Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Music proekt (talk | contribs) at 20:02, 15 September 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    User inserted non-RS Scientology source for tenth time, after prior ANI and sanctions alert

    Iamsnag12 has been blocked for operating multiple accounts so I think it is safe to close this complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Iamsnag12 (talk · contribs), an eight-year-old account with less than 100 edits, has repeatedly added the same non-reliable source to multiple articles. The first four times on 14 August: [1] (Bridge Publication) fixed [2][3]

    Upon removal as a non-RS, user promptly readded without discussion on 15 August: [4][5][6][7].

    User was reported to ANI and alerted to discretionary sanctions [8], and on 20 August, the material was removed from the four pages by admin User:JzG as a non-RS. [9][10][11][12]

    On 31 August, the user re-added the same source for a ninth and tenth time. Feoffer (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The flip side of the coin is that the users who claim that CESNUR is unreliable source are not really participating in the discussion either. From what I can tell, the users who had been immediately reverting Iamsnag have not been engaging in discussion about the source (unless it's happening somewhere that I'm not seeing), with the only exception being Feoffer. And Feoffer made only two comments, and has apparently decided to come to ANI instead of replying further. So the lack of discussion seems to be present on both sides of the fence here. I would really prefer that this be hashed out among the involved editors instead of resorting to ANI. ANI should truly be a last resort. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Iamsnag12 knows the source is controversial, repeatedly adding it ten times in such a short period suggests WP:NOTHERE, though that's for others to say. Feoffer (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @May His Shadow Fall Upon You: Please note that this has been found to be a sockpuppet/sockpuppeting account and isn't a new user. Request you reconsider your opposition. Buffs (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buffs: - I'm disappointed that he turned out to be a sock. Given that he's blocked, though, my position on a block here doesn't matter anymore. I still think the editing conflict here was too minor to support a block. Socking? Yes. The dispute as presented at ANI? No. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 16:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair nuff! Buffs (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless I'm missing something and I don't think I am since I checked the edit history, the user was not notified of this latest ANI thread as required per the box all over the place. I won't do this myself as I'm on a mobile device. Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Good catch; notified. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the editor concerned has not edited since 31 August. Finally AFAICT 3 of the first 4 diffs are the addition of the journal of CESNUR. One of them seems to be some Bridge Publications book so I'm not sure if its inclusion is a mistake. Back to CESNUR I won't comment on its reliability except to say it may be unreliable for the stuff it supported with those 3 diffs but reliable to support the claim a long past BLP person received an honorary degree. And even if it isn't, the Daily Olkahoman was added as well for both of those latest diffs. I'm not sure of the reliability of the Daily Olkahoman but it doesn't look like it was disputed in any of the early diffs and I'm unconvinced just because someone made some mistakes in the past means they need to open a talk page discussion before adding a completely different RS on what seems like a relatively uncontentious issue. I'd also note if those 2 latest diffs are a problem because the Daily Olkahoma is not an RS I'm unsure why they remain. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The fourth CENSUR addition has been fixed. Upon discovering the additional insertion, I reached out to an admin for a sanity check and was referred here. Feoffer (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As the person who is under discussion, I have raised this issue on my talk page regarding why CESNUR is disputed and never got a response and it seemed like my material was blocked without explanation that it was allegedly unreliable, yet no reasoning was given. I had not readded, rather because no reasoning as to why it's supposedly non-RS I reversed the reversal on mine as I thought it might be a troll (just as had been assumed with me). I was subjected to being accused of and asked of being a Scientologist which I explained that I am not nor am I associated with their other groups - which even if it was a problem in the past, does not change the content of my submissions.

