here and here). They deleted via redirecting the article "Torture in Ukraine" (see t/p discussions) and attempted to remove the sections on "Torture" and "Language rights" from Human Rights in Ukraine. They attempted to delete the section on "Ukrainian forces" from Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and I opened a discussion at NPOVN. They attempted to delete Vita Zaverukha and didn't succeed because of the discussion at AN that I opened and the ensuing failed AFD. They attempted to turn Ivan Katchanovski into an attack page and I opened a discussion at BLP/N. They've stalked my edits - at Ruslan Kotsaba, Roger Waters and Svetlana Alexievich. It is not for me to judge, but I believe that in terms of POV-pushing, edit warring and battleground mentality they are far worse than me, although they have different styles - VM failing WP:NPA and WP:CIV, MVBW engaging in sealioning and bludgeoning.

Therefore my concern is reasonable: if you ban one of the most active editors in the EE area, the encyclopaedia will be unbalanced. I'd be happy to leave if they leave as well, no matter whether on the basis of a gentleman's agreement or a formally logged T-ban. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

^^^ Messiah complex ^^^  // Timothy :: talk  18:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

and btw with ~2,008 total mainspace edits over ~12yrs, you are nowhere near "one of the most active editors in the EE area" and a meaningful number of those edits have been reverted.  // Timothy :: talk  18:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Gitz, you're just digging the hole deeper. "Ban others just to make me feel better" is not some kind of consolation prize for getting sanctioned because you've been causing extensive problems in a topic area. Volunteer Marek 18:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment (re to comments just above). I do not see Gitz as a "side". Yes, he has a personal POV, just as everyone else, even though he does not admit it. He does many valid edits in this subject area. I only think he became a "net negative" at this point in this subject area by wasting time of many other contributors in countless prolonged discussions, along with WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:BATTLE and making false statements (e.g. no one wikistalked him on page Svetlana Alexievich, etc.). This is not only my opinion. Many people voted "support" the topic ban above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, he has a personal POV, just as everyone else, even though he does not admit it. Nope. I do have a POV, but I've always been ready to admit it and briefly (because of WP:NOTAFORUM) expose it when it was appopriate, e.g. at the AE request you lodged against me. I avoid looking up the diff and state it again, since you, VM, GCB and Elinruby always imply I'm pro-Russia.

  I believe that Putin is a ruthless dictator at the head of a declining military and political superpower. His invasion of Ukraine is an illegal aggression, and a political and humanitarian catastrophe. I don't particularly fancy Ukrainian nationalists either, actually, or any kind of nationalism, to be honest. Rapid nation-building processes within collapsing empires and dissolving multinational states are bound to be a shitty business (see Yugoslavia). My main hope for the region is that the war ends as soon as possible.

  To that end, the encyclopeadia can do nothing or, at the most, it can do very, very little. Since its mission is to circulate knowledge, however, it might indirectly promote mutual understanding between informed readers. That's the best it can do and that is, so to speak, my POV. But I have the impression that you, VM and possibly others have a different POV. It looks to me as if you want the encyclopaedia to provoke first and foremost moral indignation and irreconcilable hostility, you want it to raise warlike spirits; in a time of war, people might want a warmongering encyclopaedia, an encyclopaedia that tells you that you are invariably right, and the others are totally and irredeemably wrong, and are also evil. But this would not be NPOV, this would be nonsense. Our RS are far more pluralistic and self-critical than you'd like them to be. If this is the role of the Encyclopaedia you are aiming for, then it is at odds with all our policies, starting with NPOV but also NOR (see e.g. the lead of Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Ivan Katchanovski). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Let me disagree about your POV and other points. That is what you do [97],[98] during a standing ANI discussion about you. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• by the way, @TimothyBlue has just started edit warring at Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Maybe an admin or an uninvolved editor should rimind him of WP:BRD? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Please examine all of my edits.  // Timothy :: talk  19:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  OK:

  1. BOLD addition including quote
  2. reinstate quote
  3. reinstate quote again

  How is this anything other than edit warring in a bold addition? Levivich (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Because I'm actively working on the section as is indicated by the IN USE tag. I will revert again and continue working on the article. If you want to trade me to Gitz, fine. I done letting him screw with me.  // Timothy :: talk  20:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Reverted and going back to work.  // Timothy :: talk  20:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Now you've received a 3RR template from me, and if you reinstate it again, I will post at ANEW. Just because it's {{inuse}} doesn't mean you WP:OWN the page or can ignore WP:ONUS. I've posted a discussion at the article talk page, please join it rather than edit warring. Levivich (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  And now MVBW has reinstated the content. This is what editing in this topic area is like. All observers would have predicted this. WP:ONUS? WP:CONSENSUS? Those are optional. If we want it in, we'll edit war it in; if we want it out, we'll edit war it out. No rules, just might makes right. Levivich (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Levivich, you, for some reason only known to you and you alone, decided to jump in a middle of a dispute and started reverting left and right. You took a simmering, potential edit war, and turned it into an all out edit war. What did you expect? And why exactly did you believe this was going to be helpful? And are you seriously trying to argue that including the well sourced info that Russian soldiers committed rape (which is extensively documented) is a.... "BLPVIO"? [99] Presumably against "Russian soldiers"? Is this for real? Volunteer Marek 21:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• I know, it's quite annoying. Note that I don't behave like that - I don't force my edits on the articles. When things like this happen, and they happen all the time, I open discussions - first on the t/p, then on the appropriate noticeboard. And for this reason they call me a POV-pusher prone to BATTLEGROUND, IDHT, etc. The only new thing for me is the contribution of Timothy, whom I had not yet encountered. There must be a way for the community to find a different approach to editing in the EE area. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

OK Pinocchio. I and all the diffs I've posted, *again*, disagree, and.do do these other editors. It's astounding how confident they've allowed you to become that if you post enough walls of garbage nobody will bother to read any of them. You've shoveled offal all over the topic area and I am too am tired of the AGF suicide pact applying to everyone but you. Before you protest any more about what a good editor you are how about striking the aspersions against me above? How about you apologize for what you did to the language law section? Not to mention the sexual violence article? You need a community ban, forget a topic ban; you were always just going to switch accounts, is why you were so smug over that. Elinruby (talk)

• Well, let's see, in an article about sexual violence, he has added material about sexual violence, including public and official statements of a UN official, cited to an assortment of unquestionably reliable news sources (CNN, Washington Post). I don't see why he would need Gitz' permission to do that, especially since according to Gitz' he did so by moving it from a note to the body, which presumably was a single edit. I have lost track of the number of times and the number of ways that Gitz has litigated whether material about sexual assault in Ukraine IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN UKRAINE is UNDUE or editwarring or OR or an attempt to persecute him personally but perhaps someone else will add them up, while I try to figure out how anyone is supposed to discuss anything with someone who can creatively misunderstand a sentence three different ways even after it is explained to him clause by clause. Somebody asked why people take issue with him then, if he is so wrong and so litigious. *Somebody* needs to say something and so far it hasn't been ANI, 3RR, ArbCom, RSN, NPOVN or ORN in any of the many many issues raised there on a constant basis in the seven months that I have been watching this. These walls of text are deliberate btw, there is no way it's not on purpose at this point. MVBW is exactly right about that. You think this is painful? It's ALWAYS like this. You pat editors on the head and tell them to go discuss on the talk page and when they try Gitz creates another firehose of falsehood elsewhere, while complaining as he does above about Ukrainian nationalists. Nobody in this complaint is Ukrainian btw, and why would that ethnic slur be ok anyway, especially when applied to veteran editors who are required to AGF with the hours-old accounts popping up to agree with the person making it. Yo WMF, stop asking us if we.feel safe editing Wikipedia and start dealing with the reasons why we don't. Your admins are scared to admin in case somebody gets mad.

Elinruby (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh and I SUPPORT the addition of material to articles about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that is cited to RS, well-written, completely on-topic, and has consensus. Elinruby (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby why do you call me "Pinocchio"? Don't you see that lamenting my "firehose of falsehood" and "ethnic slur" and adding the picture of a rooster is unbecoming for a discussion at ANI or elsewhere? I remind you that I recently left a warning on your user page inviting you to stop your repeated personal attacks against me: [100]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

:: Probably because I laughed at your emoting over the free speech rights of oppressed billionaire Russian media moguls. If so it didn't keep you from dismissing other editors and claiming in a bunch of nonsense in the human rights article. Oh and accusing me of inaccuracy in this complaint, shrug. Not that I can't be wrong, but about whether Quebec has a language policy? And that the US has yet to invade over it? I am just not, in this case, and I even warned you that you should go for a walk or something. You're just lashing out because you're mad that you are no longer impeding that sexual violence page after all these months. You should just own it, Gitz. We all know it's true Elinruby (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"Your admins are scared to admin in case somebody gets mad" and posting a picture of a chicken at ANI? It's a bold strategy, let's see if it pays off. Levivich (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

CIR editor?

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

---

Zahamey (talk · contribs) has a long history of warnings, particularly by User:Austronesier and User:Adakiko, mainly for adding unsourced material but also for edit-warring and copyvio. I've reverted some at History of Islam, one lost giving my edit summary as "Unsourced and readers won’t understand"the passage of sidi ouqba ibn nafi in the kawar'. They also seem to have an agenda which in part may explain this, see their statement "our history is being usurped and we have realized this is where the campaign against misinformation against us that we are leading by restoring the truth the purge was carried out on other sites but here you are preventing us from restoring the truth" on their talk page. I haven't reverted this large edit[101] which contains a lot of unsourced, some but not all proper names in lower case, and text such as "The sovereign za kosto" which I doubt many of our readers will understand. The first paragraph of this edit is sourced with sfn citation styles. I suspect all of this is copied from other sources but can't trace them. Translations perhaps.

I considered blocking them myself but decided to bring it here instead. I'll go notify them now. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at his talk page and it seems evident that he's translating stuff from the French. With that in mind I checked the French wiki article on the Songhai Empire and he has also been editing there, where he seems to write more clearly but he still fails to capitalise some proper nouns. At the same time, I get the impression that he may be trying to add stuff from the oral tradiiton of his people, which is of course harder to source and not encyclopaedic (this doesn't mean it's worthless, but that this is just not the place for it and at best it would be a "primary" source). I'd say he's acting in good faith, but yes, it's a CIR issue. Ostalgia (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

They have returned to editing and adding unsourced text. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The editor has a long history of adding unsourced text, or pasting arbitrary sources as reference that do not support the added text. They have been warned multiple times and simply do not care. I suggest a temporary block first. –Austronesier (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The user has not edited in two days. Maybe they've self-blocked . Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

They have not, and they're back at it. Opening a diff at random their edits seem to include references, but include SYNTH/OR or point to a source that mentions whatever he's trying to add in a laconic, passing comment. More interesting, however, is the fact that my previous guess about him drawing from oral tradition seems to be confirmed by one of the sources he cites - Here he writes a few lines about canals built under a series of rulers:

Canal still visible today were dug by the emperors Sonni Ali Ber and askia Muhammad especially in the region of Timbuktu to pass their large fleets, the largest called Sunni Ali Ber Cannal was dig under the orders of the emperor when he wanted to conquer Oualata, they wanted to connect Timbuktu to Oualata so that they could attack the city by Waterway. The canals are subject to rehabilitation by the local populations especially and have been subject to rehabilitation by the French and Gaddafi. The emperors also dug and widened several ports including those of Kabara and Djenne.

The source he draws from, however, makes only passing references to these canals, certainly nothing to suggest that adition:

"Although [Sunni 'Ali] failed in his attempt to dig a canal from the Niger to Walata, he is said to have built dykes in the river valley and encouraged agriculture." (p. 193)

"[Askiya Muhammad] is said to have dug a canal in the Kabara-Timbuktu region." (p. 194)

That is all there is about canals there. However, a footnote to that second quote indicated that its source, in turn, is "[o]ral tradition recorded in Timbuktu, where the course of a canal running from Kabara towards Timbuktu is still pointed out" (p. 194n). I think he's drawing from oral tradition, writing his wiki contributions, and then trying to find any text that says anything remotely resembling what he "knows" in order to add a "reference". I'd add that RGW is probably an issue as well, given his talk page. Ostalgia (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And they add text such as “ The Guimi koy where guimey bani koy was the head of the ports.” Doug Weller talk 18:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve blocked. When I gave them the ANI notice they “liked” it but never responded. Doug Weller talk 18:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

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

KLG-DCPR

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

---

KLG-DCPR (talk · contribs) created a misplaced page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Brian Meshkin (2nd nomination) along with a bunch of legal statement on it. Is there any sysop wanting to deal with that? Lemonaka (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW, this is really a complicated case. Lemonaka (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Where are the legal threats in the AFD you speak of here? Yes, the user has indicted that they work for a law firm representing the person on the page, but nowhere in the AFD have they threatened legal action against Wikipedia.

KLG-DCPR makes a decent point that the biography needs to be cleaned up to represent current events (as it could be someone libelous now), and they make a point that it could possibly fail WP:ONEEVENT. I'd argue the page should stay up (with an update about the court case cited and posted) because of the coverage of him outside the case. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Nothing, i misread the sentences with minor lawsuit. By the way, I have a strong sense that KLG-DCPR created a wrong page while he stated he wanted to delete the article, but the target for XFD is the talk page. Lemonaka (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Update

It was clear to me that the nominator made a good-faith mistake in invoking the 'xfd' tab while on the talk page rather than on the article page, and that they wanted to delete the article. They composed a statement as to why the article should be deleted. I commented that the MFD for the talk page should be procedurally closed as the wrong venue. I then copied the deletion nomination and made a procedural AFD nomination of the article. The MFD was then closed as Speedy Keep. The AFD is now pending. Any discussion of whether the BLP should be kept or deleted should be in the AFD; that's what an AFD is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

For anyone who wishes to participate, the new AfD is Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Meshkin_(2nd_nomination). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Gareth Carraway

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

---

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

I'm not really sure what to make of this. Gareth Carraway is going around deleting sourced content and changing sourced content to say stuff that the source doesn't say. For example: Special:Diff/1126608669, Special:Diff/1126608958, Special:Diff/1126610129, Special:Diff/1132795779. I've warned him several times about this, but his response so far has only been to call me "delusional" and threaten to have me blocked instead. I don't think this person is interested in editing Wikipedia according to reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Regular personal attacks from Gareth[102][103][104] — Czello 11:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

They were blocked one week by ComplexRational per NPA. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 09:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

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

AB120399: edit war, adds back unsourced information despite numerous removals, violates BURDEN

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

---

User:AB120399 has added back numerous times unsourced content, thus violating WP:BURDEN (somtimes they added the same info but FICTREFed). I have tried numerous times to explain the rules of WP to the user and warned them (see their talk page and my edit-summaries below) since the user is relatively new; I was also a bit too lazy to make an ANI that would require so much work. This is why I have reverted the user many times before opening this ANI. The user's refusal to communicate lately while continuing to add the same info is what pushed me to open this ANI, to stop AGFing.

On Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI, on top of adding back their unsourced content, the user has also been reverted by otehr users. They have also been explained at the talk page why they were reverted, but continue to attempt to force the addition. See :

1. adding, removal (Pbritti);
2. adding back, removal (Veverve);
3. adding back, removal (Veverve);
4. adding back, removal (Veverve), here the user has violated 3RR;
5. adding back, removal (Ravenpuff);
6. adding back, removal (Veverve);
7. adding back; removal (Ravenpuff)
8. and lastly, adding back

Here is an example of the user tryings to hide their OR with a disingenuous FICTREF.

Death and state funeral of Pope John Paul II :

1. removal (Veverve);
2. adding back, removal (Veverve);
3. adding back, removal (Veverve);
4. adding back, removal (Veverve);
5. adding back.

As you can see, the user is never going to stop unless they are permanently blocked from editing those two pages. They have consistently edit warred. Dialogue with the user is impossible, and they seem to be decided to wage an attrition edit war. Veverve (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Obvious edit wars might be reported at wikipedia:ANI/3RR Lemonaka (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the violation of BURDEN makes it more than an edi war. Veverve (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 72h to start with. I see that they tried to discuss at the talk page of the article, were told to stop and explained why, but decide to continue edit-warring. Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Closed

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

Achar Sva

Achar Sva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Achar Sva is a regular contributor to articles relating to Christian–and especially Catholic Marian–theology. The editor asserts they hold a high standard for encyclopedic reliability, often correctly deferring to sources published by reputable institutions. However, the editor has a penchant for removing reliably sourced information not originating from secular academic institutions (decrying some sources as "confessional" or too old, even when the claims those sources support are historically valid and the sources themselves acceptable), ignoring repeated warnings to refrain from blanking such information, and intentional edit-warring and incivility. The editor has been warned about edit-warring many times by over a half-dozen editors ([105], [106], [107], [108], [109], etc.), openly ignores active discussions on talk pages, and leaves edit summaries that repeatedly demonstrate a dissonance from the fact that views expressed in the Bible or by major historic figures might be relevant to articles on Christian doctrine ([110], [111]). While Achar Sva claims to be upholding high standards of reliability, their removal of sources sometimes seemingly at random ([112], [113]), incivility, and multi-year inability to acknowledge policy (preferring to attribute all criticism to Catholics) should result in a topic ban. This topic ban suggestion comes from Ineffablebookkeeper. As a post-script, it should be noted Achar Sva has been wrongly chastised by other editors for illegitimate reasons; I will not describe these wrongful critiques in detail as they are not immediately relevant to the incidents referenced in this report. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand his desire to remove apologist arguments from articles, but I cannot get behind his removals of the church fathers as sources. The person he edit wars with is also fairly disruptive, but for different reasons. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there are others with whom Achar Sva spars that engage in regular disruptive editing. I have encouraged one to review their behavior and I am willing to discuss them further if the need arises. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(@Pbritti: can you remind me when I suggested a ban? Cus I can't seem to recall it, though I'm sure I had a reason...)—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 22:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, not a problem, @Ineffablebookkeeper: this section of the reported's talk page. You suggest that the various warnings may eventually mature into a topic ban. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you; I remember it now. I will admit, for Achar Sva's part, that I have only recently begun to come to terms with the fact that my background, very Anglican, is by definition quite Catholic-adjacent, but I don't think anyone knowing me personally could accuse me of being unwilling to be frustrated with the problems of the Bible's source material, or various institutional churches.

I do remember it being especially frustrating at the time; I think I gave up on trying to discuss it because I just didn't have the energy. It does sound a bit cowardly but my regular editing is real wikignome stuff, generally because I haven't got the time or concentration to have a real sit-down to-do with someone over wording.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 22:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Very understandable. I only mention you and your suggestion on the grounds that it is a justified warning with a clearly stated consequence—I want any outcome from this discussion to only extend as far as consequences that Achar Sva has been previously warned of. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: not a problem; I hope you find a productive outcome. Wikipedia's Christianity articles are generally of a pretty good standard, save for a few oddities (bare URLs in articles about, unintentional coincidence, Catholicism crop up a lot), but the gritty discussions about what's there and what's not would pass a viewer otherwise unawares by. Thank you for your hard work!—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 23:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Achar Sva sees the following problems with those quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

• source is confessional, i.e. religiously biased for the dogmas of the Catholic Church, instead of mainstream academic;
• source is more than 100 years old, while discussions in the Bible scholarship should render sources 20 or at most 30 years old, due to rapid progress of the field.

Also, quoting Church Fathers runs contrary to WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, if not in letter, then at least in spirit: modern, mainstream Bible scholars make the call, not ancient scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Besides this being a mischaracterization of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, Achar Sva's behavior constantly violates edit warring and civility policies. Your claims about the age of sources doesn't hold up when the deleted information from the Catholic Encyclopedia is not even directly about biblical studies and Achar Sva's deletion extends to scholarship precisely within the window you give. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I knew you'd invoke modern scholarship. I disagree that we can't use the church fathers as sources. As long as we don't describe them as authoritative, I don't see any harm in including their perspectives. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We can and should include the Church Fathers' POVs, if and when and how these POVs are discussed by modern scholars. For anything historical, modern scholarship decides what is significant, not Wikipedia editors. I've long felt that we should include a paragraph about that in WP:NPOV.

Of course in diffs like this Achar Sva is rejecting modern sources, but I suspect this is rather because the text appears to be cherry-picking from the source here (it's also a copyvio, added by Pbritti). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Apaugasma, one can't violate the copyright of the Catholic Encyclopedia as it is in the public domain. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, you should withdraw your statement that @Pbritti is adding copyvio material to the article. Jahaza (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

A public domain source wholly uploaded to WikiSource, no less! Apaugasma, no hard feelings, but I must issue a summary and unserious judgement. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I should have known that; struck. Thanks for pointing it out! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries, it happens! As to your bit about Church Fathers and valuation of their perspectives, Achar Sva removes their positions regardless of whether appear discussed in scholarly volumes or in their original contexts (with proper in-line attribution). ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not only that. I made an edit here on the perpetual virginity of Mary to make it sound more objective and neutral. He reverted it on the grounds that his wording was closer to the cited sources, which in my opinion, was a clear violation of WP:WIKIVOICE. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Scorpions13256, the example you give here prima facie looks like something over which a very legitimate disagreement can be had (even though I personally tend to agree with you), nothing that is by and of itself clear-cut. If it could be established that Achar Sva systematically removes or downplays patristic/Catholic POVs, even when these are present in modern scholarly sources in wp:due proportion, that would constitute Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, a serious issue indeed. But to establish this objectively, which in general is very hard to do, we would need much more and better diffs than are presented right now. When, however, Achar Sva is removing POVs that are taken from primary sources or that are insufficiently prominent in modern sources, it should be considered that perhaps they are merely trying to apply content policy as they understand it. It may be a mix of both, as it often is. One thing is sure though: without better evidence, this report is not actionable. If you are sure about your case, work on the evidence. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I can give you those diffs right here: removes secondary source references to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus; removes secondary source Ebionites and Hegesippus; removes secondary source Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Ebionites, and Hegesippus; removes secondary source Origen; removes secondary source Origen, Jerome, and others; removes secondary source Ambrose, Justin Martyr, etc on grounds of them being "theology" (on the article Immaculate Conception, no less!); same deletion as last, but this time also hastily deleting other material. There are more, but these are just in the last 500 edits that I could find easily. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That looks like much better evidence already. Some of the stuff removed here does have bad sources, and the way the sources are represented is often debatable, but there's also a lot of baby-with-the-bath-water, and a clear tendency. Can you also find examples of this where they push the limit of WP:3RR with these removals (as you allege without evidence below)? I strongly suggest that you go through another 500 or 1000 edits and present all the evidence together in a new subsection dedicated to it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree on some of the stuff being deleted being rightly deleted (especially primary sources of Pseudo-Church Fathers) but, as you said, baby-with-the-bathwater accompanying. New section might be a bit; this isn't how I like to spend my time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

First, my thanks to Pbritti for bringing this to ANI - I have been pressing him to do this for some time. I have two concerns, as another user has pointed out above, about the sources used in Christianity-related articles. They are:

1. 1: The Catholic Encyclopedia is both old (over a century old in fact) and confessional (it is, after all, the Catholic Encyclopedia). Its age means that scholarship has moved on, and its confessional origins make its objectivity suspect (the content, remember, dates from over a century ago, when scholarship was much more polarised). I believe that any points made in the CE which remain vaild today can and should be sourced from modern books. I would welcome a judgement on this.
2. 2: My uneasiness with quoting the Church Fathers of early Christianity - Jerome, Augustine, and so on - relates to the way in which some editors treat them as authoritative - Jerome said X, therefore X is true. Argument like this just isn't valid. On the other hand, the Church Fathers do represent various stages in the evolution of early Christian thought, and in that sense they should indeed be referenced. The references, however, need to be sourced from modern scholarship, not from the original sources.

Finally, I must say I have great respect for Pbritti and I/m sorry to have offended him. Achar Sva (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Catholic Encyclopedia is both old and confessional, which makes it only a semi-reliable source. But on the other hand it should only be rejected when it can be established that more recent sources contradict it, or at least present the same information in a different way. Caution should be taken not to reject it only because it is old or confessional (cf. [114] [115] [116]): it's how it relates to more recent sources that is relevant, and without looking at that it's not possible to judge its relative in-context reliability.

On another note which you haven't addressed, I see that you're editing this article a lot but aren't using its talk page nearly as often. I would probably help if you went there sooner when a disagreement arises and refrained from editing the article until a very clear consensus is established. It can be rather frustrating when other editors are always making the same kind of edits without discussing on talk, or when they just keep editing while there is still an unresolved discussion on the talk page.

Hope this helps, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

First off, I would like to thank Achar Sva for responding civilly. However, your response fails to address your frequent edit warring and intentional ignoring of discussions. Additionally, your particular gripes with the Catholic Encyclopedia are consistently opposed by almost all editors. Additionally, several challenges to CE have been raised by the same small set of editors and it has been repeatedly accepted as reliable for material pre-dating the publication of the particular volume an entry comes from and only specifically unreliable for information on groups the Catholic Church opposes like the Freemasons (see 2008, 2015, and 2022; another 2022 discussion was invalidated for improper form). You have a long history of ignoring consensuses, fighting with the same group of editors without seeking mediation, and pushing the absolute limit of WP:3RR whenever possible. This pattern has been addressed too many times to let it go without consequences. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. First of all, it's good to have some editors willing to contest good-faith editors who are a little overly eager enthusiastic to place their denomination's theology as the True Version of the Religion or to assert theological views are totally backed up by scholars when they aren't. And personally, I can understand some mild "ownership" of articles that effort has been put into, I get it, I do the same thing myself. That said, I do believe Achar Sva's radar on what is appropriate and what is not has malfunctioned on this several times, and neutrally describing theological views (e.g. what original sin is in the context of Christianity) is totally fine and valid. My personal experience with Achar Sva has been rather negative - I was attempted to do some research on the Gospel article after accidentally stepping into an edit dispute between tgeorgescu & Red Slash on the talk page (Talk:Gospel#Expansion_on_Composition_section) and promising to look into the matter more, but when I started, I was simply reverted on the spot by Aachar Sva for what I thought was a fairly harmless and non-controversial update. This was from reading a properly scholarly source - a source recommended by the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman no less - which he completely reverted, twice (the restoral being by a separate editor, too, not me!), simply saying his version is "more accurate." I can't speak for other editors but he successfully "scared off" me from bothering to work on that article at least with this behavior, and I don't think that's great. (Which, to get to the point for ANI and not just be an anecdote, is saying that this isn't strictly Catholic editors disagreeing with Achar Sva, and Pbritti is not alone in thinking he edit wars in his own favor even when he isn't clearly in the right.) SnowFire (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That's two of the issues I'm trying to highlight: 1.) Achar Sva can clearly recognize both the insertion of Christian POV and polemics handily, but doesn't seem to recognize what isn't "confessional bias" but rather notable perspectives on an issue and 2.) excessive aggressiveness that has led to edit warring and other unpleasantness. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

He does not say that the Church Fathers are irrelevant. He just says you have to WP:CITE modern Bible scholars who explain their views.

And this whole thread simply attacks Achar Sva for upholding high academic standards for WP:RS. That's all he is guilty of. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That isn't accurate. I just gave an example of Achar Sva reverting exactly such a high quality academic standard source with a very patchy explanation, twice. And that's just me who happened to stumble across a random ANI check at this time, it seems clear that this has happened multiple times with multiple editors. SnowFire (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe tgeorgescu isn't looking at the diffs given, which do show removal of secondary reliable sources. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 05:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This is one of his typical disputes: The existing article has Jon D. Levenson's "Inheriting Abraham" identifying Abraham as the "prototype" of all believers, you deleted that word and inserted the phrase "spiritual progenitor", sourced to David Lyle Jeffrey's "Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature". Levenson is head of the School of Divinity at Harvard, Jeffrey is from Baylor University, which is a conservative confessional university in Texas. I'd like to hear from you why you think Jeffrey outranks Levenson and Baylor outranks Harvard. (Jeffrey is RS, but inferior as a source). tgeorgescu (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Lest tgeorgescu cite their own CHOPSY essay again, might I remind both Achar Sva and tgeorgescu that the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, one of their favored sources, cites the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia and is published by an institution that prints Bibles and state church-approved prayer books. Neither of those facts invalidates them as a source and neither seem to realize that no amount of deficient sourcing justifies Achar Sva's behavior. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In my case, I have had to review each information that Avar Sva adds and if it is consistent with what the source says, because sometimes it adds different information to what the source says, and then I have to put what the source really says there. And lately the user has wanted to remove from the articles what the Fathers of the Church say by saying "The early church fathers are not scholarly sources"; "the Church Fathers in any case are not authorities" and above all he removes all references to the Catholic Encyclopedia saying "Catholic Encyclopedia is over a ghundred years old "It is not a reliable source, "confessional bias" Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I would agree with the characterization of this user based on an article in which I debated for several changes on the talk page, involved outside knowledgeable editors for comment and made changes accordingly just to have Achar Sva revert all my contributions. [117]. A topic ban or edit restriction would seem to the be an appropriate sanction. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. I can't comment on a topic ban, however I see some of his reversions as problematic, for example he reverted my edit concerning the doctrine of "Virginitas in Partu" in the Odes of Solomon and Ascension of Isaiah, saying that it "does not mention Perpetual Virginity", even though it is a part of the doctrine. I even tried to find references that mention multiple perspectives on the comments of these books. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Listing issues

Per a request from Apaugasma, here is a most direct listing of Achar Sva's bad diffs and warnings received. Some have already been linked, some diffs also include positive changes alongside the bad bit. This is all from the last year and may not be comprehensive:

• Removal of reliably sourced material: [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145]
• Removal of opinions of Church Fathers from secondary/tertiary sources as tendentious editing: [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156]
• Battleground and edit warring: [157], [158], [159], [160]
• Warnings received: [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166]

If more is requested, I can provide it. With the above diffs, I ask that editors weigh in specifically on whether Achar Sva should be topic banned from topics relating to Jewish/Christian scripture and Christian doctrine. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban, but I doubt there's enough interest in this kind of misbehavior for it to gain momentum. Jahaza (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I see faithful editors teaming against someone who is unabashedly mainstream academic. Sometimes he even says that his deletions are not final, but they just have to find proper scholarly sources for such claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You are not helping Achar Sva's case here, tgeorgescu. I consider myself unabashedly mainstream academic and that isn't what Achar Sva is doing. Literally all he has to do to avoid a sanction is to say sorry here, that he won't edit war, and that he'll try to do better, but instead he said "I have no intention of changing" on his talk page. I think it would be a loss to the topic area for Achar Sva to get topic banned, but encouraging him as if he has done nothing wrong at all is going to make a topic ban more likely, not less. SnowFire (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose proposed topic-ban. I've barely edited in this area or interacted with these editors. However, I have read through the above thread. The reason why nobody is interested in this misbehaviour is because your evidence is low-quality. Saying "Please take me to ANI" is fine in these circumstances. If one has a problem with another editor, they can take it to ANI where other editors can opine as to whether there's an actual issue. Same with "please report me" as a response to "Stop altering the sources or I will report you."

These diffs about "removal of reliably sourced material" are worthless because it's full of diffs in unclear situations. Take the Catholic Encyclopedia, central to this discussion. Why don't you start a four-option RfC at WP:RSN so it's listed at WP:RSP? That would resolve this dispute. Either it's declared reliable or unreliable. If it's unreliable, Achar Sva would be justified in discouraging it. If it's reliable, then Achar Sva will either continue removing the source making it very easy for us to t-ban him or Sva will stop removing the source at which point you've gotten what you wanted. But instead you've linked discussions on sources that use the Catholic Encyclopedia, not one focusing on the underlying encyclopedia itself. This is useless to me.

Same with the whole church fathers thing. Maybe you should start an RfC so we can establish whether Church fathers are a part of WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. I keep seeing allegations that Avar Sva is "ignoring discussions" but I don't understand what discussions are being ignored here.

If you want a topic-ban you need to crystallize the dispute into something that is very clear and easy for others to understand. That means starting broad discussions with clear outcomes so you can provide evidence of Avar Sva disregarding consensus. All you've shown is that Avar Sva is a contrarian who disagrees with others in the topic area, and being a contrarian isn't bannable. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chess: Not sure if it's clear because these posts are text-blocky but the CE has been discussed multiple times at those forums (twice this year) and those discussions are linked in one of my replies above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Unlike me and many other editors, Achar Sva did graduate in history and has extensive knowledge of Bible scholarship. So, I find that most of the time he is right and others (including me) are wrong when disputing his edits. Please do not remove an expert from Wikipedia. He also knows that he needs to kill his darlings, so he is often blamed for removing his own edits, made with his previous account (see his 7 November 2019 edits). tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Being an expert isn't valuable to Wikipedia if you can't get along with other editors, because if you can't constructively work with other editors you disagree with, it makes it more likely you won't be able to contribute at all. Your contributions also can't be built upon if other people can't work with what you've written, change it or challenge it without being reverted. I'd like to see Achar Sva understand that you don't have to bludgeon to get your points respected or listened to; more often than not, editors will listen to someone who's backed down instead of themselves bludgeoning them into a corner or submission. I'd like to see their very valuable background and knowledge combined with a better approach to other editors, content disputes, and achieving resolutions.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 18:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

bit of a tangent

@Ineffablebookkeeper: He understands the WP:RULES, but when he is alone, he cannot win against seven or eight pious editors. They will claim WP:CONSENSUS, when in fact WP:SCHOLARSHIP sides with Achar Sva. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC) Your tendency to personally characterize other editors is, if not a personal attack, perilously close to one, given your obvious disdain for the characterization applied. Jahaza (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: I wouldn't exactly describe myself as 'pious'. I'm a transgender man who hasn't stepped foot inside a church in years; I don't pray, and don't have a good relationship with the Church I grew up in, which mostly does not want people like me, sometimes virulently so. If I had to describe my views, I wouldn't agree with much Nicene Christianity, and privately with friends, have often wondered why certain books (such as 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus) which we know are unlikely to have been written by their claimed authors are included in the New Testament, or at the very least, why a greater volume of early church material isn't included in the NT under a general, wider category of 'early church history' to be studied alongside these books – the Didache, for example, or stories such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla, which were widely influential in the early church. I likely agree with your views more than you realise; a brief look at your user page shows a user badge stating that you've studied the Bible and don't believe it to be the word of God. I'd roughly agree with that myself; I'd say it's a collection of histories, poetry, stories and letters written by men, throughout history, trying to understand and interpret God and their own cultural past, present and future. I don't think it's God using people like a keyboard directly. I'm not a scholar at all but reading about the history of the Bible and learning about its development is fascinating. We need editors who come from a scholarly background, like Achar Sva, to fill the gaps that people like myself cannot, but this can only be done if we try our best to work together, and assume good faith of one another; otherwise none of us can move forward for being stuck arguing. However, I shouldn't have to present my theological background and present; surely you know not every person contributing regularly to the Christianity articles on Wikipedia is a pious believer. I don't have the best relationship with the Church, but it's still my background, and I still want to know more. I can't speak to the backgrounds of other editors, but I'd assume I couldn't be the only one here coming from a similar stance.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 22:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC) @Jahaza: I have no problem with people being pious IRL. I have a problem with editors who defend the dogmas of their own religion against WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you want a good example, StAnselm is pious IRL, but does not push the POV of his piety inside Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC) On a personal level, I'm an atheist anarchist myself. My interest in early Christianity purely stems from my scholarly activities as a historian of philosophy and religion. But we shouldn't have to explain ourselves like that, no Wikipedia editor should. I agree with Jahaza that personalizing disputes with this type of uncalled-for characterizations and the assumption of non-existent alliances (which happens all the time around here, no wonder most real-life scholars stay far away from this website) is in fact a form of PA. Also, it's dangerous to assert that scholarship always sides with someone, as if they have some innate disposition to speak the truth. Rather, editors should side with scholarship, for which they have to actually look at the sources, and not just the one or two sources which they happened to have read or which align with their own personal position, but all of them. Respecting scholarship means being cautious, and respecting that different scholars take different viewpoints. Above all, it means not sticking to preconceived notions that are ideologically informed, or taking positions just because one's perceived enemy takes the exact opposite position. Respecting scholarship requires nuance, and a willingness to bring that nuance to Wikipedia articles. This whole false battleground attitude of 'pro-scholarship' vs 'pro-fringe' editors destroys much of that, and mainly works against Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu You're making it worse, not better. You can't negatively label other editors, it violates WP:AGF and WP:Aspersions. Jahaza (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC) You're begging the question that pious is a negative label. I don't see being pious as negative. I also have stuff that I respect, even if it is not theology, I am pious about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Going through these diffs, my impression is that while some of this is clearly good-faith removal of sources which Achar Sva believes are not RS [167] [168] [169], some other removals seem more arbitrary (e.g., removing only because sources are too old [170], including sources from 1963 [171] or 1971 [172], which if not contradicted by more recent material should be fine). While taking Catholic Encyclopedia to RSN may be a good idea, in my view most of the disputes do not revolve around reliability but around DUE: by far the most diffs here are removals based on pov/due/relevance/minority vs majority view (e.g., [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]). It's actually legitimate per policy to reject reliably sourced material for this reason, but outright removal of (alleged) minority POVs from articles is often controversial, and should be performed with care.

I believe that at the heart of the problem here is the fact that Achar Sva's routinely removes alleged undue POVs across articles without properly engaging about this on the relevant talk pages. Most recently this has devolved into outright edit warring ([179] [180] [181] [182], no discussion about this on talk; [183] then [184] [185] [186], last 2 reverts were after discussion started at talk). This led to a discussion on Achar Sva's talk page, where Achar Sva just said "Since I have no intention of changing, you should probably just go to ANI" [187] Now that I think is a problem. I would oppose a topic ban per Tgeorgescu, but on a collaborative project all editors –including subject matter experts– should be willing to take onboard concerns from other editors and to grow from that. @Achar Sva: are you, after all that has transpired here, more willing to reconsider your approach? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment While I do believe Achar Sva is being disruptive at times, I think it would be a bit extreme to T-ban a real historian from his area of expertise because he is right at least some of the time. A 1RR restriction would be more approproiate in my opinion. Just to be clear though, I am neither supporting nor opposing a topic ban. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: editing restriction

Per the comments above, a topic ban seems to be completely out of proportion, especially considering the fact that Achar Sva is a very valuable and productive editor in the topic area concerned. I therefore suggest something far more specific and tailored to the issue at hand, which seems to consist in over-zealous removal of sourced information and a failure to effectively communicate about that on talk pages. I propose the following editing restriction:

When Achar Sva removes sourced text from an article (including edits which replace sourced text or move it to another place in the article) and that removal gets reverted, they may not remove it again without gaining consensus for the removal at the article talk page or any another appropriate venue. This restriction may be appealed at WP:AN after six months.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support it's not the most clear-cut sanction but at least it prevents cyclic edit-warring. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• I would support this, provided it is made clear that Achar Sva is the one who has to start any discussion, rather than stating "take it to the Talk page" in their first revert. If they're going to revert for an issue they feel needs discussion, the onus must be on them to start it.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  That's the general idea of the editing restriction: to bring the onus to get consensus on Achar Sva even when they seek to exclude content, whereas normally the wp:onus is on those seeking to include content. If they revert an addition or restoration of content with 'take it to the talk' they should in fact do so themselves because anyone can re-revert with 'per your editing restriction, you should get consensus for this removal', whereupon they can't re-revert. It will force them to discuss when they want something removed or toned down and there are others objecting, whereas normally policy forces those objecting to discuss in this case. It's good that policy is the way it is: there should always be a good reason for something to be in an article, not for not being in it. Outside of policy though recommended practice is to start a discussion upon any good-faith disagreement, and this editing restriction won't do much more than make this recommended practice obligatory for Achar Sva (the only major downside is that they won't be able to revert non-good-faith, disruptive additions of sourced content more than once, but since Achar Sva doesn't seem to do a lot of patrolling I don't think this will affect them much). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support I think this is the most rational solution. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Support as more or less WP:1RR in practice. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Persistent WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA remarks and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality

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

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

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

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

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

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

So this is basically a content dispute that went immediately off rails due to the behaviour of this person.

Sardarmukri/his IPs are currently using Talk:Aziz Khan Mokri as their own little WP:BATTLEGROUND, only writing WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA remarks towards me. I'm also going to include the comments they made towards me in other places. They were already told by an admin to .."to calm down, or they risk being blocked for battleground mentality.".

• "HistoryofIran considers that article as its own and has taken it hostage. It does not allow anyone to edit! See the history of the article; Anyone who has edited (even correct edits) he has undone. He is not willing to discuss on the talk page of that article. Even I brought a source, but the source rejects a historian (Basil Nikitin)!!"

• "Anyone can post their research in Iranica! Do you reject the words of a historian?? Stop distorting. This is not your personal article!!"

• "It is really impossible to talk to you. I advise you to read and research more, your information is very poor."

• "Unfortunately, you only argue with force. You have the least research about this Kurdish region. How many researches have you read? You obviously know nothing."

In other words, they keep randomly saying that I "know nothing" and that I am "impossible to talk with" yet this the only thing they say. Quite ironic. They still haven't replied to the question I asked them in hopes of having a discussion here [188]. In fact, 9 hours after I created a talk page section to discuss, they randomly reported me [189]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• NOTHERE/CIR - Evident. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I am willing to bet that they will resume their edit warring when the protection at Aziz Khan Mokri expires tomorrow. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

* Admin:

It is unfortunate! User (HistoryofIran) Instead of talking about sources and content, he threatens to report me! Not paying attention to the researches of Jacques de Morgan, Basil Nikten, Minorsky and the author considers them small and unimportant!! It is really strange. 178.131.29.174 (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your replies in this thread are only digging you deeper into a ditch. I suggest that you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of talking and paying attention to my explanations about Aziz Khan Mukri, he threatens me! He considers me spoiled! Ok, I will add the Content with source and referencing in Wikipedia. Do I not have this right? 178.131.29.174 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "spoiled"? Are you using Google Translate? Anyways - yes, I did indeed tell you if you attacked me again, I would report you; how about you don't attack others then? You were also warned by an admin to refrain from this kind of behaviour. Ironically, you are talking about everything but sources and content, you are only ranting about random stuff and me, yet to reply to my first comment. It's clear that there are WP:COMPETENCE issues too, as you have been told various times of WP:EDITWARRING, WP:CONSENSUS, etc, yet here you are openly saying that you will resume your edit warring. Also, I never used the words "small and unimportant", and this is the first time you are mentioning Minorsky and Jacques de Morgan; in other words, this is just more nonsense. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran

This is academic resources!

Formation and Development of the City of Bukan Based on Historical Sources and Archeological Findings. Instead of using my information, you threaten me! I'm really sorry for you.178.131.133.60 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't view the source nor see if it its reliable, though its abstract contradicts your claims, saying that the city of Bukan was built under Naser al-Din Shah, i.e after Aziz Khan was born (though you were insisting on that he was born in Nestan [190], can you make up your mind?). Also, you do realize this is not a place for content dispute, but for your bad behaviour? Feel sorry for your goofy self first, don't expect anymore replies (especially since you still haven't adressed my remarks yet [191]), and stop pinging me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Do you know more than me?? Does that mean I'm lying? See the database of Iranian celebrities if you know Farsi:

http://rijaldb.com/fa/8193/%D8%B9%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%B2+%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86+%D9%85%DA%A9%D8%B1%DB%8C

Your insults to me continue and how many times you insulted me. 178.131.133.60 (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have already told you stop pinging me. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Request closure

And now they have resumed their edit warring [192]. I told you, as soon as the protection template expires, they would continue. Can an admin please deal with this person? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Admin:

I added this text with the source and according to Wikipedia rules! He (HistoryofIran) wants to force the administrators against me and accused me of edit warring! He does not allow anyone to edit!