    Additionally, one of my edits (on the Charles Manson page) was already approved which itself was reverted - but because it was assumed that I have ill intentions off of the bat and I was accused without any recourse or explanations as to why CESNUR is supposedly non-RS. Moreover, the links provided to CESNUR actually provide photographic copies of the evidence/material/documents cited. Also had added a different CESNUR article elsewhere and not to the same articles. Additionally, the bulk of my sources are not from CESNUR, as discussed. I was under the impression that the sources cited were read by the editors/administrators to see if there's validity to them vs. dismissed outright based on origin. Iamsnag12 (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support block, Clearly WP:NOTHERE. They're at it again and edit warring. Such a narrow focus in edit history and their refusal to accept that their edits have been contested repeatedly, over years. This behavior suggests that this editor may not have been completely honest about their connection to Scientology. They need to learn about consensus and edit warring, POV pushing etc. A temporary block has helped me see the error of my ways in the past. Bacondrum (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you referring to Iamsnag12 or someone else? Because looking at Iamsnag12 editing history: I see they have 2 edits back in 2011 [13] [14]. Neither of these seem to be well sourced, but neither of these seem to be related to Scientology in any way, and while I'm not going to check what happened to their edits, it's a little silly to suggest these 2 edits were "repeatedly contested". They then left 3 talk pages comments over 5 edits in 2018 [15] + [16] [17] [18] + [19]. I haven't looked in detail at these comments but they don't seem to be the sort of comments that are extremely disruptive and nor that is there a great sign of them "refusing to accept their edits have been contested repeatedly". Taking part in talk page discussions is of course one of the things we generally want from editors, even if in this case it seems to have been partly forced by semi protection. All their other edits are from July 2019 or later. And their talk page was created in 2019 [20]. So where on earth are you getting "refusal to accept that their edits have been contested repeatedly, over years" (emphasis added) from? Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the reaction to Iamsnag has been disproportionately harsh and a prime example of WP:BITE. Editors have made only minimal efforts to interact with him, instead preferring to seek resolution at ANI. Just not an appropriate way to handle such a minor problem in my opinion. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 16:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to Biting the Newbie, user is a not newbie: "I've not recently joined I've been on since 2011. Also, I've posted elsewhere and had other usernames too which tried to merge under this one, not sure if those work but I can point to those edits if needed".
    With regard to disproportionate harshness, I will say this: nothing in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology suggests actively inquiring about editor's personal beliefs, as was done to this user [21]. While the suspicion is certainly understandable given the problematic behavior, it seems unhelpful to directly inquire in that way. Wikipedia is not the inquisition or the thought police and the project should keep a laser-like focus on problematic behavior. Feoffer (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe he's not a newbie so to speak, but I still feel that sanctions are inappropriate given the circumstances. This was a low-grade editing conflict that ended over a week ago. Although misguided, I can see why he might have thought that discussion on his own talk page was the place to have the conversation about the source, and when he got no response he proceeded on. That's a wrong belief, but I can see how someone might have it. He now appears to be discussing the sourcing and hasn't made a controversial edit recently. Rushing to a block would be inappropriate. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 17:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Just saw Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsnag12; user appears to operating multiple 3+ year old accounts. Be on the look out for organized efforts related to Scientology, CESNUR, or Sequoia University Feoffer (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Behavioral problem on Right-wing politics

    Sourced material was added to Right-wing politics on August 11 (not by me). [22] Three weeks later, there was a dispute about whether to keep it, so a discussion ensued [23]. The discussion did not reach a consensus, so I started an RfC about whether it should be kept or not. [24] Now, the editors who want to delete the material User:Springee and User:Victor Salvini are removing it, despite the fact that the RfC is still running. [25], [26], [27].