I will not give up and create an account and add content with sources to the article.178.131.133.60 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• "I will not give up and create an account and add content with sources to the article"

Won't work. But thanks for admitting for the dozenth time that you are WP:NOTHERE. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@LouisAragon You ignore Wikipedia rules and editing?? I hope I misunderstood. I felt that you are defending him! Yes. I will add academic and historical material to the article. If anyone is interested, I will send materials and resources to review. But I will not discuss with HistoryofIran!178.131.133.60 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• "I will add academic material and historians to the article."

Won't succeed. Trust me on that. Not through violating WP:RS, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:WAR, WP:SOCK, WP:BATTLE (amongst others). You've been trying to override Wikipedia's core policies, and have been doing so for days. Wikipedia doesn't kow-tow to such attempts. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

SJ Morg – no respect to rules regulating reverting and content removal, possibly ownership, incivility

Dear Board, I'm forced to report this incident, as there's really no hope left after talking to the editor.

A brief synopsis: after seeing a quite embarassing revert of my edit (a tiny addition), I asked SJ Morg politely on his talk page about it. It's rather discourteous to make an editor who follows BRD wait, but the editor made me wait for six days, responding only after a reminder and essentially admitting the revert was incorrect in an unnecessarily long reply and providing a rather unconvincing explanation for it.

In my reply, among other things, I recommended the editor to read and respect rules dealing with reverts and content removal and shared my observations of his very high revert rate, once again communicating in a very polite manner in entire message and completely refraining even from any unpleasant yet deserved statements, like recommending to consult a map before reverting others' edits (which I considered including, but decided against doing so).

The editor not only didn't take my recommendation and observations properly, but responded (among other things) with "I reverted a single edit of yours, affecting just one sentence, and yet now you are urging me to read WP policies and guidelines – which I most likely am far more familiar with than you are (and which I support and adhere to)." and a strange derogatory remark regarding my alleged anonymity, whereas the editor is fully anonymous himself.

I gave a stern yet polite reply, asking the editor to refrain from derogatory assumptions and statements about people he obviously doesn't have a slightest idea about and drawing his attention to the fact that this incident was not a one-off event, as even a brief look at his record shows recent incorrect reverts and rollbacks and that my initial observations regarding his revert rate and revert-only days hold true for many recent months. Later I checked history of articles with incorrect reverts and once again found his earlier contributions to them – hence suspicions that it could well be a case of ownership.

In reply the editor accused me of constructing a "false argument" and stated "I don't know even know how to do a rollback, so I am really beginning to question your motives with this discussion" thus essentially accusing me of lying about him.

Afterwards he moved the entire talk page to archive, so I had to revert the move in order to post a reply, in which among other things I offered the editor to apologise for all of the incidents and explain the reasons for editing and communicating with no regard for code of conduct in trade for not submitting report to WP:ANI. The editor did not respond and just cleaned his talk page again not even bothering to add my message to archive, so in order to view the entire discussion, you'd need to view previous version of the talk page (last topic "Your revert in Bethany – why?"):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1132782573&title=User_talk:SJ_Morg

Apart from the obvious reasons of filing this report, my overriding reason for submitting it and appealing to the Board is that the editor is obviously not apologetic of anything, and I simply don't see him changing his ways of editing and communicating with others without exposure to your eyes and some help with delivery of the messages.

As for measures/sanctions which are applied for such misconduct in established order, I hereby ask the Board with all due respect for two things (either in addition to, or in place of regular measures):

1. Considering that the editor's record shows repeated cases of incorrect reverts (reverted in turn by original contributors and undisputed by SJ Morg), including recently and including rollbacks (which he denied to me in a very uncivil manner), and the editor's very high revert rate with many days when he literally does nothing but revert, please recommend community members, who specialize in examining editors' records, take a closer look at SJ Morg's record, as I fear there can well be many more examples of unjustified reverts, which were uncontested by editors who made good contributions in fact, and restore those contributions.

2. Please oblige SJ Morg to move only the discussion concerning this issue out of archive back to the talk page with my last message left intact and to keep it on the talk page along with the WP:ANI notice for a period of minimum of five years (with both to be archived afterwards) – I do hope this measure will be both sufficient and effective enough to help the editor work out a much more disciplined and responsible approach to reverting, content removal and communicating with others.

I very much count on your support in dealing with this matter, as I wouldn't wish any good editor who follows BRD to encounter an undeserved revert by SJ Morg and/or read his completely undeserved uncivil comments, it was an extremely distressing experience (starting with making an editor wait for six days). 188.66.34.134 (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the conversation you linked to above is way too much to sift through. What's the tl;dr summary? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar myself after trying to read this. If you want volunteers to respond to your reports you have to learn to say things succinctly and with diffs. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have found that this report is about Bethany, Oregon, which you didn't even [expletive deleted] tell us. If you're so good at following WP:BRD then why are there no posts of yours at Talk:Bethany, Oregon, which is the place to discuss things after being reverted? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no "misconduct" here. Kindly read WP:NODEADLINE. This is a volunteer project. You are not entitled to a response within six or any number of days. The editor may be sick, or on vacation. The editor may have had a family emergency, or a school or work project that is taking up all of the editor's bandwidth. The editor may just be in a mood in which the editor chooses to spend the editor's free time learning to cook paella or do taekwondo. The editor may just be annoyed by you and choosing not to engage with you at the moment. None of these things are "misconduct", and if you find this experience "extremely distressing", this may not be the right environment for you. (And what "Board" are you talking about "appealing to"?) Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Phil Bridger: to be honest, I don't understand at all why would anyone need diffs in this case, as the revert diff is in the very first message and everything else is on the talk page I linked, and separate diffs would only take something out of context. Nor can I understand the apparent displeasure with me allegedly not telling what this is about, as I specifically mentioned topic name right before the link, so it's easy to find.

As for BRD, that's because anyone who is actually familiar with it knows that a user's talk page is just as fine to discuss the matter, and, besides, this revert obviously concerns the editor rather than the article.

Julietdeltalima: you have completely missed the point (please read the title of report).

Interestingly, SJ Morg seems to really have zero respect to any rules – I asked him why he threw away my message from the archive along with WP:ANI notice without regard for relevant code of conduct, but I think his only reaction will be to delete this msg as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1133409179

Note: I'm thinking of writing an essay/article (working title is "When following BRD can be a bad idea") I could propose to The Signpost, and if they are not interested, could post it on one of my web resources. It would cover the incident and its processing here and would hopefully help fellow Wikipedians cope with editors like SJ Morg. Question: does anyone of you mind if I quote your comment(s) with your username or userpage link next to it? I will default to "No", as the work you do is very important for Wikipedia and you must be very proud of how you both help people and help Wikipedia be a civil place, but just in case you do mind my quoting you, please make it clear then. 188.66.32.25 (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:OWNTALK, "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving." There is no policy or guideline or rule violated by SJ Morg removing your comments or the ANI notice. Your request labelled 2. above is not going to happen. Schazjmd (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, original poster. To expand on Schazjmd’s excellent points, it is not “just as fine to discuss the matter” on a user’s talk page. The point of article talk pages is to allow community members interested in a given article to discuss issues on a talk page permanently linked to that article, whether particular contributors to that article fade away over the years or prefer (as is allowed!) to keep clean user talk pages. Article talk needs to go on article talk pages. Full stop.

And you began and ended your report complaining that this other user didn’t get back to you within, heaven forfend, six days, on a deadline-free volunteer-operated project that everyone here works into their free time on an entirely uncompensated basis, so what am I missing? That seems to have been a significant predicate for your report, and it’s invalid. Over and out. Julietdeltalima (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Following WP:BRD is a very good idea. Try following it rather than misreading it. You were reverted, as allowed. The next step is to discuss the issue on the article talk page. I note that the original edit that was reverted was both unsourced and extremely trivial, and that the latest edit to Bethany, Oregon was still unsourced and had the summary "consensus achieved". Where was consensus achieved to include unsourced content? I see only one person in this discussion who is disrespecting the "rules", and that's not SJ Morg. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

From SJ Morg: (I drafted the following before the last two posts were made, so let me thank Julietdeltalima and Phil Bridger for those comments, and others for earlier comments here, before proceeding with my post.) This anonymous IP editor is harassing me, repeatedly making very long posts to my talk page with false accusations and defamatory claims of policy violations without any evidence – even after being told "there's no misconduct here" in this Noticeboard thread. I replied to the only issue the editor raised about an article (involving a single edit by me with which they disagreed), and essentially everything they have posted subsequently has been personal, not about any specific article. I have tried to ignore the harassment and move on, but they won't stop. (Most of the 'discussion' can be found at the very end of User talk:SJ Morg/Archive 3, but the editor continued with this, which I did not archive, and for the moment the harassment is continuing on the current user talk page.) I would have looked into requesting a block if not for the fact that I don't know whether there is any practical way to block an unregistered editor whose IP address is different for every post that he/she makes. SJ Morg (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I see two points worth addressing here, both in Schazmjd post:

1. Correct, however, per WP:TPG, which is general talk doc ("They (guidelines) apply not only to article discussion pages but everywhere editors interact, such as deletion discussions and noticeboards."):

• "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."
• "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page."

And that's just as far as talking page guidelines are concerned, which I didn't even claim any violation of (see report title).

2. As for my request no. 2, my proposal is based on the premise that measures should better be preventive in the first place and punitive in the second (a clarification whether WP:ANI task force follows this approach or not is highly important for productive discussion), and I do think it will be an effective preventive measure for this editor. What's your disagreement is based on, however, is not clear at all, please clarify what kind of rationale is behind it, I don't see any.

Besides, I don't see any counter-proposal either. Hence the question: what sanctions/measures are currently applied in a regular fashion for, say, incivility (if possible, with relevant links) and what's the tentative plan of resolving this case, considering there are

• two episodes of incivility (one of them was essentially accusing me of lying after mentioning incorrect rollback by SJ Morg),
• multiple incorrect reverts/rollbacks which involved other editors (reverted in turn by original contributors and uncontested by SJ Morg),
• possibly ownership,
• the editor is clearly not apologetic of anything, so apparently is not changing his ways of editing and communicating with people (this report wouldn't have been filed if he apologised and explained the reasons, as I proposed at the end of my talking to him)? 188.66.34.66 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  SJ Morg reverted your edit; you asked about it on his talk page; he replied with an explanation, and concluded However, you would not be incorrect if you were to reinstate your edit, but if so I would urge you to say the "Oak Hills CDP", since Portland-area residents commonly consider the area west of Oak Hills (neighborhood), i.e. west of NW Bethany Blvd., to part of Bethany and most would very surprised to find that the Census Bureau considers it to be part of Oak Hills (CDP).

  That should have been the end of it. You could have reinstated your edit in the way he recommended, or opened a talk page discussion on the article to get consensus for the change you preferred.

  Your persistence[193][194] in escalating issues on SJ Morg's talk page, including reverting his archive of the discussion, as well as your incorrect insistence that WP:TPG don't permit him to archive/remove discussions from his talk page without your permission[195] and this tirade are over the line. You escalated a simple content dispute. Let it go. Schazjmd (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  What does SJ Morg have to be apologetic about? He was the one following WP:BRD, not you. Your failure to listen to anyone here who has explained how you are wrong is indistinguishable from trolling. You are guilty of everything that you have complained about. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment IP-editor needs to drop the stick. I see no ANI-worthy incivility or ownership on the part of SJ Morg. They are perfectly entitled to remove content from their own talk page, per the policy that has been pointed out to IP editor around five times already. Also, did IP-editor really write Please oblige SJ Morg to move only the discussion concerning this issue out of archive back to the talk page with my last message left intact and to keep it on the talk page along with the WP:ANI notice for a period of minimum of five years (with both to be archived afterwards) – I do hope this measure will be both sufficient and effective enough to help the editor work out a much more disciplined and responsible approach to reverting, content removal and communicating with others. and expect to get taken seriously? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

A note on BRD for Julietdeltalima and Phil Bridger: I normally don't respond to commenters who show what their actual level of knowledge is (without even realizing it), but seeing how you two insist that SJ Morg is the one following BRD, or that discussion must be held on article page, I think I'll write a bit.

As I already said, anyone familiar with BRD knows that using user's talk page is just as fine. Anyone not familiar with BRD should start by reading WP:BRD, which I will quote personally for you folks:"You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, or invite the editor to the talk page if they insist on using only edit summaries, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle." and then proceed to examining edits of editors who use BRD on a regular basis and have a good grasp of when discussion belongs to article page and when it doesn't (to an experienced editor it's obvious this one doesn't). And while we're at it, do you mind me quoting what you said here regarding BRD and other stuff with your userpage links in the article I'm writing, which will cover this incident, its processing here and will hopefully help fellow Wikipedians cope better with offenders like SJ Morg and show what to expect from filing a report to WP:ANI (I'll take "no" by default as I said)? I'm currently thinking of doing two versions, one for Wikipedians (via The Signpost or some other way if they are not interested) and one for general reader I'll post on one of my web resources (working title is "The Dark Side of Wikipedia", subject to change).

Schazjmd: From the talk page it's obvious that the fault for escalation lies entirely with SJ Morg. At times I urge editors to respect rules as that's what every responsible editor can easily do to make Wikipedia better (you can find a couple more cases in the last month or two), and it's quite clear this message by me didn't call for any continuation whatsoever and should have been the end of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1130937921 After being pointed out in a polite manner that an edit violates rules (and everyone here apparently agrees with me, as there have been no objections), an editor is free to refute it, but do so staying within Code of Conduct. However, unlike any polite and respectable editor, SJ Morg responded instead with his first personal attack at me by appealing to authority instead of guidelines and assuming he is far more familiar with rules than another editor: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131035880 And once again, I haven't seen any disagreement from anyone here that it was a completely undeserved personal attack. Then I pointed out (again, in a very polite manner which noone here finds any fault with) that his record shows other incorrect reverts and rollbacks. SJ Morg responded this time with more personal attacks, accusing me of creating "false argument" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1132130074 and denying incorrect rollbacks in a highly uncivil manner, essentially accusing me of lying about him: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1132124883 And again, I haven't seen any disagreement here that these personal attacks were completely uncalled for.

Bottomline: apparently, noone here disputes claims of the report or is capable of pointing out a slightest violation on my part – only strawman arguments from some quarters, one after another.

That being said, a word to admins involved with my report as well as to those who oversee the case without commenting: I stand by my original proposals on how to resolve this case as I still haven't seen anything more constructive (the case is obviously not about a single revert: SJ Morg's reverts should better be examined by those who specialize in it with good contributions restored, to begin with), I look forward to seeing answers to the important questions from my previous message (what are the usual sanctions for incivility etc.), and just in case there are plans to state there are no violations here and issue relevant resolution, I will take the case to ArbCom immediately – there should be no doubt in anyone's mind about it. I currently ponder dropping a msg to Jimmy as well to draw his attention to this case depending on what the resolution will be, maybe with a draft of my article.

And a word to SJ Morg: additional insults and unfounded accusations will not help you, by doing that you're just digging a grave for yourself. And should this case end up at ArbCom, I'll supplement it with incivilities from this topic, so my good advice to you would be to stop before it's too late (although I think you went past that point when you turned down my offer to apologise and explain your conduct). 188.66.35.232 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Can an admin take any action about this troll whose IP address keeps changing? Everything she or he accuses others of is actually their own behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I endorse Phil's statement. The IP's inaccurate wikilawyering is not convincing anyone. Schazjmd (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Doc James' Deletion and Indefinite Salting of Gregory Marchand

COI: I am employed by the related research institute. I have abandoned a previous Wikipedia account in order to discuss this without outing my original account. My experience with Wikipedia is moderate.

Background

The article Gregory Marchand was stable for the last 2 years with multiple edits from multiple editors, and in my opinion no issues with WP:GNG or WP:PROMO. The subject was featured on multiple national news stories and the research he published is referenced in multiple Wikipedia articles such as Immunization during pregnancy, Nipple pain in breastfeeding, and others. I have never edited this page using this Wikipedia account or any other. I am not aware that anyone associated with my institute has ever edited this page either.

Incident with Doc James

On September 29th 2022, Doc James had an argument with Gregory Marchand regarding COVID-19 policy. Doc James responded with “This is amazing. I was involved with the effort to delete and salt this individuals promotional efforts via #Wikipedia. Bitter Much?”

To which Gregory Marchand responded that he was unaware if there was a Wikipedia page or not about him, but enquired directions on how to delete the page if it did exist. Dr. Marchand also made harsh comments with regards to Wikipedia being extremely biased.

Doc James then proceeded to delete and permanently salt the Wikipedia page Gregory Marchand. He then created a scathing collage commemorating these actions and tweeted the image: https://twitter.com/WikiDocJames/status/1575693586590765057/photo/1

He then went on to remove all mentions of Gregory Marchand from the Wikipedia article Hacienda HealthCare sexual abuse case for the reason of “→‎Investigation: toned down” even though Dr. Marchand was a major player in this investigation, and was featured on both Inside Edition and the Today Show for his medical investigations into this case.

He then went on to block Dr. Marchand on Twitter so that he could not view the tweets about him.

I have attempted to reason with Doc James on his talk page but he has ended our discussion by deleting it and labeling the deletion as “Archiving, sock can take this issue elsewhere.” Prior to ending the conversation Doc James indicated that believed his deletion and salting of the page was justified because of a 2019 AfD consensus that was led by JYTDog. This AfD discussion would have preceded the Hacienda Incident, and all of the COVID-19 research and obgyn research which made up the majority of the page that was deleted. No one currently at our institute had any involvement in the previous AfD discussion or pages. Obviously, pages of notable subjects are not permanently salted as “payback” or because of past abuses - there are many reasonable modalities to prevent abuse including subject bans and semi-protections.

How I would like to move forward

My main point is that regardless of whatever had happened on social media or Wikipedia (and the editors involved), in my opinion Gregory Marchand is a notable researcher, academic, and physician whose biography would be useful to other medical researchers and students using Wikipedia. He clearly meets WP:GNG guidelines.

That being said, I will leave it up to the community to decide on Dr. Marchand's inclusion in Wikipedia and the content that should be allowed. I do realize that neither Dr. Marchand nor any of us at the institute can claim any "ownership", and neither does any one Wikipedia user or admin. That is why I would like to request community consensus first, preferably with a draft/page restoration so that we can have a proper community discussion.

I have exhausted all other options. I request the page be undeleted - or perhaps we can also restore the draft and let the community comment on the draft and help improve it. Clearly, if there are any issues with WP:PROMO or any other concerns they can be dealt with in draftspace, AfD, or in other reasonable ways with community consensus.

I will be looking forward to fruitful collaboration and civil discussion with the Wikipedia community.

Thank you,

Dan S.

Danthemedguy22 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

For background information, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg J. Marchand ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say just looking at the AfD and the deleted versions of the articles, they were not so similar that a G4 was appropriate. And yeah, Doc James should really not be performing unilateral admin actions when he cannot appear impartial. Bring it to a noticeboard. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The appropriate noticeboard for reviewing deletions is WP:deletion review, where, to overcome salting, a draft of a potential article is usually needed. I would add that anything that happens on Twitter is utterly irrelevant to the decisions that we make here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

And the OP is violating WP:PROJSOCK. Salvio ^giuliano 19:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The OP is also violating the Terms of Use Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I presume that this is not the Michelin-starred chef of the same name, but is it the same Gregory Marchand who has 205 citations and an h-index of 7 reported by Google Scholar in this highly-cited field? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Unless the two guys are same, I do not see Marchand meeting GNG/NACADEMIC. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like the person Phil Bridger linked to in Google Scholar is the same person in the Twitter thread, so they likely are the same person. However, it also looks to me like the AfD discussion of some years ago was quite clear in the consensus about the page version with the middle initial: aside from some massive socking, established editors had a near-SNOW consensus to delete and salt. As a non-admin, I of course cannot see the deleted pages, but it seems to me to be an incorrect reading of policy to say that Doc James acted against policy in speedying the version without the middle initial, because it would have been plainly obvious that it was a page about the same subject as something where the community consensus was to SALT. If the sourcing information has changed as of the present day, making the person notable for our purposes, it seems to me that the appropriate path from here is indeed deletion review. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean to say the unless the Michelin-starred chef and the GScholar physician are the same. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding: As a long-time watcher of Doc James' talk page, I did observe the discussion between the OP and him ([196]). It struck me that the OP was genuinely trying to reach out and was polite about it, and Doc James was somewhat curt in reply (which is not at all the same thing as being wrong on the merits), but the curtness does not seem to me to rise to the level of needing anything done at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

What it appears we have is a professional undisclosed paid editor using multiple socks to get around Wikipedia's rules. Yes they are polite when it suits their purpose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the right place to request review of the deletion/salting/recreation of the page. WP:ARC is the right place to request review of an admin arguing with someone on social media and then deleting and salting their Wikipedia page. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Here are some links that I think are useful to see. Deletion histories for Greg Marchand, Greg J. Marchand, and Gregory Marchand. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

On the one hand, there has been a determined promotional effort for years to create this biography using three name variations, and the article was deleted and the topic salted by a now retired administrator in good standing, based on an AfD debate. Consensus can change, but that should happen in an orderly manner. On the other hand, it is unseemly, I think, for Doc James to himself delete the article of a person that he argued with on Twitter, and an even worse look to gloat about it with red lined graphics on Twitter after the article was deleted. Doc James, why did you think that this "rubbing it in" behavior was appropriate? If the article needed to be deleted, it would have been far better for Doc James to have brought the matter to the attention of an uninvolved administrator, instead of personalizing the dispute and acting unilaterally. Cullen328 (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A number of socks over many years have been paid to try to create this article. We have another sock still working to have the article recreated by opening this discussion here.