    I would appreciate an admin informing Springee and Victor Salvini not to remove the material in question until the RfC has run its course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Both editors notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) The material was originally added by @Michael E Nolan: on 11 August [[28] and deleted by Victor Salvini (new editor, account started 22 June, 92 edits to date) on 3 September [29], 23 days later. The deletion was reverted by @Acroterion: that same day, about 3 1/2 hours later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The restoration was part of a bulk restoration and appears to have been restored not to rescue this text but rather to revert this edit [[30]]. See the talk comment here [[31]]. Springee (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK needs to review both WP:BRD and WP:CON. Simple version. Material was added. Four edits to the article later, that material was rejected. I have not been involved with the editing of the article in question but noted the back and forth edits on Sept 3rd. I opened a talk discussion and pinged the involved editors (BMK was not involved at that point)[[32]]. Contrary to BMK's claim, the talk page rather quickly reached a local consensus with both of the original editors favoring removing the paragraph and myself favoring removal[Edit: It's probably more accurate to say one favored removal and the other didn't seem to object]. BMK favored inclusion, thus 3:1 against inclusion.[[33]]. Since this was new material a non-consensus is sufficient for removal. BMK opened a RfC. That's fine. The current RfC is 4:1 against.[[34]] If the RfC finds for inclusion in the end, it will be included. In the mean time BMK is attempting to use the existence of the RfC as a block to prevent the removal of the material that clearly has no support from other editors. My read is this was new content that was rejected and no local consensus has ever existed for inclusion thus BRD and the flowchart shown in WP:CON apply here. The material was removed and should not have been restored until consensus for inclusion was reached. The WP:CON policy does not support keeping recently added, disputed content in place until a RfC is completed. Springee (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence of meatpuppetry or coordination? If not this seems like a bad faith accusation. Springee (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is sufficient implicit evidence on the talk page to bring it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree...as it seems do others. Buffs (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    remark by blocked user commented out by Buffs (talk)
    • El_C, thank you for blocking that NOTHERE vandal. There's absolutely no need for that kind of thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, perhaps a checkuser might take a look at 199.247.43.138, which looks very much a logged-out editor avoiding scrutiny in their edits to Right-wing populism [35], [36], [37].
      These reverts were made after I completely re-shaped the material in order to move it to a specific section of the article, to answer the complaints that it wasn't pertinent in the section it was in. It looks more and more like this is a deliberate campaign of whitewashing. Neither of the two articles that are concerned here has a consensus for the removal of this material, but it is being kept out of both articles by brute force. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Should WP:ONUS not apply here, with the contested edit that is being introduced only included once there is consensus for inclusion? El_C 05:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, El_C, I'm not understanding your point clearly. There is an RfC running to determine consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Inclusion should happen after there is consensus to include. It seems like the cart is being put before the horse. El_C 05:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm.. I don't think so. :The material was in the article for over three weeks, plenty of time for WP:SILENCE to make it part of the status quo version, in which case the BOLD edit is not the inclusion of the material on 11 August, but the first removal by Victor Salvini on 3 September. At that point, the issue becomes not whether it should be included -- because it already is included -- but whether it should be deleted, which the RfC will determine, if it weren't being usurped by two editos who want it removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether three weeks counts as longstanding text. Maybe. At the very least, it's borderline. El_C 06:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On Wikipedia? Three weeks is an eternity. <g> Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Three weeks is an eternity at Donald Trump. Not quite an eternity at an irregularly edited article like Right-wing politics. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    Have to at least partially agree with Bishonen etc. Three weeks is far from an eternity. IMO even 2 months can be reasonable on a barely edited article. Disputes over article content are perhaps not the best examples to look at since most of the time people don't really care as we can usually achieve consensus on something. So really it's just a pointless dispute over interim content. But in case where no consensus is a realistic outcome, you can probably find a lot of examples. E.g. undiscussed page moves. Or undiscussed era or language changes. Nil Einne (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there were just 4 edits between the addition and removal I don’t think the 3 weeks could be considered stable. I would ask that someone look at SquisherDa restoration of the content in the past few hours. It seems like an unwise restoration. Springee (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Bishonen and El_C... I think that's the first time I've done that... Buffs (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I’ve been notified about this discussion and I’m here to give my testimony. On August 11th a user included a quote in right wing politics by Steve bannon. The quote was thrown in without context and presented no information. I removed the quote one September 3rd only for it to