The subject of the article had claimed that they knew nothing about the creation of this article (ie were not involved in paying someone to create it) and yet they listed their Wikipedia article in their twitter profile. Pointing this out is not "rubbing it in" but just an exclamation of amazement. The "twitter argument" was me point out that this individual was involved in undisclosed paid promotional editing on Wikipedia.

The subject of the article than asked for the article to be taken down. If you look at the references of the article it becomes clear that each version was created by a similar user as the last. Ie each version was obviously created by a sock. Here are some of the socks involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Absolutely not a word of which addresses Cullen's reasonable observations about how you conducted yourself in this instance--and which, for the record, reflect precisely my own feelings as I got to his comments, having read the rest of the thread and followed up the links. Nobody is saying that the outcome vis-a-vis the content is the wrong one. The issue is that you made a highly public display of deleting content related to someone with whom you were a social media mud-slinging contest, bringing the neutrality and decorum of our processes into doubt both on and off the project, for no apparent reason other than to flex on your rhetorical opponent, or at least make a point. Given your tenure and history of positions on this project, I cannot fathom how you thought this was the best way to handle this situation.

Cullen is unquestionably correct here: this should have been handled by and admin who was not clearly, deeply WP:INVOLVED, and once you did make the error to handle it yourself, you went a step further to weaponize your inappropriate exercise of privileges into a meme for purposes of taunting (or at least, that's the way it's going to be perceived, even if we here give the benefit of the doubt and credit it with an informative motive). Not a good look--for you or the project by connection with your actions. And your complete dodge of any acknowledgment of these concerns or another admin is not going to do much ease likely resulting concerns about whether you should have possession of the ban hammer. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the above reply was originally composed to respond to the original version of James' above post seen in this diff, before a series of edits by James that augmented that post a little to better reflect Cullen's observations. That said, I'm still concerned that there is very little engagement with just how big an abuse of position this was, and how bad it looks for how Wikipedia handles our own conflicts of interest, even as we are trying to appear neutral while cleaning up a different sort. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an undisclosed paid editor problem. I disagree with the description of being deeply involved with this individual, other than I was involved in cleaning up the paid editing work done by this family of socks including the creation of their article, a number of years back. And than when they were promoting their success at paid editing of Wikipedia on twitter I commented and intervened. Twitter used to use Wikipedia for their blue check, which is a separate issue. On reflection agree with User:Cullen328 that it is best not to comment on the internal functioning of Wikipedia on twitter.

Anyway I am happy to recue myself from any further action or editing pertaining to Greg Marchand widely construed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be better not to be baited by UPE folks but DocJames' conduct is not ANI-worthy business. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The second you got into a public dispute with this individual, independent of your volunteer work here in an (until that point perfectly neutral, I will presume) administrative capacity, you became 100%, unambiguously disqualified from exercising your tools in relation to content about them--or at least in the fashion that you did in this case. The support above for the outcome of the deletion of the BLP, despite the context, demonstrates that you could have easily achieved that result by passing this off to another admin or an appropriate noticeboard. And yes, absolutely you were WP:INVOLVED when you chose to delete and salt an article about someone immediately upon having a public spat with them: the timing here is not the only factor that makes the situation problematic, but it's certainly the most visible aspect of why this was a poor use of discretion.

So while I'm really glad you agree it's a good idea to recuse yourself from administrative actions regarding this person going forward, there shouldn't be any ambiguity in your mind about a situation like this to begin with. And though I don't think the community is likely to think there's anything more to be said or done here after that concession (and that's my outlook, as well) please apply this same standard to all circumstances and off-project disputes in the future. We'd expect that of even the rank and file admin, let alone someone like you, who has a much higher than normal profile in connection to the project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Gregory Marchand was recreated in 2019, but you deleted it Sep 30 2022, same day as those Twitter posts. But you salted it on Oct 21 2022 a month later. Why? What happened on Oct 21? Levivich (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The company that he is paying to create / maintain his article was continuing on my talk page.[197] In reviewing I noticed I had forgotten to salt the article similar to how the prior variations of the article names were salted.[198]

Anyway here was the prior COI discussion in 2018.[199] regarding this family of socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point. As an admin acting in an administrative role, you're perceived as taking official action on behalf of Wikipedia as a whole. The problem wasn't that you commented on "the internal functioning of Wikipedia on Twitter". That's fair game if you want. The issue is that you mixed your personal and official personas (i.e. being WP:INVOLVED) by arguing in your administrative role. Worse, you did so offsite and publicly.

Undisclosed paid editing is dangerous because it ruins our credibility when people believe our content is controlled by those with a conflict of interest (even when it mostly isn't).

You used your WP:ADMIN tools to control content despite having a demonstrable conflict of interest. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If I'm understanding the timing here correctly, Doc James (and some of Mr. Marchand's tweets have apparently been deleted, so it's possible I'm missing something), you "had an argument" on Twitter "with Gregory Marchand regarding COVID-19 policy" and then came over to Wikipedia to delete his article. Is that correct? If it is, that's a major problem: it makes it look like you were using the tools to get back at someone over a non-Wikipedia-related disagreement, which is a quintessential WP:INVOLVED violation even if your motives were pure. I appreciate that you've now promised to recuse yourself with respect to Mr. Marchand, but I'd be much more comfortable if you could just commit to not using the tools against people you're involved in off-wiki disputes with: I think that's what's rubbed so many experienced editors the wrong way here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that James's actions were, quite possibly, a violation of WP:INVOLVED. If this were not Doc James, with a significant fan club, and his status as a former foundation board member, I think there would be considerably more scrutiny on his actions. Similar conduct could readily be characterized as getting into a fight off the site, then using one's powers here to revenge oneself. Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, if this was a less famous editor we would have slapped them silly by now for such edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

While there would appear to be something of a blindspot, at least, in accusing an editor of 'breaking the rules' when one literally forked a chunk of en.wp in order to ignore an Arbcom ruling. 20:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)

Well, let's not get too lost in the weeds here. The action was clearly inappropriate in the circumstances, and I'd be a lot happier if Doc had recognized it as such: not doing so leaves lingering concern about the possibility of future abuses of the tools. That said, I can't imagine any community action arising out of this discussion aside from a caution. If this thread continues, I have no doubt most participants are likely to endorse the perspective that James' behaviour here did not constitute appropriate administrative conduct. But I'm almost as certain that there's a functionally zero percent chance of a heavier sanction than a warning. And a lot of acrimony on the way there.

Now, maybe the point would still be worth the trouble of making, but given Doc's concession (limited and un-inspiring though it is), I think the easier thing is just to let the matter go for now, since no one has brought forward a pattern of abuse or problems needing addressing here. If there's a second instance of this sort of thing (using the tools in connection to a personal dispute or anything similar), I think we go straight to a desysop discussion at that point: for obvious reasons, we can't have admins weaponizing the mop over highly public social media spats, whatever the context. In other words, I favour a quick close here, but urge the closer to make a very strong statement of concern in case this issue has to be revisited. That said, it probably would be useful to also be completely pro forma here and have a deletion review of the BLP so that there is no question about the appropriateness of the results, in light of how they came about. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess I'm part of that so-called "fan club", although I can see both sides of the arguments here. For what it's worth, I think the appearance of being involved is enhanced by the fact that both Doc James and the BLP subject are physicians. But my take on the Twitter interaction is that Doc James was posting about problems that Wikipedia has with bad articles, as opposed to posting about professional disagreements about medicine. The BLP subject responded politely, and Doc James responded politely to that. I don't really think that makes for an off-wiki conflict that got imported onsite. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it certainly ended on a polite (even cordial) note, which is nice to see from two professionals otherwise sparring as a part of a broader public debate. But the overall tenor of the discussion was definitely an argument--with tension, accusation on both sides, and more than a bit of snipe. Definitely not the kind of situation where we want an admin (even one we generally like) taking this kind of action (even one we otherwise support) in regards to content about their rhetorical opposition. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to be precise. They are two professionals, but not professional WP editors (if they are, how do I get a piece of the action?). And they weren't arguing about medicine, or professional status within the medical profession. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

they weren't arguing about medicine – I'm not sure that's right. What I see here (and someone more familiar with Twitter can correct me if I'm wrong) is Doc James saying "Rates of COVID exploding in my community. Admitting folks with the disease again. We need more hospital beds. We need more nursing staff. We also need the return of mask mandates...", Mr. Marchand disagreeing with that in a since-deleted tweet, and Doc James then bringing in the Wikipedia-related stuff. That's the part that concerns me most here: the use of admin tools in a non-Wikipedia-related disagreement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm completely (and proudly) Twitter-illiterate, so I wasn't aware of that. If that's the actual sequence of events, then that would make Doc James involved, and speedying the page instead of taking it back to AfD would have been a bad move. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That's my understanding of how things unfolded as well: the deleted tweets introduce some ambiguity as to a few of the details and just how heated things got, because we have only indirect reports for that section of the argument, but it is clear this started with a discussion of COVID, and it seems that Doc was the first to take the discussion into Wikipedia territory. But I want to emphasize that, in my opinion, even if discussion had been reserved to Wikipedia from the start, I still think that Doc would have been WP:INVOLVED under these facts: the last link alone still evidences a personal and public dispute with unflattering sentiments, implications, and outright accusations running both ways. I don't think there's any way we slice this pie that this comes out looking like the use of the tools was appropriate in the circumstances. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Above, Doc James seems to be saying that the interchange began when the page subject began posting on Twitter about being successful at getting paid editors to create the page. If that's the real beginning of the exchange on Twitter, it's a very different situation than if the real beginning was a disagreement about COVID treatment. I just don't know which it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty clear to me that it's the latter: part of the preserved record shows where Doc deviated the discussion into Wikipedia from the prior topic. Again, the details are uncertain, but there was clearly a separate origin to the discussion involving COVID.

And, not to beat the dead horse, but while I agree with you that this would be a different situation if the dispute had started with COI concerns, it still wouldn't be different enough to entirely exculpate Doc from criticism for his use of the tools here, if the facts were otherwise similar: the nature of the argument even once it got to Wikipedia (and even if that was all it had ever consisted of) was just too personal, with too much implication of possible non-neutral motives and a conflict of interest of his own at that point. This community may be able to credit him with having the right motivations behind those actions (maybe), but it was certainly never going to look good from the outside.

As such, any action on Doc's part after that particular discussion (and just the comments we can confirm) was going to look suspect and biased at best. He was just not the person to handle the administrative actions that occurred at that juncture, no matter the impetus. It puts the neutrality of our processes and our content in a very bad light, and there was no good reason he couldn't have passed the matter off to someone not presently tangling with the BLP subject on social media (whatever the underlying initial source of the dispute).SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that it matters how the use of admin tools to advance a personal grudge makes WP look in the wider world – and I hope you'll agree with me that undisclosed paid editing, and boasting about getting away with it, also reflects badly on us, and we have an existing consensus to treat it as disruption. I'll leave it to others to figure out what, exactly, happened offsite, and I suspect we won't get a clear answer without escalating this more than I would like to see. I also agree with what you said earlier, that it would accomplish nothing good to have such an escalation. To whatever extent this was the importing of a personal dispute about COVID, that was the wrong thing for Doc James to do, and he needs to make good on his promise to recuse from any further admin action in this dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you'll agree his saying that is fairly meaningless. After all, he's accomplished what he set out to do. He doesn't need to do anything more, he's already done it. Better he should revert what he did. But he won't. Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I certainly won't disagree. I guess I'll say (half-seriously) that I don't want the perfect to become the enemy of the suboptimal. In this suboptimal state of affairs, I think deletion review is probably the best place to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I concur. Doc is a smart man and I'm just going to take it on faith that even absent an express mea culpa from him, he understands the community's clear response here, without this needing to drag on. Regarding your last point to me above, I do agree UPE is a problem, but I think it would be a false choice to suggest that addressing it required Doc to act as he did, or that the context abrogates him of the responsibility to follow policy in such a situation and pass the administrative call on to someone else.

That said, I'm going to call my own comments here and hope this pewters down.I do think it was important this conversation was had, but I genuinely think the best thing would be a closure with a strong note of disapproval of the action, followed by a separate deletion review thread at WP:AN or WP:AfD. From what little I have seen, I kind of suspect that the deletion is almost certain to be upheld, but I do think in the circumstances it is the most reasonable thing to do. If this issue were to be taken up an AN, we wouldn't even need to necessarily bother with the technical bit at first: since the OP of this thread seems to have a body of evidence of WP:Notability in mind, we could simply look at, and make WP:N call on. Or we could just reverse the administrative actions and push it back through the normal deletion process--which for all I know, may be the approach required by some policy I've forgotten about, though I don't think so. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Far above Cullen328 has said:

it is unseemly, I think, for Doc James to himself delete the article of a person that he argued with on Twitter, and an even worse look to gloat about it with red lined graphics on Twitter after the article was deleted. Doc James, why did you think that this "rubbing it in" behavior was appropriate? If the article needed to be deleted, it would have been far better for Doc James to have brought the matter to the attention of an uninvolved administrator, instead of personalizing the dispute and acting unilaterally

I don't see that there has been an adequate response to this. @Doc James: Doc? Paul August ☎ 01:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Paul August My involvement / argument with this individual on twitter was about them being involved with undisclosed paid editing of Wikipedia to promote themselves. They denied it, despite having Wikipedia listed in their bio, and I provided evidence in a manner which as Cullen328 said, rubbed it in. Looking back I agree with Cullen328 that my comments were inappropriate.

Despite being originally uninvolved with cleaning up the articles created by this hired family of socks in 2018, after that twitter response I would be involved and should not have taken any admin actions regardless of the fact that the article had been deleted under other names five other times. I should, as mentioned, have brought these concerns to others to act upon.

As I stated above I have no concerns with the community reversing my deletion if they so choose. And will not involved myself in that discussion or any discussion concerning this individual. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

While off topic to the above, the other factor I took into account was the fact that this version created by User:GuinnessFreak in 2018 begans with refs

2018 version

<ref name=longman>{{cite news|last1=Longman|first1=Molly|title=Mesa Doctor Breaks World Record for Largest Tumor Removal and It's Kind of Gross|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mesa-doctor-greg-marchand-tumor-removal-world-record-9558660|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times|date=August 4, 2017}}</ref><ref name=brown>{{cite news|last1=Brown|first1=David|title=EV doctor sets world record for removal of tumor|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/our_community/ev-doctor-sets-world-record-for-removal-of-tumor/article_27ca002e-a231-11e7-8dc5-377a1c4be7f1.html|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=East Valley Tribune|date=9 September 2017}}</ref><ref name=cline>{{cite news|last1=Cline|first1=Kathy|title=Mesa doctor sets world record in tumor-removal surgery|url=http://ktar.com/story/1671808/mesa-doctor-sets-world-record-in-tumor-removal-surgery/|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=KTAR News|date=7 July 2017}}</ref>...<ref name=stern>{{cite news|last1=Stern|first1=Ray|title=Local Docs Enter Record Books With Largest Uterus Ever Removed|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/local-docs-enter-record-books-with-largest-uterus-ever-removed-6635325|accessdate=10 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times}}</ref><ref name=academy>{{cite web|title=Laparoscopic Ovarian Cancer Staging Surgery on the Largest Tumor: Arizona doctors set world record (VIDEO)|url=https://www.worldrecordacademy.com/medical/laparoscopic_ovarian_cancer_staging_surgery_on_the_largest_tumor_Arizona_doctors_set_world_record_217017.html|website=World Record Academy |date=7 January 2017|accessdate=11 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Simpson|first1=Victoria|title=Arizona Surgeon Removes Enormous Cancer Tumor Through a Cut the Size of a Dime, Setting a New World Record|url=https://www.ratemds.com/blog/arizona-surgeon-removes-worlds-largest-cancerous-tumor-cut-size-dime-setting-world-record/|accessdate=12 April 2018|agency=RateMDs.Com|date=13 August 2017}}</ref>

And the newest version in 2020 by User:Nilanda2019 began with refs

2020 version

<ref name=longman>{{cite news|last1=Longman|first1=Molly|title=Mesa Doctor Breaks World Record for Largest Tumor Removal and It's Kind of Gross|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/mesa-doctor-greg-marchand-tumor-removal-world-record-9558660|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times|date=August 4, 2017}}</ref><ref name=brown>{{cite news|last1=Brown|first1=David|title=EV doctor sets world record for removal of tumor|url=http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/our_community/ev-doctor-sets-world-record-for-removal-of-tumor/article_27ca002e-a231-11e7-8dc5-377a1c4be7f1.html|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=East Valley Tribune|date=9 September 2017}}</ref><ref name=cline>{{cite news|last1=Cline|first1=Kathy|title=Mesa doctor sets world record in tumor-removal surgery|url=http://ktar.com/story/1671808/mesa-doctor-sets-world-record-in-tumor-removal-surgery/|accessdate=16 April 2018|agency=KTAR News|date=7 July 2017}}</ref>... <ref name=stern>{{cite news|last1=Stern|first1=Ray|title=Local Docs Enter Record Books With Largest Uterus Ever Removed|url=http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/local-docs-enter-record-books-with-largest-uterus-ever-removed-6635325|accessdate=10 April 2018|agency=Phoenix New Times}}</ref>...<ref name=academy>{{cite web|title=Laparoscopic Ovarian Cancer Staging Surgery on the Largest Tumor: Arizona doctors set world record (VIDEO)|url=https://www.worldrecordacademy.com/medical/laparoscopic_ovarian_cancer_staging_surgery_on_the_largest_tumor_Arizona_doctors_set_world_record_217017.html|website=World Record Academy |date=7 January 2017|accessdate=11 April 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Simpson|first1=Victoria|title=Arizona Surgeon Removes Enormous Cancer Tumor Through a Cut the Size of a Dime, Setting a New World Record|url=https://www.ratemds.com/blog/arizona-surgeon-removes-worlds-largest-cancerous-tumor-cut-size-dime-setting-world-record/|accessdate=12 April 2018|agency=RateMDs.Com|date=13 August 2017}}</ref>

This led me to concluding that the newest version was created by the same family of socks as the prior version. Of course once being involved I still should have brought these details to someone else rather than acting myself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Doc James: Thank you very much for that response. I agree with what you have said above about what you shouldn't have done. It seems to me then, that what you should do now, is undo what you did before, (i.e. restore the article) and do what you should have done then, refer the matter to other admins. Regards, Paul August ☎ 13:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure User:Paul August, have undeleted and nominated for deletion instead as per your suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Paul August ☎ 16:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks to me like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Marchand is taking care of the remaining issues that led to this ANI thread. I don't think that there is anything more for Doc James to respond to, nor anything more that needs to be done to address what the BLP subject and his sockpuppets have asked to have examined. As for bringing in past disputes, which I am neck-deep into and will not touch, myself, I hope that everything below will get put inside the hat. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss admin actions on other wikis. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been following this discussion as I happen to have a thread two below this one, and am happy to see these admissions and corrections. This should resolve any concerns, unless this represents a pattern of retaliatory behaviors. Hence, I'd be even happier to see rectification of similar retaliatory editing. Doc James, after Colin's user page was imported from Wikipedia to the separate WikiProjectMed, although Colin had never registered at or posted to that project, do you think it was appropriate for you to mark that account as blocked, leaving the implication that Colin had edited that Project with a "long-term pattern of incivility" (something not even true on Wikipedia, much less WikiProject Med) ? Because you have a long and documented (at Arbcom) history of disagreements with Colin, this appears as gratuitous and retaliatory, and an attempt to besmirch Colin's reputation as a medical editor. Considering that Colin has never edited that Project, would it not be appropriate for you to remove that gratuitous "block"? My concern is that this new issue means that you may tend to overuse Wikimedia spaces for personal retaliation when you have disagreements with other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Colin actually did log onto MDWiki on 12 August 2020 at 21:47. Accounts are only created when a user logs on via OAuth, thus you SandyGeorgia do not have an account because you have never logged on. He knew that I had requested that he not follow me, yet he did so anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Um, yes, my account is mirrored at MDWiki,[200] even though I have never edited there, and when I realized that per this post from Graham Beards, and saw what you had to done to Colin there, I added a disclaimer to my own user page about mirrored sites. It seems that you are not willing to remove your retaliatory statement about Colin, and replace it instead with similar to Graham Beards, which is concerning. It is unbecoming to besmirch a colleague in Wikimedia space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC) Graham Beards never created an account on MDWiki, Colin did. The mirroring of pages is separate from account creation. Colon got blocked on MDWiki because he followed me to MDWiki and created an account. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC) He did not edit there. If you equate logging in with creating an account, perhaps that's a software issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Levivich this is the place to discuss whether there is a pattern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC/U closed a long time ago. ANI isn't going to do anything about how DJ treats Colin at MDwiki, which is completely irrelevant to the topic of this thread except for DJ being the common link, and it really isn't appropriate to try and use this thread as a jumping off point for an unrelated pile-on. Also, the SG/DJ/Colin drama ended at the medprices arbcom case two years ago that led to the creation of MDwiki. Let's not revive that dispute on enwiki. Levivich (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate Levivich's point that Doc James's admin actions on his personal vanity wiki is not a concern for Wikipedia. However, in the above hatted discussion James made false claims and did so on Wikipedia. He said "Colin actually did log onto MDWiki on 12 August 2020 at 21:47. Accounts are only created when a user logs on via OAuth, thus you SandyGeorgia do not have an account because you have never logged on. He knew that I had requested that he not follow me, yet he did so anyway." and "Colon got blocked on MDWiki because he followed me to MDWiki and created an account.". You can look at James contributions for 2020. James stopped editing on Wikipedia on 30th May 2020, shortly after receiving a topic ban on drug prices at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Proposed decision. At this point, mdwiki neither existed nor was proposed, so it would be completely impossible for James to request anyone to not follow him there.