be added back again. The issue went to talk where’s there’s now a huge message history regarding it. Ken started a vote on whether it should be removed or kept. After a few days a supermajority of users who had voted were against the inclusion on the quote. Since the discussion was dying down and no one else was getting involved I removed the quote again, this time ken re-added the quote telling me that we had to wait 30 days before removing (because an “RfC” or something was running, I don’t know what he was on about). Springee, a user who’s been a strong supporter of removing the quote, said in the talk page that the quote could be removed because of the time since it was originally added, and removed the quote again, only for it to get added back again by another user and now we’re here. Victor Salvini —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Per WP:STATUSQUO, I have restored restoring the 00:32, 6 August 2019 version (stable version from before the recent edit war, unchallenged for nearly two months). I then re-added a minor grammar correction and short description template as being uncontroversial changes that are unlikely to be challenged.
    Please discuss your preferred version on the article talk page rather than through back-and-forth edits. If you cannot reach a consensus, I suggest settling the dispute through the ongoing RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! It feels like BMK is pushing a political agenda with this filing. Buffs (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say exactly the opposite, actually, that Springee, in particular, is going of their way to remove pertinent material because they simply do not want to see an accurate assessment of right-wing populism in a Wikipedia article. Case in point: when I added the same material to Right-wing populism, and supported it with material from two undoubtedly reliable academic sources, they removed it from that article as well, and the academic sources with it.
    My only agenda (as always) is that our articles accurately present prtinent and sourced information on their subject matters, as opposed to attempting to WP:CENSOR information that I don't like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And Springee continues their attempt to whitewash Right-wing populism of material they apparently disagree with. Once again, this is a behavioral issue resulting from a content dispute, not a content dispute per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not cast aspersions by accusing others of "whitewashing". Springee (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you're following me from article to article with the only obvious reason the deletion of this material, I think that a violation of WP:CENSOR (i.e. "whitewashing") is a reasonable conclusion. WP:Casting aspersions is about making claims without evidence. In this case, the evidence appears to be sufficient to raise the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll side with Springee on this one. BMK, this is a WP:POINTy edit and I think you know it. You want this quote included, but you don't seem to have any third party analysis of it. An analogous situation would be someone of prominence standing up and saying "The White House is White because it is a symbol of racism in France, where the architect came from" and including it in the White House article at the end of the paragraph about it's design. It simply doesn't belong. While it's verifiable, within context it isn't notable. Someone from the left or right saying "stay the course!" isn't notable by any stretch. Buffs (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "POINTy" I know no such thing. I often add pertinent material to multiple articles that it is appropriate for. The notability is clear and obvious to anyone (or, at least, almost anyone) who isn't hellbent on making sure the information doesn't appear on Wikipedia, as seems to be the case here. Besides, this is not a discussion about whether the information should be added, that is not appropriate for AN/I, this is a discussion about the behavior of the people attempting to whitewash it, and the various policies and norms they have violated, which at this point include WP:Harassment (following me from article to article), WP:NPOV, WP:Sockpuppetry (editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny), possibly WP:Tag team, WP:Casting aspersions (the unfounded claims that I am editing with a political agenda), WP:CENSOR (throughout), and possibly creating a "Joe Job" account. These are not aspersions, evidence is present to support each and every one of these claims. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beyond My Ken:, I would think the above discussion would make it clear that if consensus isn't established and edits are challenged then the matter is resolved on the talk page before the material is restored. You have instead decided to go full bull in the China shop on both the Right Wing Politics article as well as the Right-wing populism article where you have ignored objections from myself and The Four Deuces while suggesting that consensus was needed to reject new edits. Springee (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    There are discussions on two different article talk pages about whether the material is appropriate for including in that article. Some of the arguments made on Talk:Right-wing politics may be applicable to Right-wing populism but not all of them, both because they are two different, but related ,subjects, and because the material in question is presented differently (i.e in a much more integrated manner, with supporting citations from reliable academic sources) on Right-wing populism, while it was added rather baldly (not by me, remember) on Right-wing politics.
    In any event, since we're waiting for the culmination of an RfC on Right-wing politics, there is currently no consensus which can be applied to Right-wing populism, and even when the RfC is concluded, whether its decision whould be pertinent to Right-wing populism would depend on why it was excluded from the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any activity that requires consideration here. TFD (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not surprising. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I give up

    If the Wikipedia editing community doesn't give a shit that a handful of like-minded editors are block voting and tag teaming to keep pertinent, sourced information out of some of our controversial, but extremely relevant to the times, articles, so that material they don't agree with is never seen by our readers, why the fuck should I care?

    It's really a sad day forWP:NPOV when stuff like this happens, especially when it's so blatantly obvious, and the evidence of it is presented, and very few even bother to stir themselves to take action.

    Close this, or block me, or whatever anyone wants to do, since we're abandoning our principles. The whitewash will succeed, and Right-wing populism and Right-wing politics will be cleansed of anything the self-appointed CENSORS disapprove of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Toys and the pram. Block voting does not decide RfC outcomes, if you make a convincing argument then the RfC closer will side with you. If not then most likely the problem lies in your position not being strong enough. You, of course, know this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK, your comment is dripping with irony. Just a few discussions down you lecture an editor about the need for following consensus and what isn’t harassment etc. [[38]]. Yet here we are with you insisting that the 9:3 and 5:2 discussions against inclusion are just whitewashing and that editors must get a consensus to remove your recent edits vs you needed a consensus for inclusion. Finally, rather than seeking the consensus via discussion you try to bully the process via continuous changes to the basic content with declarations that there is no consensus to remove your latest version of the text. If only you were following the sound advice you were espousing. Springee (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't know about that. Iwas the one who had to clean up after it (it took three rolls of paper towels), and that sure wasn't irony I was mopping off the floor. (I'll leave the answer as an exercise for the reader.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose a block of BMK for uncivil behavior

    Profanity-laden remarks like this are not helpful, demeaning toward others, and he's been warned repeatedly. Requesting a block. Buffs (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional instance from today: [39]
    Add quote from WP:IUC:
    "The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:
    1. Direct rudeness
    (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
    (b) <N/A>
    (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety
    (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")
    He hits 3 of the first 4. Buffs (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Don't be ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not being ridiculous. Remarks like his are making this situation more and more uncivil (see definitions added above) Buffs (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concerned, no. Expletives as an expression of frustration are not cause for block. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See above addition Buffs (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with the addition of that material, yes it's sourced but I don't think it's pertinent to the rest of the paragraph. So on the content dispute side of things I'm not with him, but I'm not seeing the edit for which you want him blocked in the same light. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the collegial disagreement! Have a good day! Buffs (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI blocks are not WP:PUNITIVE and that is what is being proposed here. MarnetteD|Talk 18:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of what blocks are for. Perpetually failing to follow WP:CIVIL and preventing further problems should be on the table. Buffs (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been making a lot of non-constructive edits to ANI in the last few days; I think you should take a break from it. --JBL (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. YMMV. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a terrible idea and OP should be trouted for suggesting it.--Jorm (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a fish, but let's WP:AGF here, shall we? Buffs (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frustration is allowed. Buffs, when the (to you) offensive comment is actually at ANI itself, it's pretty redundant to "helpfully" list what's wrong with it in your opinion. Do you seriously think admins haven't seen it? Remarks like your proposal lower the tone of ANI worse than the odd heartfelt profanity. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
      I don't care about the profanity, per se. It's a symptom, not the root problem. It's the uncivil remarks. From the last set of remarks alone...
      "the Wikipedia editing community doesn't give a shit" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d
      "a handful of like-minded editors are block voting" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d
      "[a handful of like-minded editors are] tag teaming" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d
      "so that material they don't agree with is never seen by our readers" WP:IUC 1c
      "evidence of it is presented, and very few even bother to stir themselves to take action" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d
      "we're abandoning our principles" WP:IUC 1c
      "The whitewash will succeed" WP:IUC 1c
      "Right-wing populism and Right-wing politics will be cleansed of anything the self-appointed CENSORS disapprove of" WP:IUC 1a, 1c, 1d
      Until we crack down on civility problems, we're going to continue to drive away inexperienced editors. There's no time like the present... Buffs (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And you know that notion just crossed my mind.-- Deepfriedokra 20:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I don't really agree with BMK's behavior in this specific instance but I don't think it rises to the level of warranting a block. Sure, he shouldn't have used profanity but I think that we should just try and hash this out here first and reserve a block for a last resort only if that's the only way to prevent major disruption or incivility. Michepman (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose to inflict Paine upon BMK

    I didn't think that was a profanity-laced rant, so much as a profanity-sprinkled rant. This is a profanity-laced rant.

    Anyway, Bannon's quote, "Let them call you racist...", is a riff on an old American saying, "Let them call me rebel", which comes from what are, according to legendary scholar Levivich, some of the greatest words ever written in the English language, Thomas Paine's The Crisis (text): "Let them call me rebel, and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one, whose character is that of a stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man." Now that is a PA against King George III. BMK, by contrast, hasn't made any PAs against any specific editors from what I've seen. Rather, he's made hand-wavy general comments about a vast right-wing conspiracy, which hasn't worked out any better for BMK than it did for a certain American politician, but is no reason to block.