James began editing on Wikipedia again on 12 August 2020 to archive his user page, note that he was taking a break from Wikipedia and link to mdwiki. Naturally, editors with James's page on their watchlist would have seen this and I was not alone in investigating mdwiki. This wiki claimed to be product of Wiki Project Med Foundation, a somewhat controversial organisation that had been associated with Wikipedia till that point. It also claimed to be a Wikimedia thematic organization. It out of curiosity, I clicked on the login page which offered (and still offers) "Login via Wikipedia", which made me all the more suspcious that this was some new Wikimedia site like Meta or Commons, especially considering it was setup by a fomer Wikimedia Board member. Therefore I, quite reasonably I think, assumed my login would work just as it would if I clicked on any other Wikimedia site. It didn't. This vanity wiki is invitation only and users cannot "create an account" and start editing all by themselves. There is actually no need to block users, nor to declare that they are blocked on their user pages. The declaration James made on that site serves no purpose than ego.

I therefore request James strikes the false and harmful claims in the above discussion, that he requested I not follow him but yet persisted in doing so. That is utter fiction. -- Colin°^Talk 17:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with Levivich here: this is still not the right place for this discussion, even if we assume every detail you have just relayed. With respect to Sandy, I just don't think there is a relevant "pattern" holding these facts together as something the community needs to consider together. ANI can't function for addressing discrete issues if every thread can become an open invitation to a pile on, even if there are multiple concerns for a community member at once. If you really think the issue of these (as you see it) false statements about you is something the community needs to address at this level, well I suppose you could always open another thread, but I don't recommend it.

But, in either event, I don't see as how it is helping us address the original concerns of this thread or the request of the OP, issues which seem to have been resolved for the moment (Doc James cautioned, article restored to go through the proper process). Anything James or you supposedly did on another project is beyond our purview here, and even if your characterization of James' comments is accurate, I can't see the community sanctioning James over putting a disingenuous presentation on a stale dispute. I don't want to be dismissive of your feeling misrepresented, and perhaps it's all well and for the best that you had an opportunity to present your side of events. But bluntly, the conduct--even if we assume your version of events to be the more accurate--doesn't raise behavioural concerns sufficient enough to put any pressure on James to give you the apologetic retraction you want. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the considered response, Snow Rise. As I said at the outset, I'm happy to see how the original issue resolved, and did not realize this other can of worms was bigger than my awareness (ie, the issue with how the MDWiki handles and presents log-ins). I respect your response, but still hope that James will take on board that the commonality here-- that is, what got him into the initial issue-- is one that involves understanding boundaries. Not treating Wikipedia or other Wikimedia spaces as one's place for visiting personal issues. The (missing) boundary in carrying over a Twitter issue to Wikipedia is similar to the missing boundary in carrying a Wikipedia issue to another Wiki (and doing so with a false representation that impugns a Wikipedian). Apology, withdrawal or not, I hope that James will understand that these same kinds of boundary problems led to Jytdog's demise. And I would hope that, just as he responded to Paul August, James will see that treating a colleague the way he treated Colin does little to further MDWiki's goals, and understand where these kinds of behaviors can lead (which is where they led in the original incident here). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but of course the differences between the situations is that while both situations involve crossing project boundaries, the original situation examined by this thread involves an off-project dispute that spilled over into conduct on project, and the other purportedly involves a situation where a personality conflict here led to an alleged abuse of position in another project. As, such, this community has the purview, capabilities, and responsibility to address the former, but not the latter. I agree that it might be reasonable that someone would see an overlap in the concerns in the context of each project, but under this project's rules, it is outside our scope to attempt to regulate a user's behaviour outside the bounds of our work environment, aside from in extreme cases of a abuse which tie into on-project activities or relationships. Maybe Doc will in fact consider your observations: he has, afterall, made other concessions in this discussion. But I don't think it's likely to be a vocal admission, and if he fails to reverse whatever actions he may have made at MDWiki.org, we are powerless to compel him to do so: it's a matter for their local community.

I will say though that it is odd, even for a project administered by a thematic organization, for a wiki under the aegis of the Wikimedia movement to have closed registration, isn't it? This is well beyond the scope of this thread, but I'd be curious to know just what the project is getting in material support from the movement under those circumstances. So if anyone can point me to the right places on Meta to better understand the new project and it's relationship to the broader movement, I would appreciate that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We have a number of projects with closed registration and closed viewership within our movement. There is Wikimedia Office, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee, and Wikimedia VRT, among others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise It's a tangle I don't understand; sorry I can't be of more help. The best I can offer is I can't understand how things like this are allowed to happen on Wikimedia's watch, and that it does is demoralizing and demotivating. Anyway, thanks again for the respectful response. Also, just for your awareness, James kicked Colin off his talk page long ago, which makes it hard to work things like this out ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I do appreciate the honesty by Colin. As stated by Sandy he was asked long ago to stop following me ie "James kicked Colin off his talk page long ago". He admits that despite this he kept me on his watchlist. And than when I posted something there about a new project I was working on he followed me and logged in. As stated previously this is what got him blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise I am not seeking administrative actions against James, nor an apology, nor am I using this forum to insist on him changing anything at mdwiki, so please don't misrepresent my position. I am asking James to retract a false and harmful claim, which he made here on Wikipedia, that we could charitably call "misremembering", but conveniently misremembering in a way that hurts someone. The above post demonstrates no such willingness to behave like a gentleman. Again repeating some myth about "he was asked long ago to stop following me".

What is most telling about James's comments here is that James really does regard mdwiki, in its entirety, to be an extension of himself. SnowRise describes it as "a wiki under the aegis of the Wikimedia movement". I and anyone where who visits that little project's website may think it is just another Wikimedia project for which your central login just works. A project, which SnowRise imagines actually has a "local community". It would be like me just logging on to Wikidata, without actually editing, and one of the admins on that project accusing me of "following him". Such an accusation would make us all question that admin's sense of self importance and grounding in reality. There is no "local community" at mdwiki, SnowRise. A glance at the last 500 changes shows it is just five editors, including James, and including QuackGuru who is weirdly constrained to edit in an e-cigarette sandbox. Does failing to log into into a Wikimedia-adjacent project website count as "following"?

James claims that me "logging in" was what got me blocked. Yet the failed login occurred on the 12th August 2020 and the supposed block occurred on 2nd December 2021. That's like 16 months later! And I did not make, and could not make, any edits to that site. James's claim, here on Wikipedia, that 'this is what got him blocked', is another fabulation.

I must admit, when I got pinged and saw this conversation, my first thought was actually "Oh, is James still an admin here. Why?" I can only echo that all the more now. I ask again, James, if you are at all a gentleman, you would strike your comments about me, and move on. Stop digging more holes for yourself here, or we will all be questioning why you still have the bit. -- Colin°^Talk 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Account was created by Colin Aug 12 2020. I blocked it on Aug 13 2020.[201] Yes you logged in, there was no failure, and you were able to make edits for a couple of hours to parts of MDWiki. Agree that you never made edits but I never claimed you did. Sure the talk page notification of your block occurred a number of months later after mirroring was launched. That however does not represent the date the block occurred. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That link about 13 August is not accessible to us mere mortals. However, Colin doesn't appear in your block log there[202], nor does he appear in the logged actions you made on 13 August 2020[203]. Why you felt the need to post that block message at that time on your personal playground / "Wikimedia thematic organization" is unclear, nor why you wouldn't just remove it again. It serves no actual purpose and only makes you look petty. Fram (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

So the block is fictional too then? James, it is an invitation-only wiki. Which "parts of MDWiki" are you suggesting I could have edited for a couple of hours? My user preferences? Perhaps I could have pestered you by changing the length of my watchlist? No article pages can be edited without your prior blessing. There is no need for you to block any users. Unless you get fed up with QuackGuru, who was indefinitely topic-banned on Wikipedia from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed, but seems to have earned some kind of sandbox purgatory afterlife on mdwiki. This weirdness and pettiness leaves us wondering quite what Wikimedia is doing associating itself with Doc James's vanity project, a tiny cultish closed-wiki community, whose content is not even free (see nccommons). -- Colin°^Talk 11:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

[204]??? Coupled with the above, it looks as if Doc James created a user and user talk page just to post a negative comment about Colin, and then made up all kinds of nonsense here to justify this. I hope there is a better explanation, as otherwise it is basically a case of off-wiki (but in the Wikimedia sphere) hounding of an onwiki opponent, and then lying onwiki about it. Fram (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure that Doc James did it? When taking a quick look at MD Wiki I got the impression that WP-users can log in there using OAuth, i.e. with their Wikipedia account, and then import their own edits on medical articles from enWP, i.e. edits they've made on en-WP, without creating an account om MD Wiki. I got that option at least... - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 13:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Did what? Doc James said "I blocked it on Aug 13 2020.[201] Yes you logged in, there was no failure, and you were able to make edits for a couple of hours to parts of MDWiki.", so they claim that they blocked the account, despite this account not being registered and the block not appearing in Doc James logs. And editors can't import edits without having an approved account, it's the approved editors at Mdwiki who can import edits to then work on (creating a very superficial token nod to the attribution requirements). Anyway, you can see the actual logs, Doc James imported the enwiki user page and talk page of Colin with the sole intention of adding an insulting block notice to the page of an unregistered editor they had an enwiki beef with, and then made up stuff about it here (or this is at least what all evidence so far points at). Fram (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I found Blocked users, which has seven entries, including one accidentally created test account, and four IP addresses, but nobody called Colin. None of these blocked accounts have any contributions, other than "Swayam12345" who posted some spam on his user page. So, maybe new users can/could edit their own user page. Remarkable that a wiki only receives one spam post in over two years. I also note that Swayam12345 was blocked and had his spam removed without comment. Tom/Fram, worth also remembering that the site in August 2020 was primitive, with no automatic Wikipedia mirroring and manual imports that weren't at all compliant with CC attribution. There clearly have been some changes since then. -- Colin°^Talk 13:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I based my response to Fram on the fact that my user page and user talk from enWP were imported automatically after logging in through OAuth, and me getting the option to import edits on medical articles from enWP in spite of not requesting an account (and I have no intention of requesting an account either since I would have no need for it...). The discussion of what DocJames did or did not do on MD Wiki is IMO also off-topic here, especially now that the article about Greg Marchand has been SNOW-deleted at AfD. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 13:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

user:Skyerise Keeps baselessly accusing me of being a sock

Apparently I’m a sock puppet of some user I’ve never heard of called user:Raxythecat For making inoffensive edits to Genesis P-orrige and editing on a couple of related pages. I don’t appreciate the combative and defamatory attitude from this user. Dronebogus (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

They are also canvassing another user I’ve been in conflict with to aid in hounding me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Grayzone&diff=1133277020&oldid=1133275674 Dronebogus (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a new thing, unfortunately. I warned Skyerise for canvassing a year ago, where she admitted that she'd been warned only weeks before, and then tried to wikilawyer about how it wasn't canvassing. Woodroar (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Already did, thanks. Dronebogus (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Bbb23, you figure in the long block log for Skyerise, who is now harassing Dronebogus and blanket reverting good edits. A boomerang is called for to stop them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks 24601. You’re a lifesaver. Dronebogus (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't usually comment on ANI stuff, however this just seems like assuming bad faith. I took a look at the SPI and I don't see any connection between the master and Dronebogus. I looked at the history of the article and didn't see tag bombing by any confirmed socks. Drone's username also doesn't seem typical for the user, plus if Drone were actually a sock they probably would've been uncovered in the most recent SPI (unless a sleeper check was not performed there). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the archived SPI page, sleepers have been checked for several times, and checkusers appear to have found sleepers in January, March, and May last year. Dronebogus has been active throughout all of these checks. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Well then that just proves that this SPI is completely baseless and in complete bad faith. Sure the tags might have been incorrect, but the most recent socks 1. Have had usernames that are immediate red flags regardless of being a sock (and have also been at least 2 words with a space between them, which is not the same as Bogus') and 2. have not tag bombed the article whatsoever. I say that the CU for the SPI be declined since there's no actual evidence and Skyerise either be blocked (which I would prefer) or warned for this behavior. What makes it worse is that Skyerise should know not to do this considering they've been around for 13 years, have almost 95k edits, and are a rollbacker and PC reviewer. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Skyerise should be blocked, though, honestly, I would understand it. I have been overzealous plenty of times myself, and have certainly let my own hunches get the better of me. But Skyerise, the certainty with which you harangued Dronebogus here was out of all proportion with the actual evidence. I hope you'll take a moment to reflect on that. Happy Friday, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree. ON this behavior alone I would agree, however they also canvassed this discussion in order to try and harass Dronebogus and also done so previously, they also have issues with civility. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

user:Skyerise, that is one of the lousiest SPI cases I've seen. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention that Skyerise broke 3RR at Genesis P-Orridge whilst reverting the purported "sock". There is of course an exemption at WP:3RRNO for reverting obvious sockpuppets of banned users, but that doesn't include "socks" for which the evidence is frankly non-existent. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I am checking if Skyerise has been properly notified of their case here, and it turns out that they have been properly notified. Their interactions with Dronebogus is quite uncivil. ANI notice has been properly notified but brushed aside by Skyerise. He has also been warned by another editor. Skyerise has also stated that the ANI case isn't worth responding to. Aside from the lousy ANI, there may be some WP:CIVIL issue here as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe this was mentioned above, but Skyerise also triggered /canvassed help from another notorious Wikipedia-is-controlled-by-left-wing-extremist-commie-editors-we-must-fight editor. Their edits should be checked, as they immediately started their typical style of fringe disruption. Those Skyerise sees as friends here should be checked.

Keep in mind this isn't just about harassment and a bad-faith SPI. It's about Skyerise and allied anti-left-wing-warrior fringe editors who do this because of their political POV battle attitudes.

Therefore we need to see several AP2 topics bans or indef blocks. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Now they are both tag team edit warring to whitewash the very fringe website The Grayzone. So we already have a demonstration of their fringe battle activities. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  This is getting ridiculous. Skyerise definitely needs to be blocked if they're going to exhibit this kind of behavior, or at the very least have their pending changes and rollback perms revoked and topic bans put in place. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Philomathes2357 probably also needs at least a temporary block for persistent WP:IDHT disruption. Dronebogus (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: block Skyerise for harassment, assuming bad faith, WP:OWNership behavior, WP:CIR related violations and partisan canvassing

I’m not sure how long is appropriate but Skyerise crossed a line with their baseless harassment campaign against me simply for editing on “their” articles in a way they don’t like. Anyone who starts sock puppetry investigations without meaningful evidence and canvasses their targets’ opponents for harassment purposes is clearly not fit to edit this website. Dronebogus (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. What Skyerise did was inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere. However, a temporary block of any length would obviously not be WP:PREVENTATIVE. How would that realistically prevent a similar thing in the future? Not saying that nothing should be done, but the proposed measure won't work, so something else needs to be figured out. Maybe a PBAN. —Alalch E. 11:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise Blocked

Multiple issues have been brought up above, including a farcical SPI filing, incivility, canvassing and edit-warring. Skyerise has refused to interact with this ANI filing, and has since continued to edit war on articles including The Grayzone and Chaos magic. Their last block was of 2 weeks but was a year ago, so I have made this one the same length. They really do need to stop at this point, or I suspect any further block may be indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add an AP2 topic ban (and any other relevant topics) to prevent disruption when the block expires. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I've declined a second unblock request (diff), and referenced this thread in doing so. Cross-posting here for full disclosure. Any admin feel free to reverse my decision if you think is appropriate (now or following subsequent unblock requests), happy to trust your collective judgement. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse block. The comments at the SPI bordered on trolling. Pinguinn 🐧 09:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• I just noticed that Skyerise's talkpage has been indefinitely semi-protected for over 11 years due to "persistent vandalism" (see [205]) Is this really still warranted? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell revisited

October 2022 block of Doug Coldwell

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1108#Doug Coldwell and self-promotional editing

The discussions above are long (record-breaking?) and hard to decipher when one can't see deleted versions, but I understand that a) there were enormous problems with copyvio, too close paraphrasing, misrepresentation of sources, and self-promotion with Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs · logs); b) Coldwell is from Michigan with a connection to a library there; and c) Coldwell is blocked and topic-banned from GA/DYK.

I missed the ANI, but had independently discovered a very large problem throughout the Ludington family series of GAs by Coldwell, which promoted the notion of Sybil Ludington as a "female Paul Revere" based on self-published family accounts categorized by Hunt, a scholarly source, as less than reliable. The Ludington family account was authored by Willis Fletcher Johnson, but published privately by the Ludington family. It should be understood that Hunt implies, although does not directly state, that a profitable tourist, book and promotional industry arose around the notion of this "female Paul Revere", so there is a potential motive for continuing the less-than-reliable Ludington family accounts. I rewrote those articles in the second half of 2022 to include Hunt and other sources which question the Ludington family account. And a fine job of promoting those accounts Wikipedia had done.

Having been largely absent from Wikipedia for seven years, LordGorval (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) surfaced in January to significantly expand (as in DYK potential) Willis Fletcher Johnson. Much of the content added [206] was an UNDUE and biased account, minimizing the conclusions drawn by Hunt.

Editing by Thomas Trahey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (a librarian from Ludington, Michigan) at Willis Fletcher Johnson nine days later includes the same misrepresentations about Hunt added by LordGorval, along with too close paraphrasing, misrepresentation of sources, and, similar to LordGorval, replaces content from Hunt with original research, which biases content towards the Ludington family self-published histories which formed the basis of the series of GAs on the entire Ludington family by Coldwell.

All of Trahey's prior work on Wikipedia (2019), before recent editing of Willis Fletcher Johnson, was done in sandbox but was published by Coldwell (disregarding WP:CWW, btw).

• September 16 to 19, 2019 Trahey's sandbox on Delos L. Filer from Ludington, Michigan
• September 20, 2019 Trahey's Sandbox2, also Delos L. Filer
  • A GA published by Doug Coldwell on October 1, 2019, with the same content as the Thomas Trahey sandbox
• September 20 to 24, 2019, Sandbox 3 on John Mason Loomis, also from Ludington, and
  • Also published by Doug Coldwell on October 1, 2019, with the same content as the Thomas Trahey sandbox

I don't know what I have stumbled upon, but we have two editors making questionable edits to an article that formed the basis of a series of dubious GAs by Doug Coldwell, and we have similar gibberish content, misrepresentation of sources, and too close paraphrasing, so I hope those familiar with Coldwell's editing, and the past discussions, will have a look. I may have missed a lot in the lengthy discussions linked above, but something seems off in this sudden interest in rewriting Fletcher's article with a slant towards the Ludington family view. (Notifying Coldwell, Gorval and Trahey next.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding: Both Gorval and Trahey remove content cited to Hunt that the Ludington account was published by his grandchildren, and replace it with original research about the printer, DeVinne Press.[207] [208] We can't use our own research to refute a scholarly source and the title page of the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that the image of the library on Thomas Trahey's userpage was uploaded by Coldwell which obviously is proof of nothing but just... c'mon.... Xx78900 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems like SPI might be the right venue for this. (t · c) buidhe 11:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe, I am questioning whether a) the DYK/GA topic ban is sufficient, b) whether it should be extended to other editors (whose editing is surely too old to be considered at SPI), and c) whether the CIR issues in current editing at the Johnson article also need scrutiny. There's more than SPI going on here. Re-reading some of the linked discussions above, the extent to which Coldwell's work was defended by GA/DYK regulars is shocking, considering the severity of the problems I happened upon merely by seeing a "doesn't pass the duck test" post on Facebook about "the female Paul Revere", and finding Coldwell had spread this across perhaps a dozen GAs, by misrepresenting the Johnson source as being published by Harvard University. The work I have seen is perfectly summed up by this post from EEng. One wonders if the level of competence issues would have been uncovered sooner had Coldwell submitted to FAC. At any rate, the whole situation is odd, and I posted to here to get more eyes from those familiar with a mess too big for me to digest without access to deleted versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, the Trahey/Gorval edits have Willis Fletcher as a descendent of Samuel Johnson (not what the source says) and have him graduating from New York Unnversity, when the source says he didn't graduate ... along with the original research about the publisher of the Ludington memoir. (I suspect I've only scratched the surface of the issues at that article ... noting that the Ludington series was GA'd by Coldwell several years after the 2015 Hunt paper, and there are other sources discrediting that story, which were omitted). What I uncovered in the Ludington issue does not speak well for the rest of Coldwell's GA/DYK work, or the fact that most of this was apparently missed, and later defended by some at the ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• A quick Google-search on their names +Ludington shows that Coldwell and Trahey are two real-life individuals (of different generations) cooperating to promote their hometown, Ludington, MI, and not socking (per the strict definition of it), and even WP:MEAT would be very difficult to prove. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 15:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Two basically inactive editors (one of whose work was previously published by Coldwell) turn up to promote the author of a piece that is the basis for a series of Coldwell GAs, and also misrepresent sources, create poor content, and closely paraphrase; what is difficult there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

As is stated further up Coldwell published articles written in Trahey's sandbox, so maybe Trahey wrote them all, or at least many of them, and is continuing to write, but now publishing them under his own name. A way of doing things that there AFAIK is no policy against (other than it perhaps being a case of "copying within Wikipedia", if that also covers sandboxes and not just article space; but that would be Coldwell violating the rules, and he's already blocked...). If Trahey continues with a behaviour that is an exact copy of Coldwell's, he could be blocked in his own right, but the probability of Coldwell and Trahey being two different individuals sharing the same interest is so high that I, if I were a CU (which I, thank God or whoever handles things like that nowadays, am not) would not run a check on them. As for the third account I have no opinion. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 17:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell was blocked indefinitely for cause and it's unlikely that an unblock request would be successful. If another account is carrying on similar behavior and is either him or knows him then that's not acceptable regardless of who is actually behind the account. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well. I posted here out of concern that the expansion at Willis Fletcher Johnson indicates the possibility that the intent was to aim towards DYK, and the edits appear designed to specifically support the bias/inaccuracy introduced by Coldwell throughout a huge number of Revolutionary War GAs and articles. And that there is no need or reason for an SPI here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If Trahey also repeatedly introduces bias/inaccuracies to multiple articles, in spite of being told to stop, and why, he should be blocked, but that block would be because of his own actions (as I wrote above: "If Trahey continues with a behaviour that is an exact copy of Coldwell's, he could be blocked in his own right..."), but SPI, as was suggested further up here, and what I responded to, would not be the right venue for it. - Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 21:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I have now uncovered cut-and-paste copyvio at Willis Fletcher Johnson. A further similarity to Coldwell is the use of offline sources that can't be checked. And another similarity to Doug Coldwell is the failure of either Gorval or Trahey to respond to this ANI.

Because of these similarities, and the possibility of further plagiarism or misrepresentation of sources at the Johnson article, I have reverted now the entire mess, as it's too much for me to check and rewrite. It may be too many edits to request a copyvio revdel back to the first copyvio edit by Gorval: will an admin please opine and assist? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I blocked Coldwell as a result of the above-linked ANI, but I don't have time to dig into this right now with limited wiki time. If my block needs adjusting as a result of this revived account, please feel free. Star Mississippi 23:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

User:RoundTeen

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

RoundTeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been warned multiple times by multiple editors about unsourced certifications, genres, using unreliable charts etc. and completely ignores the warnings, also refuses to engage in communication. Right now, after being given another "final" warning by another editor, they immediately repeat said action. Maybe a short block will help them come to their senses, though I don't believe it will help. --Muhandes (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this user has not communicated with anyone else even after being warned and reverted several times. The Night Watch (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone who has issued several warnings, including one in French (as I believe the editor is of French origin due to their editing interests), I have also tried to engage on a number of pages, @Roundteen has not responded either because they don't understand, don't care or out of sheer ignore. I'm trying to assume AGF which was why I translated the final warning into French just in case. I concur with @Muhandes, at this point its looking like Roundteen is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s also worth mentioning that the user has never used their edit summary. Some of the things they add on here is pointless and random to the point where a lot of us have no clue why they changed/added it. Pillowdelight (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Nathan AV Golf

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

---

Nathan AV Golf (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly recreating Aashish Vaishnava. It has been speedy deleted 5 times in the past four days (variously under G11, G12 and A7). The user's username implies a connection with the subject - definitely a conflict of interest, and undisclosed paid editing looks likely. Their contributions appear that the user has intentionally met the requirements for autoconfirmed so that they can create this article. User has been unresponsive to various warnings and talk page messages. WJ94 (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I nominated it three times per G11 and G12 (and agree that A7 also applies). The first three versions were obvious copies of https://www.avgolfindia.com/about.php, though recent re-creations are less blatant. I also noticed the pattern of making exactly ten constructive edits then waiting awhile. The title is now salted. Certes (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Michael Edwards (actor)

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

---

Resolved

 – Article semi-protected for a month Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please check the recent edits to this BLP and warn/block/revert/protect as needed? Apologies for not doing this myself but I am away from my computer and my phone is not being cooperative. 28bytes (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPN may be a more appropriate place for a notice. --Jayron32 15:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan has semi-protected for a month. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the help. 28bytes (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Racist/Hateful Userbox

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

---

This user thinks Russia should be erased from the map.

I encountered the above userbox when I opened a user page belonging to a user currently involved in editing the Battle of Soledar article. Given the fact that the Azov Regiment has been frequently of connections with Neo-Nazism and the userbox calls for at best the dissolution of a sovereign state and at worst for the genocide of its inhabitants; shouldn't it be deleted? To those who say no, I will pose three currently non existent thematically similar userboxes:

This user thinks Ukraine should be erased from the map. (with an image of Putin on it).

This user thinks Israel should be erased from the map. (with an image of Ayatollah Khomeini on it).

This user thinks Poland should be erased from the map. (with an image of Hitler on it).

Before I get accused of being a Putin supporter by the usual suspects; I want to clarify that I personally oppose both the current Russian government and the current invasion. Catlemur (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Catlemur, I think a better place to raise this issue is WP:MFD. Schazjmd (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that I cannot find this userbox on the list of userboxes so I cannot provide a link for it to be deleted. It may have been created by @Scu ba: since its text format is different from other userboxes I have seen.--Catlemur (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There is precedent – although I'm speaking from memory and don't have a link handy – that it's possible to nominate a specific part of another editor's userpage for deletion at MFD, such as a single userbox. Salvio ^giuliano 18:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point, @Catlemur. It appears to be a user box defined inline on the user page, rather than a project-level user box. Maybe this is the right place to discuss it. Hopefully someone more familiar with user boxes can chime in here. Schazjmd (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Just remove it directly from the user page, but keep the other userboxes. This particular box goes way beyond WP:POLEMIC. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

While Salvio giuliano is correct that there's precedent for removing a portion of a page at MFD, I'm willing to remove this from their userpage without an MFD, but... a couple of steps have been missed. Catlemur, you really should have discussed this with the editor first. Politely asking them to remove it, referencing WP:POLEMIC, might result in a very simple solution. You also should have notified them the userbox is being discussed here. (Sorry, I see you did this after all) --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

removed it from my own userpage. I didn't mean to imply I want to commit genocide against russians but was against the current russian state Scu ba (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

And it has been removed by the user. All's well... Salvio ^giuliano 18:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User:P3DRO insulting me for years

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked indef Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

P3DRO (talk · contribs) has insulted me again ("fag"). Previous insults include: "FCPedit" (calling me an FCP supporter), "fangirl slbEdit", "internet troll", "kid", "little kid", "bad fella", "child", "childish" (multiple times), "canalha" (English: scoundrel), has indirectly called me "vandal" several times, made threats like this one, and more recently has been blindly adding unreliable sources to S.L. Benfica (youth), removing tags and re-adding redirects in that article, while refusing to discuss changes in the article's talk page.

P3dro has already been warned by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) about insults . Moreover, P3DRO even liked an edit that got me blocked. Additionally, I think he recently created a sock account named SLBEditor37 (talk · contribs) (an "impostor" and a "troll" - I apologize if it's not a sock account).

P.S.: I would like to show you the nicest comment P3dro made about me: "Keep up your edits about football, especially those about Benfica. 17:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)" Thanks for recognizing my work. I guess your hate towards me took control of you. SLBedit (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked P3DRO (talk · contribs) for three days for making personal attacks, because personal attacks are never acceptable. That said, your conduct isn't exactly blameless either. Aside from the fact that you should not template the regulars, you should never bombard the talk page of another user with multiple templates. In future, please simply discuss with other editors. Templates are fine for newbies and vandals, with experienced users editing in good faith they are not really appropriate... Salvio ^giuliano 21:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I was going to observe as much myself, Salvio--note that one of those (mostly still unacceptable) edit summaries came in response to a comment where SLB tells P3DRO "Please don't be pathetic", so clearly this is at least a bit of a two-way street, even if P3DRO clearly is the more disruptive party. But that caveat made, I'm going to do something I have rarely (if ever?) done over the years and question the discretionary choice of the block length an admin chose to apply, without meaning offense to you. I just don't think three days is remotely sufficient to address the outright slur used by P3DRO in the most recent diff. PAs in a heated exchange are one thing, while out-and-out bigoted hate speech is quite another. I for one would be more comfortable with an indef until at least a very major, fulsome, and genuine seeming mea culpa from the user recognizing the plainly unacceptable breach of our fundamental behavioural policies, to say nothing of basic civility and common sense. Or at least a longterm block, absent their ability to provide evidence that they understand just how unacceptable that language is in a collaborative project of this nature. Absent that, I think there is a serious WP:CIR concern here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You know what? You are right, that's definitely hate speech and I was too lenient. I'll bump the block up to indefinite. Salvio ^giuliano 22:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to say, a 3 day block for throwing around homophobic slurs is not a good response. Fully agree with the indef. For these kind of things I always go to the indef because that's the only way to get the editor to really acknowledge why they were blocked and promise real change to get unblocked. A short block just removes them for a period of time with no incentive to change their behaviours (especially for an editor that isn't a daily editor.) Canterbury Tail talk 22:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Support indefinite block per WP:PILLARS--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Salvio: I appreciate the openness to the concerns. Hopefully we see a response which can give us confidence that this was a bad moment for this user that they regret and won't repeat. But short of that I think we're looking at a net positive from the block, if they were likely to repeat that conduct. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I commend Salvio giuliano for reconsidering the block length. Cullen328 (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

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

78.174.108.26

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked 2 weeks Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

"typical persian"

"persian :|"

Also keeps trying to add their WP:SOAPBOX / WP:FORUM / WP:JDLI nonsense into the talk page, which can also be seen in the diffs up above and this one; "Safawid itself was a Turkic state, so calling it as a Turco-Persian War is very misleading. You even added a sentence in the beginning of the article "For all conflicts between Turkic states and Persian states, see Turco-Persian Wars." This is so wrong. I am so tired of to see persian nationalism and Persification of Iran in Wikipedia."

Can someone please block him? --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocking their old address 78.180.10.162 is probably pointless, but the user is blocked for two weeks (currently at 78.174.108.26) for now. If this continues through the block, please notify me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Will do, thank you very much! --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Some editors have been removing Tanit Phoenix’s middle name “Jacqueline” from the page.

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

---

Some editors have been removing Tanit Phoenix’s middle name “Jacqueline”, and every time that happens, I re-add the middle name back to the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanit_Phoenix&diff=1132495780&oldid=1130500460&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanit_Phoenix&diff=1132772113&oldid=1132495780&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanit_Phoenix&diff=1132772171&oldid=1132772113&diffmode=source

Could you please tell those editors not to vandalize the Tanit Phoenix page anymore? AdamDeanHall (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an RS for the middle name? Didn't see anything in the article references.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have found a link as a reliable source for Tanit Phoenix’s middle name “Jacqueline”: https://www.wtfoot.com/wags-celeb/who-is-tanit-phoenix-wow-details-about-sharlto-copleys-wife/ AdamDeanHall (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall, take a close look at [wtfoot.com]. That is a gossip site. It is pretty much the opposite of a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall, for as long as this looks like a "reliable source" to you, please do yourself and the article subjects the favor of not editing biographical articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we do not use full names unless they have been "widely published by reliable sources". — Archer1234 (t·c) 06:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Long term disruption by Antonio cruz wiki

• Antonio cruz wiki (talk · contribs) has continued to add copied content to multiple articles, well after multiple warnings by Diannaa. They've also added lengthy lists of non notable employees and promotional tone, sometimes sourced to blogs and similarly unacceptable sites; essentially an agenda that doesn't acknowledge Wikipedia guidelines re: copyright, neutrality or notability. There is, needless to say, WP:COI all over this. I've attempted to revert some of the edits, but there's a lengthy history at articles like Bell Labs, Western Electric and Tung-Sol that requires review for copyright violation, poorly sourced and/or promotional content. Some assistance would be great. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • There have been a series of roughly comprehensible responses, including [209], [210] and [211]. This is looking like a competence/language issue. I'm thinking there's likely a lot more copyright issues, in addition to the various and sundry other issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  I was advised by a member Diannaa in sourcing of material in copyrights or sourcing, Those edits were possible less than my first 100 edits. I read the suggested guidelines and attempted to learn how to use your Wikipedia methods to add content. I failed possibly again with Dianna, Nightscream, and Kbrose once or twice in different articles and I tried again to improve. I had learned to change words or positions and think it out in my own thoughts to avoid copyright content. I had learned to source my edits through a tool with somehow was not working, so I had learned how to manually type < ref > { { cite web | last= |first= | title= | url= | publisher= | date= | access-date= } } < /ref > hundreds of times in majority of the articles with the sourced content. I do not have any financial gains to Bell Labs, Western Electric, nor Tung-Sol. All these companies are defunct and just provide historical content on their people or products. I worked for AT&T Bell Labs in a computer department from 1987-1996 until I was outsourced to IBM from 1996-2002. I focussed on Bell Labs and Western Electric because of its significant history that you are using with this platform or communicating. Tung-Sol was just an article that was lacking history and it was an old mysterious factory in the neighborhood where I see it into some rental and storage franchise. I did not attempt to promote former employees nor the companies, and a few blogs found a fact that is a fact but can't find further source nor do I associate with those random found bloggers. All three companies are defunct nor products are being produced by them, Nokia Bell Labs is just a recent acquired research facility for Nokia. Bell Labs started in 1925 by AT&T and was upto 1996, then it became a decade in Lucent Technologies and another decade in Alcatel-Lucent as a Bell Labs research department. I have provided over 500 edits so there has to be that many references to the material sourced. I am not promoting myself, family, friends, clients, employers, or my financial relationship, but I worked over 25 years ago at AT&T Bell Labs and not Nokia Bell Labs and I live three miles from the old Tung-Sol factory. No personal opinions of these companies other than facts. I am not paid by editors nor these companies pay me. My self-employment in the community is payment as a verbal interpreter or processing paperwork of financial and immigration on computers for non-English people. Perhaps, because of this causes my grammar or content to be off. Antonio cruz wiki (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

And this [212]. If I took this to AIV, I'd be referred here. What does it take to get some help? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You'll have to wait for an admin to notice this, if a block or any other administrative action is required.

Personally I get the feeling Antonio here is a good faith editor, that he's not willingly introducing promotional content, and that such was never his goal. I think he's just trying to share his knowledge from his experience as an employee. The problem is, of course, that not all of it is encyclopaedia material, and not all of it is sourced appropriately either. The fact that his English doesn't seem to be stellar isn't helping either. It comes down, in my opinion, to a CIR issue.

This being said, he has shown good will and has come here to defend his position in a polite manner. I think a reply from an admin addressing these issues would probably carry weight with him, and I would be happy to try to further explain these concerns in Spanish (which I assume is his first language) afterwards, if I get a green light from the intervening admin, to see if I can get Antonio to understand the problem with his edits. Ostalgia (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely so, Ostalgia. I'm encountering users who aren't fully competent to edit here (see Bridgeport and John Hoogenakker for two examples), but whose long term disruption isn't malicious, which makes it difficult to flag down assistance. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked the user as they show no understanding of how copyright applies to Wikipedia. I will unblock if and when they show they understand our requirements. — Diannaa (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa. Copyright was the block rationale, but their talk page response doesn't bode well, either. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Previously blocked Sock Puppet Æo, given second chance, but disturbing and disruptive controlling behaviors persist even today

Hello administrators. I feel an obligation to report WP:disruptive behavior by Æo at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [213]. Seems to have a particularly hard agenda against academic sources pertaining to religious demographics and does show signs of obsessive/compulsive behaviors by trying to control the discussion section, control the RFC, control the RFC Closure, and even going the extra mile the control/influence the editor who Closes the RFC.

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

History of user

*User:AEO was blocked twice for Edit Warring under "Wddan" sock puppet [214] User:AEO was topic banned from religious topics for 2 months for problematic behavior [215] as "Wddan" User:AEO was indefinitely banned shortly afterwards for sock puppeting with 5 socks and violating the topic ban on religious topics [216]. From link in the bullet point below he says “Then, I violated the topic ban by continuing editing with the main account (Aethelwolf) and others, and, after this was discovered, I was blocked indefinitely.” User:AEO was given WP:ROPE about a year later. There he acknowledged “I was excessively controlling, aggressive and uncooperative, and always assumed his bad faith, breaking the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.” [217]

At the noticeboard [218], I noticed an extensive pattern of controlling and disruptive behavior. User:AEO is trying to control the discussion results in a few different ways.

• Controlling the discussion section: User:AEO created an “authoritative-looking” summary of the discussion pushing his points while ignoring everyone else’s contributions [219] with such inaccuracy that I disputed it and had to step in provide a correction [220].

I mentioned that since the disagreements over the interpretation of the discussion was very big, only uninvolved editors should do such summaries, not active participants like us [221] to which he agreed [222] but never removed it. Its still there. Instead he created an RFC resembling his “summary” and self-referenced it [223] as if to give credible weight to his "summary". The right thing to do would have been removal to ensure neutrality.

Controlling the RFC and WP:VOTESTACK

Seems to selectively call in multiple outside editors into this discussion that he knows already support his views and thereby tried to sway the RFC in a particular way. See the 3 editors he pinged as a group [224] and then called all 3 in the RFC and even shows discussions where these editors had supported his views [225]). One of them did not respond and 2 months later he chased after him because of a guaranteed vote [226]. The RFC results show clearly that 3 of the 4 Yes votes come from AEO and 2 of those editors he called in [227]. A more "smoking gun" example is this one where he tried to ping another editor into the discussion because he says they supported his views [228]. Under normal circumstances, I would not think much of this, but since User:AEO did accuse editors who voted No in the RFC of WP:canvassing [229] it is was worth noting that we was engaged in exactly that himself. In fact, one of the editors User:AEO accused of canvassing was vindicated and pointed out Canvassing in User:AEO’s part first [230]. After that I investigated and found the pattern.

• Controlling the RFC Closure and even editor who closes: Most editors did NOT support the RFC (10 No and 4 Yes). But User:AEO made a BOLD close of the RFC with wording that overwhelmingly emphasized HIS views (the minority view with material that was not in the RFC) and at the same time minimized the majority views [231] and then immediately went to another editor, User:JzG, seeking confirmation for his closure wording while ACKNOWLEDGING bias and that what he was was doing was problematic since he created the RFC [232].

Knowing that 1) canvassing concerns on him were already expressed recently [233] and with 2) him already agreed that ONLY uninvolved editors should end these discussions [234] it makes no sense for him to even attempt to Closing his own RFC like he did. Let alone seek backup for what he was doing.

Due to the bias in his closure wording and User:AEO NOT being an uninvolved editor, I reverted User:AEO's closure accordingly [235] and other editors agreed that this was the right thing to do since User:AEO was engaging in inappropriate behavior while also noting bias in his closure wording. [236] [237].

After that, I informed User:JzG that there were canvassing concerns and that it was best for everyone to go to Wikipedia:Closure requests instead for a completely uninvolved closer (i.e. a closer who has not been contacted by User:AEO or anyone who participated in the discussion or RFC) [238].

However, instead of doing the right procedure, User:AEO persisted and told User:JzG (whom User:AEO had pre-selected for some reason - stealth canvassing?) to STILL continue to be the “uninvolved closer” and even told him to close it AND even provided him his closure wording as if to influence User:JzG [239]. This looks so disturbing. It is GREEN and stands out too.

It does not end there. After I requested a closer who was completely uninvolved at Wikipedia:Closure requests [240], User:AEO proceeded to post his closure wording at the RFC - again [241]! As if to try to influence whoever the closer is to be. It is still there and stands out in GREEN text.

Given that so many issues had been raised, no involved editor should ever have tried to close, or pre-select a closer or give instructions to a closer in any way. It disrupts the whole open and neutrality process of wikipedia.

This means that throughout this noticeboard discussion User:AEO has tried to magnify and self-reference his minority views as authoritative multiple times with inappropriate behaviors

1) User:AEO made a biased "overall" discussion “summary” [242] (inappropriate behavior - he was an involved editor and summarizing ability was questioned) 2) User:AEO made an RFC that looks pretty much the same as the biased "overall" summary [243] (making an RFC was the only appropriate action, but self-referencing his biased "summary" was inappropriate since he agreed that only uninvolved editors should do that. 3) User:AEO engaged in Canvassing (inappropriate behavior - actively trying to sway votes to his side while accusing opposition of the same thing) 3) User:AEO imposed biased closure on his own RFC despite his agreement that only uninvolved editors should do it [244] (inappropriate behavior - he was an involved editor and others noted his bias multiple times and had questioned his summarizing abilities) 4) User:AEO ACTALLY sent his biased RFC closure wording to a User:JzG to try to make him the “uninvolved” closer and told him to close it - trying to influence closer [245] (inappropriate behavior - as an involved editor he should never have done this. He is the RFC creator, Canvassing issues were raised on him, summarizing ability questioned) 5) User:AEO went even further since after everything failing, he went ahead and posted his biased closure wording in the RFC directly - trying to influence who ever would be the RFC closer [246] (inappropriate behavior - as an involved editor he should never have done this. He is RFC creator, summarizing questioned)

I have never seen this type of persistent WP:Distruptive behavior to try influence a discussion, an RFC, a Closure of an RFC, and even to try to influence a closing editor. He should have known better especially considering that he was blocked at least 4-5 times before (between his sock accounts) for (edit warring, sock puppeting, disruptive behavior, violating topic ban over religious topics, being excessively controlling and aggressive).

Surely he must have received multiple amounts of disruptive editing or behavioral warnings through the years and so should have been extra aware to avoid ALL of these behaviors. He knows what he was doing - no doubt about it.

I think something needs to be done per WP:ROPE. It wastes people's time to have to be monitoring the strange and disruptive behavior of individuals like this. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Æo

I am appalled, and frankly I feel WP:INSULTed by this wall of accusations of bad faith, insinuations of behaviours and thoughts that do not belong to me, and falsification of facts.

Glossing over the issue of the sources put into question at RSN here in a discussion and RfC that lasted two months, Ramos1990 defines me as a "blocked sock puppet" in the title, exhuming an incident which was solved years ago (2018-2019) and then reiterating this at the beginning and at the end of the text, then he states that I "show signs of obsessive/compulsive behaviors" (WP:WIAPA), and at the end of the wall of text he defines me as an "individual like this", which I perceive as disrespectful.