    So, BMK, in the words of Paine: "I dwell not upon the vapors of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes." Bannon said "Let them call you racist...", and you added that quote to Steve Bannon, National Rally (France), Right-wing populism and Right-wing politics. You got some pushback at the latter two, but no one's disturbed it at the former two. This tends to disprove your theory that there is a concerted effort to keep this quote out of Wikipedia; rather it's just crowd-sourced editing, i.e., consensus working as normal. This is no reason to give up. To partially quote another writer who is not quite as good as Paine, but still pretty damn good: "something something fighting tooth and nail against multiple editors something something almost entirely based on their personal view of things something something Wikipedia's consensus-based model." 'nuff said.

    Therefore, I propose we bring BMK a ladder and a change of clothes, help him down from the Reichstag, let those RfCs run, and call it a day. Because, as Paine wrote in Common Sense (text): "It is not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies". – Levivich 00:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Makes (common) sense to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The push to put this quote in so many places doesn't due BMK any credit. It's clear they want it in because, when taken out of context, it's inflammatory. It's very notable that BMK didn't add the context of the speech. Yes, they added the audience but not how the quote was used in the delivered speech. It appears that when the editor couldn't "win" at the other two articles they went off to "win" other places. Perhaps self reflection is the best answer here. Springee (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The context that was provided for the Bannon quote, to show that it was not "taken out of context".
    All the necessary context was provided, such as this, which was in the "Definition" section of Right-wing populism until it was removed by Springee (first removal, of entire section; second removal, of Bannon quote only):

    Erik Berggren and Andres Neergard in "Populism: Protest, democratic challenge and right wing sxtremism" write "Most researchers agree ... that xenophobia, anti-immigration sentiments, nativism, ethno-nationalism and racism are, in different ways, central elements in the ideologies, politics, and practices of right-wing populism and Extreme Right Wing Parties."[34] Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, in their Populism: A Very Short Introduction, note that in European right-wing populism there is a "marriage of convenience" of populism based on an "ethnic and chauvinistic definition of the people", authoritarianism, and nativism. This results in right-wing populism having a "xenophobic nature." Mudde and Kaltwasser cite the French National Front as the "prototypical populist radical right-wing party".[35] In March 2018, in what has been described as a "populist pep talk"[36] at a National Front party congress, Steve Bannon, former advisor to Donald Trump before and after his election, advised those present to "Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honor."[37] [41]

    or this version, from the Steve Bannon article:

    At a party congress in March 2018, Bannon gave members of the French right-wing populist National Front (NF) what has been described as a "populist pep talk".[150] Bannon advised the party members to "Let them call you racist, let them call you xenophobes, let them call you nativists. Wear it like a badge of honor. Because every day, we get stronger and they get weaker. ... Hstory is on our side and will bring us victory." Bannon's remarks brought the members to their feet.[250][251][252][253] Critics expressed concern that Bannon was "normalizing racism."[254] Bannon generally considers charges of racism made against the right to be the result of a biased media.[255]