Throughout the text there are various manipulations of facts: my agreement that a closure from an uninvolved user was needed (01:28, 17/11/22) referred to the discussion preceding the RfC, which I opened myself as separate from the discussion, and was posted when the RfC did not exist yet (I opened it about 16 hours later). My closure of the RfC was certainly WP:BOLD (policy allows that a RfC be closed by the same user who started it), and while in my closing summary I did my best to include all the salient points which emerged from the RfC comments and from the preceding discussion, I asked JzG to "confirm and/or add" his own review (by which I meant "validate or correct" my review) since 1) I am the same who opened it, 2) it was the first RfC I ever opened and closed, and 3) I recognise that I am not perfect and, although I trust my abilities to summarise, I wanted a completely uninvolved, neutral supervision.

My "selection" (sic) of JzG was quite random (he could confirm that we never had any interactions whatsoever before): I read previous archived RSN discussions on religion-related matters, and chose one of the users who is also an admin and seemed to have taken part in most of them, thus demonstrating an interest in the topic (which I thought might be important). After Ramos1990 reverted my closure with the provocative edit-summary "emotions seems flared", I never restored the closure itself, but it seemed correct to me to re-post my closing summary at the bottom of the page, for the record, recognising at the same time that a closure from a completely uninvolved user was needed. And I did not "provide him [JzG] his closure wording... trying to influence closer"; I re-posted my closing summary for the record, as I thought it was a correct practice.

Regarding the false accusations of "canvassing" (i.e. inviting users to vote a certain way), and the majority vote issue (I did not ignore the majority vote, as I closed the RfC as "no consensus" and in the summary I also listed the users who voted no and their expressed viewpoints), I have already widely answered to them (and quoted relevant policies) here and here. Let me reiterate, however, that the RfC came after a lengthy discussion which in turn came after various fragmented discussions which took place over the years, and while I was discussing I made reference to them, taking into consideration the points of view of other users; all the users whom I mentioned in my RfC comment(s) while quoting or paraphrasing their views (Ramos1990s misinterprets my WP:MENTIONs as "canvassing") had already taken part in the discussion thereabove, preceding the RfC (including Nillurcheier, whom I later contacted on his talk page). The participants to the RfC could confirm whether they felt "canvassed" or they expressed their votes freely.

About "this looks so disturbing. It is GREEN and stands out too" — I use the Template:Tq that greenifies texts when I quote myself or others in talk pages, I think this is correct and I am not the only user doing this.

It is also worthwhile to remember that all of this comes after I and other participants to the lengthy RSN discussion and RfC were repeatedly insulted and provoked by Foorgood (later banned as he continued with the same behaviour on other talk pages about other topics, where he even claimed to have won the RSN discussion), who also explicitly canvassed other users to the discussion and defiantly counted the votes. He called us "children", "witch hunt", etc., I have not followed the entire case and therefore I do not have the relevant links at hand (I mention [hoping that this will not be interpreted as canvassing] Acroterion, Abecedare and Drmies who followed the Foorgood case more closely). Ramos1990 did not bat an eyelid for this, and even invited Foorgood to the RfC.--Æo (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

---

• Addendum 1: Regarding my previous 2018-2019 block experiences, unrelated to the present case but nonetheless exhumed by Ramos1990, you can see these two blocks for edit warring + short topic ban to one of my accounts, which I evaded with my other accounts thus leading to an indefinite block, and here my successful appeal for unblock.
• Addendum 2: Regarding the RfC closure, I think it is also worthwhile to indicate that I had extended the deadline for participation to the discussion+RfC to 15 January 2023 (today). On 11 January (h 02:42), Ramos1990 removed the deadline and asked for closure, albeit only in the edit summary ("can be closed since investigation was completed - user vindicated"), whereupon I took the initiative to close the RfC myself (h 16:04, 12 January), believing I was doing a good thing. Ramos1990's edit summary made reference to this checkuser request that I had opened a few days before to verify whether Foorgood and another participant to the RfC were related or not to the sockpuppet/meatpuppet networks Jobas and Groznia (i.e. Rajputbhatti), since I noticed that they had made very similar edits (in at least one case to the very same page), both in style and in the use of the same sources, which were ultimately the sources we had been discussing at RSN (I mention Doug Weller, RoySmith and Girth Summit who followed these cases).--Æo (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Ramos1990

The closure to the RFC you produced was certainly not carefully written. Perhaps you thought it was but since you knew there were disagreements how you summarized discussions (you clearly acknowledged it here [247]) then you should never have closed anything. Especially since you were also the RFC creator too.

I reverted your closure and even wrote that since accusations were made by 2 editors of canvassing, that an uninvolved editor would be needed [248]. NebY agreed with my reverting and called you out on your inappropriate behavior because you had already agreed that only uninvolved editors should close discussions [249] [250].

Considering the nature of disagreement in the noticeboard, you should never have looked for a specific editor out of the blue without at least mentioning in the RFC that you were thinking of doing. You could have opened a section like I did in the RFC for closure for example [251]. Especially since canvassing claims were already made about you [252]. You should have used extreme caution and just left the RFC to either be closed or archived. That is what I was doing.

But your persistence to have JzG be the closer along with you giving him your wording of your Closure along with seemingly instructions to close the RFC [253]. IS very disturbing. If you are accused of canvassing - do not reach out to editors to do something like Closing. That definitely could appear as canvassing. Canvassing can be done by looking at User pages too with editors you have never interacted and seeing their worldviews or interests. For instance, since the RFC is about Christians sources, you can canvass with an editor you never interacted with you by seeking if they are prone to be anti-Christian and you reaching out to them for being an "uninvolved closer". This is why I had my suspicions, and still do, since you tend to seek out editors who agree with you like you verified here [254].

The fact that the multiple editors you kept on pinging tended to side with your views (3 of the 4 yeses in the RFC) [255] came from the editors you brought into the discussion [256] and then called all 3 in the RFC [257]) shows that there likely was canvassing here. You even chased after one of them for their vote after 2 months of them not showing up to vote [258]. I personally don't believe that the 3 editors are a group. But I do see someone you calling them up and they voting in a particular direction. Like drive-by editors. I never outsourced anyone like you clearly did. Talking to active participants who came into the discussion independently [259] is not canvassing. Both of us were looking and contributing to the discussion regularly - showing active interest in the discussion.

All of this made me reluctant to believe that you were not canvassing with JzG. I don't know that editor, but when canvassing is involved you should NEVER close anything. I never did what you did. I left the RFC until I saw your disturbing behavior of displaying 1) your request to JzG's to "confirm or add" to your inappropriate RFC Closure [260] which is certainly questionable since you essentially said 'keep or improve or bounce off my wording' of your Closure. And when I reverted your RFC closure, you went further by telling him to close it and then providing YOUR draft directly so he can bounce off of your wording [261]. Then when when he was out of the picture, you went ahead an added your wording to the RFC since an editor that comes to close the RFC will read your summary [262]. In other words, you really want the closer to be influenced by your interpretation of the discussion. No editor has gone this far in trying to manipulate a closure of the RFC.

No one needs to see your summary of the RFC if you are not in a position to Close or review or summarize anything. What you did here was show that you have control issues and that you wanted to have your wording influence JzG or any other editor who volunteers to close it. This is troubling behavior. You knew what you were doing. None of this was by accident. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed: Indefinite ban from the project

Given the history of blocks as at least 4 blocks from behavioral and sock puppetry reasons:

• User:AEO was blocked twice for Edit Warring under "Wddan" sock puppet [263]
• User:AEO was topic banned from religious topics for 2 months for problematic behavior [264] as "Wddan"
• User:AEO was indefinitely banned shortly afterwards for sock puppeting with 5 socks and violating the topic ban on religious topics [265]. From link in the bullet point below he says “Then, I violated the topic ban by continuing editing with the main account (Aethelwolf) and others, and, after this was discovered, I was blocked indefinitely.”
• User:AEO was given WP:ROPE about a year later. There he acknowledged “I was excessively controlling, aggressive and uncooperative, and always assumed his bad faith, breaking the fourth pillar of Wikipedia.” [266]
• And considering the situation above of lack of control in behavior by trying to control the discussion, his own RFC closure and very unusual attempts at pre-selecting and influencing RFC closers by providing his own closure wording to them directly in one case and the placing that same wording in the RFC for any volunteer closer to see in another case, despite their explicit agreement that only uninvolved editors should do closures [267].
• With the amounts of warnings and number of blocks over behavior through the years, the user should have been extra aware to avoid ALL of these behaviors and WP:DTS.

I propose indefinite ban form the project.

• Support as proposed.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment TLDR, much like that excruciating thread at RSN. This seems completely over the top. I note the RSN discussion was opened by now-blocked Foorgood (talk · contribs). Acroterion (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ramos1990: TLDR doesn't mean that you should remove things from your report after it's been replied to [268] Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    • User:Acroterion. I wanted to shorten it so that it is more focused on the crux of the matter. Did not know it was being replied to. Was hoping to shorten it before anyone responded since it certainly was long and another editor wanted a shorter version. But I did essentially repost the content in my response. I will leave it like this.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

      Ramos1990, the message was significantly altered. Please restore the original accusation text at the top of the page, as I responded to that text and I don't need to respond to your additional commentary. You can use the Template:Collapse. Æo (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Restored original text with collapse.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm seeing some trout slap-worthy behavior from Æo -- while it's permissible to close your own RfC, and permissible to close in stark contrast to the head count, it's a really freaking bad idea to do both -- but I'm with Acroterion: an indef is a serious overreaction. When coupled with some of Ramos1990's other overreactions ("OMG he has text in GREEN!! how terrible!!"), and never mind accusing an admin with over 150,000 edits of being a party to canvassing without any actual evidence beyond "Gosh, this must be fishy, because, well, reasons!!" ... eeesh. I also strongly suggest that the prosecution should rest here: Ramos1990 has already written multiple walls of text. Ravenswing 02:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Æo shouldn't have closed it, but that's not block-worthy, or worth more than a "hey, don't do that." This whole thread is a gross over-reaction. The lengthy account of past transgressions by User:Æo has nothing to do with that, and amounts to an irrelevant pile-on. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Ehhh... I'm somewhere between the two camps of thought here, but leaning towards the "tempest in a teapot" take, I guess. That close really was a little problematic, and though the entire course of that TP discussion is a little hard to track, it would seem, especially considering the history of sanctions, as if Aeo really is pushing somewhat firmly against consensus in this instance, and maybe crossing some important procedural boundaries here and there as a result. But an indef is clearly an overreaction: I'm firmly in line with that part of the emerging consensus. So long as Aeo can address the existence of the concerns here and understand that we'd expect that they take a lighter touch with regard to the RfC process going forward, I'm not sure what more would be called for here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, for the record, I see no compelling evidence of canvasing: the relevant policy has clear carve-outs for persons who have previously contributed to a discussion with the same or substantially overlapping discussion on the talk page, for anyone who has expressed an interest in any discussions on the topic, and others who have some sort of legitimate prior interest in a particular editorial topic on a particular article. Now, it's usually best to get your requested close from a neutral community space for requesting such an action, and regardless of who the closer is, giving them a suggested closure of your own design is clearly not a good idea or a good look. But as above, that's not so much actionable as just something Aeo is going to want to change in their approach. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

"So long as Aeo can address the existence of the concerns here and understand that we'd expect that they take a lighter touch with regard to the RfC process...". As explained in my defense comment, I did that from the beginning; that's why I asked for JzG's supervision on his talk page, and later, when I re-posted, for accuracy, my endnote, in the final line of my message I wrote: "Anyway, I agree that a completely uninvolved party closes the RfC". Æo (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. The behavior is disturbing and actually seems to be very calculated overall. It will cause further problems if this is allowed to continue. Editorkamran (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Editorkamran, what is "this"? What single reference did you pull out of that wall of prose? Drmies (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
• What started this, apparently, is the RSN discussion on the appropriateness of one single database. I asked on AN for that discussion to be closed; I don't know if that has happened yet, but I do know that Ramos and their colleague have been extraordinarily wordy and dense, latching on to library webpages with handy tips as if they were peer-reviewed review articles and generally acting in a very involved manner. This is just payback. Someone should put a stop to it and tell Ramos to get back to work. As for Foorgood, yes they are blocked indefinitely by Cullen328 for POV pushing and other problems, and Acroterion that Foorgood's "comments were in support of bad sourcing, which has been a consistent issue with you". Sourcing is the problem in the RSN discussion as well, and Ramos was defending Foorgood's comments on the authority of sources. That doesn't mean that Ramos is guilty of what Foorgood was guilty of, but it does suggest that one consider carefully what they were saying there (against Æo, for the most part). Drmies (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • My comment about "bad sourcing" had to do with Foorgood's presentation of the database in question as the holy writ, or as they put it, "globally recognized as top reliable sources", in the face of detailed analysis by Æo that suggests that Foorgood's unquestioning reliance and appeal to authority was unwise, especially in support of POV pushing, while it was being disputed. I leave the closure to others on this, but Ramos1990's demand that Æo be "banned" appears to be an attempt to have their way by discrediting someone they disagree with. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Drmies I am not a colleague of Foorgod. We originally edit warred on other pages and he mentions the debating here [269]. Also, I focused on other sources than he did too - we were not arguing the same point. This is not pay back either. This is ANI notice was showing the extra mile User:AEO was willing to go to get his view as the the dominant one - and should have known to never engage in it - considering his block history and promise to behave. Look at the RSN discussion. User:AEO repeated and wrote multiple walls of texts there repeating over and over the same thing (actually wrote the most in the whole discussion and RFC than any other editor), and went far enough to generate a problematic "summary" pushing his views [270], then made the RFC self "referencing", and looking very similar to, his "summary" [271], then took the initiative to close his own RFC pretty much highlighting comments from other user supporting his views [272], then selected a closer himself, User:JzG, as a back up and asked for his support for his wording (after canvassing concerns were already issued on him). Since User:AEO violated his agreement for uninvolved closures and because of canvassing accusation on him, I reverted it (another user agreed it was the right thing to do showing User:AEO's violation of agreement too [273] [274]). Normally it should have stopped here. But User:AEO went further and still went ahead and told User:JzG that he can still be the “uninvolved” closer and told him to close it and even provided him his RFC closure wording directly to bounce off of [275] (attempt to influence closer). Then when that option was out, he went ahead and still posted his RFC closure wording onto the RFC itself for any closer to see [276] (attempt to influence closer). If you do not see the WP:OWN issues of perpetually creating, pushing, and repeating "summaries" and "reviews" to be authoritative throughout the whole discussion and RFC closure, then there is certainly an issue. I never engaged in such activity. And no one should have either. Considering his block history of behavior - even more so. If he had just gone up to making a summary and RFC, then there would be no issue. The extra steps he took after that is unacceptable. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
      • All of y'all are really good at writing walls of text. I do not see Aeo's behavior at that contentious RSN as all that problematic--no more problematic than Foorgood's or, perhaps to a lesser extent, yours, but I'm not calling for you to be banned, and I don't see how they were CANVASsing in the technical and punishable sense of the word. On top of that, an indef ban is overkill, even if they were guilty of the things you say they are. Don't expect ANI to go along with such a punishment for these alleged infractions. 18:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Drmies (talk)
      • Ramos1990, WP:IDNHT. It's black-on-white that our first and only agreement for an uninvolved closure referred to the previous discussion, not to the RfC (which, when I posted the linked message, didn't exist). About the accusation of having "selected" and "canvassed" JzG I have already responded, and let me add that I certainly trusted his (and others) good faith, intelligence and ability to remain completely uninvolved and not to be influenced by me. My past block history has nothing to do with this case, and certainly I didn't pretend to WP:OWN anything, as I expected and hoped for the participation of many users in the discussion from the beginning.
        By the way, the RfC was finally closed today by Firefangledfeathers, and their concise endnote precisely summarises what it was my intention to express with my longer wording (as a side note, I see that before the closure an account created right today [and already reverted and blocked] left a further provocative message; his nickname may or may not be an odd reference to my latest mainspace contributions: Bogomil = Bulgaria). Æo (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Edgar Searle's lack of edit summaries.

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

---

User:Edgar Searle has an extremely low rate of edit summary usage, as seen here. This problem has gotten worse since 2021, and as of writing this comment, their edit summary usage for January 2023 is at 12.3%. This user has been warned about this nine times by seven different users since October 2022. Their comments on their talk page indicate they clearly do not care about this lack of edit summary usage and will continue to rarely use edit summaries until they are blocked. This problem is made worse by the type of editing they do: typically small, minor edits to infoboxes such as changing figures or formatting. How is one meant to know what the purpose of Special:Diff/1133442105 or Special:Diff/1133229396 is for example without an edit summary? It wastes the time of other editors to try and decipher the often incomprehensible edits made by Edgar Searle without an edit summary. Steelkamp (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Steelkamp: Fine, I will now try my best to use edit summaries from now on. Edgar Searle (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah right, if the nine warnings you've received up until now about edit summaries didn't make you use them, why would you start now? Steelkamp (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Steelkamp: Well because the moment you mentioned me here I was REALLY worried. Edgar Searle (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User adding speculative things based on original research and started edit war and adding new rules

Chennai Super Kings Lover: user engaging in edit war with WP:SPECULATIVE edits in the pages United Progressive Alliance and Lok Sabha, based on assumption/original research without any reliable source. User assuming indirect support of a party equals to official membership to the alliance. There is no source for it. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC) User:SharadSHRD7 mentioned NCP Shiv Sena and DMK not allies of UPA in national level but the state level allied parties are also supporting UPA in the national level They are part of UPA directly or indirectly.Source also given refer: Therefore I say you to not remove them as UPA allies .The state level alliance are directly or indirectly supporting UPA in national level.This user was leaving under rock for years and suddenly arrives again making new rules. Even many administrator agree that state level alliance support Congress in national level Source:https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/shiv-sena-supports-pawar-as-upa-chief-101648753014120.html%7Ctitle=Shiv Thank You Chennai Super Kings Lover

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:: After pulled out from UPA in 2013, DMK never rejoined in that alliance. The Secular Progressive Alliance led by DMK doesn't come under UPA (because it's a state-level alliance and also have communist parties which are not part of UPA). Officially there is no source to mention SS(UBT) as part of UPA. Maharashtra Congress leader Ashok Chavan clarified "Shiv Sena Not Part of UPA, Alliance Limited to Maharashtra:". Only NCP and JMM confirmed its alliance with UPA in national level. So, I request you to stop engaging in edit war. Thank you. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover:, please stop unnecessary edit war. It's being stressful. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Before your comeback everyone knew that sub alliance support the main alliance in parliament. You are making new rules on your speculation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk • contribs)

I'm not making any rules. Please understand Wikipedia:No original research. I request you to stop edit war and wait for other editors to give their neutral opinion on this issue. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

See Dear User:SharadSHRD7 In the recent UPA meeting DMK,NCP, Shiv Sena,JKNC attended as members of UPA Source: It clearly states Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar, DMK MP TR Baalu, Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge were among those who participated in the meeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk • contribs)

@Chennai Super Kings Lover: It was a meeting of opposition party leaders. Media assumed it as UPA meeting but there is no official statement from party leaders about which topics were discussed on this meeting. It tends to be WP:SPECULATIVE. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Media did not assumed it

You are going baised Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Farooq Abdullah told it not media Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Where did Farooq Abdullah told it was UPA meeting? Can you cite the quote? We can't take discussion as official source. Other party members didn't say anything about that meeting. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment - User:SharadSHRD7 also filed a request for moderated dispute resolution at DRN. I closed it because there had not been adequate discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Lok Sabha. I should have also noted that this dispute was open. User:SharadSHRD7 then filed another request at DRN, when very little has changed and there still has not been article talk page discussion. I closed the second filing for the same reasons, and as tendetious. The failure to address my reasons for closure make me think that SharadSHRD7 may have a language comprehension problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, I understand your reason for DRN closure. But already too much of discussions about this issue happened here and in the user's talk page, in the talk page and edit summary of Lok Sabha. But the issue remains unsolved. I sought dispute resolution as a last resort to solve this content dispute through the opinion of neutral editors. I don't know why other users/administrators are silent on this issue here for many hours. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:SharadSHRD7 - If you thought that your issue was a content dispute, you should not have brought it here. If you thought that your issue was a conduct issue, you should not have brought it to DRN. If you thought that it was both, you should have decided which to pursue first. If no one addresses your filing here in 24 hours, then either you will wait more than 24 hours because it is not an emergency, or you haven't explained what remedy you want here. I don't know what remedy you want here. All I know is that you seem to disagree with another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

If you don't explain what you want, you might not get it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I've explained (as much as I can) about this content dispute in the talk page. I want to solve this issue to prevent continuous edit war and prolonged discussions (with no opinion yet received from uninvolved third user). The other user involved in this content dispute is not willing to wait for the opinion of other users. The edits of that user is purely based on original research and speculative in nature. SharadSHRD7 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Over the last couple of days, both parties SharadSHRD7 and Chennai Super Kings Lover had engaged in acute edit warring at Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Next Indian general election, United Progressive Alliance, List of United Progressive Alliance members. They seem to have discussions at their talk pages but only continued to edit war with each other. I'm wondering if this also to be reported at WP:AN/3 given that we already have an open thread here? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

References

User:BMA-Nation2020 and Draft:Air Jordan (film)

• Draft:Air Jordan (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BMA-Nation2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The subject editor has disruptively resubmitted the draft to Articles for Creation after it was Rejected, without discussion, minutes after it was rejected.

I realize that some editors think that draft space is a mistake, and that some editors think that Articles for Creation is a mistake. I also realize that some editors think that Wikipedia should provide free publicity about future films involving major directors or major stars. However, I think that I am reading the policies and guidelines as they are written.

There is nothing in this draft that discusses significant coverage of the film by independent sources. The editor has not attempted to discuss the draft with the reviewers or at the Teahouse or elsewhere, although Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative enterprise. Maybe the subject editor plans to resubmit it until they find a reviewer who is ready to accept it.