    What more context could be required? Each version is specifically geared to the article it appeared in, so that the "Definition" version has academic sources to support it, while the others are straight-forward reporting with no interpretation, and multiple sources to confirm the content and context of the speech. I fail to see any way in which I took the quote out of context. Reading any of the various articles about the speech -- such as this one from the NYTimes --will confirm that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet in both cases consensus was against including. Not "Springee alone opposed". In both cases you tried to push inclusion when other editors objected and thus violated CONSENSUS. If so many editors say no, then you really need to ask why. The way that helps the most is to go to the talk page and discuss rather than make POINTy edits. Springee (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That is incorrect there was no consensus. You have consistently misrepresented the situation, just as in this discussion you misrepresented that the quote was "taken out of context". Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And you circle back. First, per policy (NOCON) if there isn't consensus the edits revert. I say there was consensus for removal, you say there was no consensus. Either way, policy says we do the same thing, revert to the earlier version of the text. You claim the quotes weren't out of context but other editors disagree. Springee (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you ever going to learn how to properly indent your comments, or are other editors going to have to continue to clean up after you for the rest of your Wikipedia career? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OK but it's in unity that our great :strength lies–just as true for building a nation as for building an encyclopedia. We make a shitty encyclopedia when we fight all the time. That's how we end up with articles like "Levivich is an American[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] ...".
    A notable guy said a notable thing; the world took note of it. Do we document it? Where do we document it? How do we document it? We should be able to have that conversation (WP:BRD) and it should look something like this:
    Editor A: I think we should document it here, like this.
    Editor B: I think we should document it there, like that.
    Editor C: I think we should document it here, like that.
    discussion proceeds...
    ...but instead, it too often looks like this:
    Editor A: I think we should document it here, like this.
    Editor B: I think we should document it there, like that.
    Editor A: I think you're a Nazi.
    Editor B: I think you're an asshole.
    Editor C: Both of you fuck off.
    I think it stems from favoring simple binary presentations that we can "!vote" on, rather than open-ended discussions. It's bold/revert, support/oppose, keep/delete–that's how we like to break things down, but it divides us. So we have binary edit wars and RfCs with binary choices on multiple articles, satisfying nobody, and yet rarely have just a brainstorming session about "where do we put this Bannon thing?" Brainstorming, open-ended (rather than adversarial) source analysis, and pre-RfC discussions are too rare, especially in DS areas like AP2, because charged topic areas lead to a lack of AGF, and it's hard to have a conversation with a Nazi and an asshole. Heck, just try talking to – Levivich 04:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but also consider Arrow's impossibility theorem, which holds that when a group is presented with more than two choices, there is no voting system that will ensure that the outcome reflect's the group's actual preferences. Given this, RfC's are more likely to represent the views of the group voting on them when the choice provided is binary. (And, of course, the group that is !voting only has a chance of representing the views of the larger community when impediments such as block voting and canvassing, which skew the vote in a particular direction, are eliminated, a condition difficult to get to when strong POVs -- especially political POVs -- are a motivating factor in the !voting, as is the case here.)
    And to circle back to the beginning of this section for a moment, sure, Bannon's "populist pep talk" to the National Front that brought the party members to their feet is the rhetorical equivalent of Paine's "Let them call me rebel...", but the difference comes in what lies behind the words. Paine was rebelling against a polity that was preventing his people from (in the words of another dude) achieving "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", while Bannon is admitting that right-wing populists are called xenophobes, nativists, and racists, and, rather than rejecting these labels, they should own them, because "history is on our side" and victory will be theirs. There is a substantive qualitative difference between the morality of Paine's words and that of Bannon's.
    And given that, one has to wonder why some Wikipedia editors are working overtime and pulling out every trick in the book to prevent Bannon's words from appearing in an article that they are obviously pertinent to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And it more and more obvious that it not just Bannon's words, Springee just doesn't want it explicitly said that right-wing populism is about xenophobia, racism, and authoritarianism, among other delightful things. She just removed a quote I added from a historian who said basically that. This is quite clearly POV editing in blatant violation of WP:NPOV.
    If experts on a subject say "X", then we report "X", and it's irrelevant whether they say it in a journal article, a book published by a university press, a book published by a commercial publisher, a media outlet, or their own personal blog. The reliable source involved is the expert, and there is absolutely no excuse for Springee to remove it from the article, as they did here. This behavior needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear, BMK, that you think this quote is illuminating and revealing. But why does it need to appear in 4 different articles? Because that's what it seems like you are fighting so hard for. Not for its mere inclusion in an article where it is relevant, but your insistence that it appears in 4 different articles which might be, well, a little repetitive considering the overlap in the subjects. Can't you see the inclusion of this article in two articles as a "win"? Because, at the end of the day, even the most successful editors don't get their way 100% of the time. Surely, a 50% success rate on this one quote shouldn't be enough to cause you to walk away from editing Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, because it's pertinent to three articles. (I've given up on Right-wing politics): Steve Bannon, who said it and because it reveals the nature of his thoughts, the National Front, who he said it to and whose members accepted it with their acclamation, and Right-wing populism which is what the quote is about. As I said above, I frequently add the same information to multiple articles if it is pertinent to more than one. And, really, the only strong overlap between these three articles is between the "National Front", a right-wing populist party, and "Right-wing populism", an overview article. Bannon is much, much more than simply a right-wing populist, and he had no real connection to the National Front until that particular appearance.