My first proposal is that the editor should be partially blocked from the article, so that other editors can edit the article, and submit it for review or move it to article space when the film is released. However, if the community thinks that is too harsh, maybe the subject editor should simply move the draft to article space, and allow the community to decide by Articles for Deletion whether this unreleased film satisfies general notability. In any case, the subject editor is behaving disruptively and tendentiously. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, I myself had a conflict with BMA-Nation2020 just over a week ago, about listing films that do not have articles yet to a navbox; see the discussion. Guidelines are ignored, they do not seem able to communicate and do not work well with others. They've also exhibited uncivil behavior. Not sure of Wikipedia is the right place for them, as WP:COMPETENCE is required. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I keep telling robert that the film has done filming. It derverses to be accepted over the guidelines. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Done filming? Says who? Deserves to be accepted over the guidelines? Why's that? Ravenswing 07:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: BMA-Nation2020 was warned about edit warring on Template:Skydance Media and had this to say about it. Mike Allen 19:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

A reply by BMA-Nation2020 on their talk page to MikeAllen: "OH MY GOD, CAN YOU PEOPLE STOP PESTERING ME WITH THESE RULES AND GUIDELINES ALREADY?!!! I know some are good but some are not my type! STOP WARNING ME!!!" It's clear that they've got no intention of listening to others or to follow guidelines. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This was in regards to 3RR on {{Skydance Media}} (see history), in which they were undoing the edits by InfiniteNexus. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I have been pinged here. Based on my past interactions with this editor (about an unrelated matter), it's clear to me that there are severe WP:CIR (they have stated that they are autistic, but that does not excuse them from disruptive behavior) and English profiency issues (language barrier or otherwise). I believe the user is acting in good faith and is not intentionally being disruptive, but their inability to understand and follow Wikipedia guidelines has been troublesome. I will try to resolve the {{Skydance Media}} dispute on the template's talk page, though I am bracing for more incoherent responses from them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

BMA-Nation2020 has just told me on the template talk page that they "follow [their] own guidelines", and that EW is bad (as in the existence of the guideline is bad, not the behavior is bad). I don't think they are willing or able to collaborate effectively on Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

BMA, I just had a conversation with where I told you it was unacceptable to knowingly and purposefully ignore policies or consensus. You told me you understood. If you understand, why does this keep happening? Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

They wouldn't understand me. Everytime this happens, they keep bothering me or harassing me about the guidelines. i told them i follow my own guidelines but they don't listen. Plus, you forgot to ping me if this happens. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Indeffed from the diff above and i told them i follow my own guidelines but they don't listen. indicated to me that an escalating block over prior 48 hours wasn't going to be sufficient since they don't see an issue with their edits. Star Mississippi 23:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, User:Star Mississippi. This is a case where the editor essentially dug their own grave, and was blocked not just for violating the guidelines on editing but more for insisting on their own right to decide which guidelines they follow. If you go into a bar and grill and persist in ordering something that isn't on the menu, you will eventually be thrown out. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
  • There is a question that will never be answered, and that doesn't need to be answered, which applies to other stubborn editors. That is whether the editor has edited previously under another name, and still has the same attitudes that got them blocked before. It doesn't need to be answered if the editor gets blocked under the new name. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous user making bizarre formatting edits to corporate pages and refusing to use edit summaries or talk page

This anonymous user (whose IP address occasionally changes) has been making strange formatting edits to a variety of corporate pages for nearly a year. The edits aren't *quite* vandalism, but they're very bizarre, often turning reasonably spaced paragraphs into large text walls, removing tags, or needlessly changing the wording of headings. They've been reverted a number of times by other users and now myself, but they continue to make the edits while refusing to use edit summaries, the article talk pages, or their own talk page.

I'd like to request a block of their known IP addresses, possibly a range block (though that may not be possible here), and semi-protection of their most frequently targeted pages. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 08:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Known IP addresses:

• 2600:1008:B123:D955:59E0:2640:A7DE:CA6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B149:CD82:5135:A28F:F7BD:5E08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1008:B163:88D3:11D6:729D:682:CDF4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:55C8:1B5F:ACD1:DA31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:C053:3797:FE65:606 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:246:5401:9DCC:C59B:E2A8:B59D:23E2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Targeted pages:

• McGraw Hill Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Scholastic Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Best Buy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• READ 180 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MobyMax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Broadcast of Jeopardy! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Quizlet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Huntington Learning Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sports Jeopardy! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hancock Fabrics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Hobby Lobby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jo-Ann Stores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• A.C. Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Michaels Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Utrecht Art Supplies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CompUSA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Circuit City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Blick Art Materials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jeopardy! The Greatest of All Time (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• S&P Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BrainPop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Random House Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Best Buy Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Abt Electronics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sun Television and Appliances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• TigerDirect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MobyMax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Fry's Electronics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 08:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

2601:246:5401:9DCC:0:0:0:0/64 looks like a school to me - probably best to block? The other range is pretty dang big and also pretty clearly used by multiple people, so not really sure what to do about that. casualdejekyll 17:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Casualdejekyll what makes you think that range is a school? It just comes up as registered to Comcast and is probably someone's home internet. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 04:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

NJZombie

I am moving this section from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts, where it was posted in error. JBW (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This guy is tiring me. He spends his entire life reversing my edits just to make my life miserable. He meddles even in what he doesn't know for that sole purpose; annoy me. It does not differentiate a soap opera from a TV series; serials are inspired by real events, soap operas are not. I'm really losing patience and I'm making a superhuman effort to control myself and avoid a major incident. Please stop this guy. JeanCastì (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• I don't believe that NJZombie is acting with the purpose of making JeanCastì's life miserable; I see no reason to doubt that NJZombie is acting in a sincere belief that they are improving the encyclopaedia.
• JeanCastì has a history of belligerence and aggression against other editors with whom they disagree.
• JeanCastì has some mistaken ideas about use of English words. An example occurs above, where they indicate that they think that to be called a "serial" something must be "inspired by real events". This may be an attempt to apply the usage of a word in JeanCastì's native language to a related word in English. However, whatever the reason may be, JeanCastì has repeatedly reverted edits indicating in edit summaries or talk pages that they are doing so because of convictions about meanings of English words which are not shared by other editors.
• JeanCastì's objections to NJZombie's attempts to correct or improve text previously edited by JeanCastì have at times been expressed in terms which are simply untrue. For example, JeanCastì wrote on their talk page "NJZombie makes my life impossible by reversing what I did claiming he has no sources. You must look at NJZombie's edits; he reverses what I did whether or not they are sourced." I have checked every article which both of these editors had ever edited before JeanCastì posted that message, and JeanCastì had never put any kind of reference to any source in any of those articles. There are other examples.
• Having said all that, both editors have been edit-warring. JeanCastì was warned about edit-warring, and although I haven't checked NJZomUse's talk page history to see whether a warning has ever been posted their, they have enough experience of editing to be aware that edit-warring is unacceptable.
• If any administrator chooses to makes blocks now, I won't quarrel with them. Failing that, however, I suggest the following:

1. Both editors should stop edit-warring, and should take note that they are likely to be blocked without further notice if they continue.
2. NJZombie is advised to avoid excessive concentration on trying to correct JeanCastì's mistakes. Although, as I have said above, I believe JeanCastì is mistaken in attributing malicious motives to NJZombie, persistently reverting one editor's contributions is likely to be seen as harassment, whether intended as such or not. This is especially so when all that is disputed is rather minor details of wording.
3. JeanCastì seems to me to be making a genuine attempt to be less combative in dealing with other editors than they were earlier. However, they need to put more work into doing so. In particular, they must avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence. JBW (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You are exaggerating and calling me a liar telling my objections are untrue. There is nothing more offensive than a person being called a liar. Nobody, absolutely nobody called that guy to mess with my editions. What's more, no one, no one should reverse what anyone else does on a whim. I decided to stay away from the Bane article in other media because people don't collaborate here but try to pull the rug out from under anyone who wants to edit here. You can't judge me either, because I don't speak English well. I hope that when you use other languages in Wikipedia you will also be judged for not handling a language well. And my hostility I put aside to avoid more trouble. I only hope from now on that others will do their best as I will from this moment on. JeanCastì (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

So much for "making a genuine attempt to be less combative". Barry Wom (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Your objections ARE untrue. I asked you to provide any evidence of me reverting sourced information that you had provided. You couldn't and didn't. In fact, your lack of sourcing was the reason for your first block on January 9. Nobody needs to be called in order to address your edits. If any editor sees something they feel needs to be addressed, they can do so, including reverting. Multiple editors, including myself, attempted to explain this to you but your responses were, as they continue to be now, hostile. That was the reason for your second block on January 10. Need I say more? NJZombie (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

As neither the original author of the complaint or the person who moved it here notified User:NJZombie of this complaint, I have done so [277].Nigel Ish (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: NJZombie was aware of the original post; in fact it was because NJZombie had told me about it that I knew of it. I intended to inform NJZombie that I had moved it, but I took other steps first, such as informing JeanCastì, and you came in before I got round to "inform NJZombie" on my list of things to do. JBW (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Just one more comment. Reading the above, one might get the impression that this is just a dispute between two editors, but it isn't. JeanCastì's edit-warring and belligerence have also been directed against other editors. For example, in the article Bane in other media they have edit-warred against another editor too. There are various other examples. JBW (talk)•

  I'll be that other editor who warned JeanCastì about edit warring on the Bane in other media article. I think there's a competency problem here that goes beyond mere "minor details of wording". Here's the text they were trying to insert: [278]. It makes no sense whatsoever and even with the accompanying edit summary I still haven't a clue what they were trying to say. Barry Wom (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  In that edit, they are trying to extend the phrase who serves as the bodyguard/henchman of Poison Ivy to include the idea that Bane then later also works for or with Mr. Freeze, and the edit summary is about what part of the movie (?) they’re basing that on. (I am not defending this edit - obviously the sentence cannot bear the weight of the additional aside - just explaining the intent.) 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Chronic incivility and disruptive editing by User:Solomon The Magnifico

Since they began to edit around September 2022, Solomon The Magnifico, without presenting any evidence, has accused multiple editors of: vandalism, sockpuppetry, being politically-motivated, prejudice, making personal attacks, bias, bullying, bigotry, and being "pro-Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami trolls".

For anyone unfamiliar with Bangladeshi history, Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami is a banned political party which has some supporters, but is widely reviled, accused of being traitors who fought against the independence of the country and war criminals who collaborated in the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. It's a virulent insult. Solomon The Magnifico continues their incivility despite being warned about their problematic behaviour by multiple editors in October, November, and December 2022, and January 2023.

Timeline:

• 7 October: Warned against edit warring.[279]
• 11 October: Accuses Mahmudur Rahman Mahi of vandalism and of being "a possible sockpuppet of Imamul H. Ifaz".[280]
• 11 October: On article talk page, replies to Imamul H. Ifaz that "There are good reasons to believe you are a sockpuppet of Mahmudur Rahman Mahi. You are involved in vandalizing Bangladesh-related articles." They offer no "good reasons".[281]
• 14 October: During a content dispute over which images to use in an infobox, again twice mislabels normal editing as vandalism.[282][283]
• 14 October: First warning about labeling edits vandalism, remaining civil, not casting aspersions, and avoiding personal attacks.[284]
• 10 November: During a content dispute, accuses AMomen88 in an edit summary of being "politically-motivated", being "prejudiced aganinst Gulshan" (a neighborhood), and of making personal attacks.[285][286][287]
• 13 November: Second warning about accusing editors without proof.[288]
• 13 November: Accuses Mehediabedin of "bullying" for telling him to stop accusing editors without proof.[289]
• 18 November: Charges Mehediabedin with "hostility" here (administrator Schazjmd, who reviewed the incident, found no hostility).
• 30 November: Accuses me of WP:BIAS during a discussion of whether or not an image he wanted to insert violated Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.[290]
• 2 December: Third warning about assuming good faith.[291]
• 10 January: During content dispute, accuses Azadmun and Imamul Ifaz of begin "pro-jamaat trolls".[292]
• 13 January: Doubles down with attack edit summary, "content was removed based on personal commentary by a Jamaat troll".[293]
• 14 January: Continues to edit-war with edit summary "pro-Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami troll is removing content of multiple editors"[294]
• 14 January: Fourth warning about incivility and abusive edit summaries.[295]
• 14 January: Accuses me of "veiled bigotry" for warning him.[296]

Solomon The Magnifico's long-term battleground and ownership behaviour, in interactions with many different editors, and despite many warnings, demonstrates that they are unsuited to participation in a collaborative project. Their response to one warning, "I know for a fact that my content is better",[297] sums up their attitude pretty well. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I took a look at Solomon's contributions to talk pages over the past few months. Some of their posts focus solely on content issues, so it shows they're capable of civil discussion, but too often when there is disagreement with or pushback to their pov, they become combative and accuse other editors of bias.[298] Despite multiple warnings, they have not modified their approach to other editors. I suggest a topic ban from Bengal-related topics until they can demonstrate that they can collaborate with other editors without insults and accusations. Schazjmd (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support: tban. Whoof, that's a heavy concentration of incivility in an area that's fraught enough as it is. Isn't that one where discretionary sanctions apply? Ravenswing 17:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I have no idea why the pronoun for me is "they/them". Please use he/him. I'm sorry for losing it so much. But I keep being disproportionately reverted. I believe my engagements have been content-focused 90% of the time. But I am astounded by the barrage of reverts I have to face for non-controversial content. I recognize this is a problem. But I appeal to you earnestly to understand that I am the target of constant edit warring. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to build a case against the editor I accused of being pro-Jamaat (my assumption is based on his frequent reverts coupled with pro-Jamaat edits to the Jamaat article). I expect editors like Worldbruce to be on my side. I sure as well would like to be on their side. Instead of penalizing me, Wikipedia would be better served by addressing chronic edit warriors such as the alleged pro-Jamaat editor. That said, please know that I fully take your concerns into heart.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Solomon The Magnifico, you can go to your Preferences and set your gender preference for messages. In the absence of that declaration or anything on your user page, it's polite to use the singular "they" until we learn otherwise.

Also, you might take a look at the section WP:NOTTHEM; although it's written for appealing blocks, it's also wise advice in this situation. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: As pointed out, I have had my fair share of disagreements with Solomon The Magnifico, but I do believe despite his manner at times he has good intentions and does genuinely want to contribute constructively to our community. Bangladesh-related articles on Wikipedia are somewhat neglected and Solomon The Magnifico has to an extent helped improve certain articles. He is still a relatively newer user so perhaps does not possess a full comprehension of the expected etiquette on Wikipedia, it is better to educate the user as opposed to punishing them with sanctions. This could be considered a final warning and any other incivil behaviour can be reprimanded appropriately.—AMomen88 (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

What Schazjmd said. That being said, until and unless Solomon immediately withdraws the allegations of "pro-Jamaat" editing and promises to just plain cut that out -- we assume good faith here of all editors -- my Support of a tban stands. Ravenswing 06:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• His reply in this section clearly indicates that he will not change. So giving him TBAN will be right decision. Mehedi Abedin 12:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Chitral view

User:Chitral view has been trying to create articles about places in the Chitral district, but in many cases he has not provided references to show that the subject exists as a place. In many cases "references" have been provided which don't mention the subject. Various drafts have been declined, and attempts at articles have been draftified. The user's talk page has a long list of warnings and advice, but he fails to respond. Now he is hijacking existing articles to refer to different subjects. He has moved them (with multiple moves which prevent a simple reversion of the moves). He was warned about hijacking, but has done the same thing again. I wouldn't accuse the user of deliberately vandalising the encyclopedia, but there seems to be a severe competence problem, and a failure to engage in discussion or to respond to earlier warnings. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Chitral view has a messy contributions list. Support indef; they need to communicate with other editors, propose moves rather than make them unilaterally, and only create articles in draftspace. Editors shouldn't have to do so much clean-up work behind another editor. Schazjmd (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Just looking at their talk page, they are clearly not here to responsibly contribute and work with other editors, and with the complete lack of response when warned, I agree, support indef. (Non-administrator comment) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

There are also IPs involved in the same campaign regarding places in the Chitral district, with similar lack of competence. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Discrete series of IPs making personal attacks - range block requested

A series of IP addresses beginning with 2603:7000:9f04:fcc0 having been weighing in on an ARBPIA topic talk page with comments infused with personal attacks, beginning with [299] "it's a shame that you're lying. And it is not surprising. From a quick look, it looks like all your posts are biased and deceptive.", continuing with [300] "A responsible editoe (other than racist warriors who commented on this before) should remove the biased racist lead." and intensifying today with [301] "That's a very false representation both of the sources and the discussions, and you are very biased here because you also keep editing articles with a radical Pro Palestinian tendency." and [302] "because you hate Israel". That's about the measure of it. I would kindly request a range block. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked the /64 range. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Strange Behavior by IP 140.213.231.126

• 140.213.231.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Draft:2014 Indonesia Super League Final (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:2010 Indonesian Inter Island Cup Final (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This IP user left two dishonest messages on my talk page, User_talk:Robert_McClenon#2014_Indonesia_Super_League_Final_moved_to_draftspace and User_talk:Robert_McClenon#2010_Indonesian_Inter_Island_Cup_Final_moved_to_draftspace. These messages are both lies in various ways. Neither of these drafts had been in article space, and I had nothing to do with either of these drafts, which are mostly the work of the IP user, whose address is shifting within the block. I don't know what the IP is trying to do, but maybe to confuse the jury (the Wikipedia community). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, they've really messed up formatting on 1950 FIFA World Cup Group 2, I can't figure out how to fix it. But @Robert McClenon, why haven't you just asked them why they left those messages on your talk page? (Personally, I'd just delete them as irrelevant/misplaced.) Schazjmd (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Schazjmd - Because, after I figured out what had actually happened, which wasn't obvious because there was intent to deceive, there isn't any good-faith explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Takiva

After warning the user to stop change this wiki page https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag-map_of_Greater_Morocco.svg I received threats from him in my mails — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.193.0.74 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Takiva was indeffed on the English Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago ... possibly for some of the same reasons that you've been warned and blocked over the last few weeks. In any event, we have no control over content on Commons. (Nor do you, as to that.) And how would Takiva be able to send e-mails to you? Ravenswing 06:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP/IP has an account that they are declining to disclose for some reason? Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Odd account behavior

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

---

I ran across an IP at the article Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting who removed the number of injuries (which are 0), with an edit summary of "If their is no injuries then this is pointless to add". A few days later, I reverted them, thinking it was more consistent and informative to mention the fact that there were no injuries. The day after, an account called ImLovinIt101 removed the section with the summary "If nobody was injured, Their is no need for this section", which was later reverted by another editor. Four days later a new IP removed the section yet again with "Pointless section", which seems oddly similar to the language used by both the account and IP; I later reverted that edit, with my reasoning in the edit summary. On January 10, another IP edited the fatalities section of the infobox to closely resemble an edit made by the first IP I mentioned.

The account that I mentioned above (ImLovinIt101) has a history of adding unsourced content to articles and was blocked on December 25 after multiple warnings. Examples include this edit to the article Michael J. Pollard, and if you look at the history of that article, there appear to be multiple IPs trying to add unsourced information about his marriage and children, similar to the account's behavior. Other unsourced edits include this and this and this and, today, this. Then there are these unnecessary edits 1 2 3.

I have a feeling that these account/IPs are being used by the same person, as can be seen in the examples above. My reason for not trying to discuss this with them is because the account has already been blocked in December after receiving multiple warnings, and it should be obvious that they shouldn't use multiple IPs to add content that keeps getting reverted. I'm not sure if this is sockpuppetry or if they're just not here, so I'd appreciate it if an administrator can take a look at this. Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll be honested here, As a good Wikipedia editor, Yes all those IPs were mine, Except the one from Michael J Pollard, I got blocked some, Because I thought I was adding useful information, I am truly sorry, Please forgive me, I didn't mean to cause this, From now on I will research before making an edit.

Sincerely, User:ImLovinIt101 — Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• I blocked ImLoviniIt101 as a sock of Joe Petty.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

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

AvalancheLavigne

This user keeps reverting edits on Love Sux multiple times and has been ignoring users who inform the user their edits are vandalism. Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jackthewriterguy12 This is vanilla edit warring that could have been better handled at WP:ANEW. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll move this discussion there Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jackthewriterguy12 Don't bother. Since they've reverted twice more, I've partial blocked them from Love Sux. —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:WikiEditor0567

User talk:WikiEditor0567 contains a long list of files that have been deleted for failing to adhere to the Wikipedia policy on non-free content and our guidelines on the use of non-free content. The user's upload log for the English Wikipedia shows that the user has uploaded just under forty files to the English Wikipedia since June, and over twenty-five of them have been deleted for various reasons. The deleted files are listed in the collapsed table below:

After seeing this, I noticed that the and I [303] the {{end of copyvios}} template on their user talk page. Not more than three hours later, the user uploaded a non-free photograph of a living person under a claim of fair use, which is something that WP:NFC explicitly notes is something we should not do (non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people). The user is certainly aware that this sort of upload is going to get deleted, given that this has happened over a good number of times. They're not changing their behavior and they haven't seem to have found their talk page, but the user appears to have a chronic problem with their uploads of non-free content. The user has also appears to have been wholly unresponsive to concerns about potential confilict-of-interest editing that were posted on their talk page by VickKiang after the user appears to have repeatedly tried to remove deletion notices from an article that they created.

Overall, the user's behavior has continued to have been quite disruptive and talk page messages asking the user to change their behavior have not been acknowledged, so I'm bringing the user's behavior here for community discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I share RTH's concerns and issued a warning about ignoring copyright a couple of weeks ago [304]. WP:HEAR or WP:CIR issues appear pretty apparent. I believe action is required to stop this behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Would a topic ban/partial block from the file namespace work? If their mainspace editing is fine and it's just files that are causing issues, then this would enable them to edit constructively whilst avoiding files where they clearly don't understand Wikipedia's licencing rules. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)