    To answer your questions - no ,I never expect 100% success - I've been around here too long and have edited too much to hold such an unreasonable expectation -- and, as I said, I've already given up on it appearing in Right-wing politics, having de facto accepted the argument that it didn't represent the full range of that subject. But as for the others - well, the Bannon article is an obvious place for it to be, the NF article is an obvious place for it to be, but the nature of the quote, and the insight it offers into the nature of right-wing populism, means that it's really not a "win" if it's not in that article, and, really, it should be in the "Definition" section, not stuck down in the "France" section.
    Bannon's uncensored acceptance of the xenophobic, nativist and racist nature of right-wing populism, the idea that brought the crowd to its feet, is an extraordinary admission for someone to have made. These are things that Marine le Pen, in her attempts to "de-demonize" the party and take it mainstream, has sought to avoid having the public identify with the NF. She would never have made the candid admission that Bannon did and told her people to own those attributes as a badge of honor. That is why it's so important that it's not dry academics saying these things, it's someone who says "Be proud of being a xenophobe! Wear your racism as a badge of honor. When people call you a nativist, say 'Yes I am a nativist, and proud of it!'" Those thoughts, expressed in the way that Bannon expressed them, are powerful, which is why Springee and company don't want them in the article. Because they're true and they're enlightening and they're powerful. They need to be in Right-wing populism for all the reasons that Springee so desperately wants them not to be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: BTW, when you say "this quote", I assume you're talking about the Bannon quote. I just want to note that in the comment just above yours, I pointed out that I added a quote from a different person, and Springee and company are now trying to prevent it from appearing in the article [42], revealing once again the POV nature of their editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BMK, remember that CONSENSUS is policy. If you make a change and other editors object then POLICY says try to get consensus for the change. If consensus doesn't exist, the change is reverted. Note it doesn't say consensus to revert, it says consensus is required to keep the change. You can make your case on the talk page. Thus far I've objected on several grounds. Other editors can weight in. If they disagree with me then I think you will have your consensus. If they don't then you don't have consensus. Springee (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, the argument you made that the Shenkman quote "failed varification" just fell to pieces. See my note on the article talk page, where I explain that you can download Rosenberg's paper and in it there is absolutely no sign of the language that Shenkman used, because that was Shenkman's gloss on what right-wing populism has to offer the common man after the failure of the elites, and not Rosenberg's, as you insisted it was.
    I suggest, that with the high visibility of this discussion, and the number of people now watching Right-wing populism, you would be best advised not to go around deleting properly sourced pertinent information simply because you disagree with it. Such very public blatant violations of WP:NPOV can lead to problems. And, remember, your behavior - among others - is what this report is about, not the content dispute, which you keep dragging into it. It's your attempt to use every trick you can come up with to keep information you object to out of articles, because your personal POV opposes it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't comment here often, & I don't usually even read long discussions here about things like US politics, but the cleverness of Levich's replies attracted me to read this. Looking also at the articles, I think it's very clear that the quote (in full context) is appropriate in the articles on Bannon and the National Front: it shows his views, and it shows theirs. Right wing populism is a more general matter than the views of either, & it is not as clear that it sufficient encapsulates the entire movement--personally I think it pretty much does, but it's not as obvious. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: Thank you for that considered opinion. I would remind you that the Definition section of the article cites numerous reliable sources which confirm that the attributes cited by Shenkman and used by Bannon are intrinsically part of right-wing populism, hence the use of both of these quotes is both justified and supported.
    Do you have any thoughts on the question of whether Springee and other editors attempting to block the use of the Bannon and Shenkman quotes are doing so out of a personal political POV, in violation of WP:NPOV? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: Fixing ping. Please see previous comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the definition section, this particular set of three is nowhere given as the essential characteristics. (There's even an explicit denial of "racism", xenophobia is mentioned but not emphasised , and there's discussion of carious meanings of nativism.) The part I think makes most sense is "a cluster of categories since the parties differ in ideology, organization and leadership rhetoric". Attempts at exact definition of political movements usually cause confusion. The key point of what Bannon said is not the terms he used, but the defiant challenge to conventional political morality.
    Much more important, I refuse to assume that the personal political POV of any of the editors here is the motivation for the arguments. You need to think more about the meaning of NPA. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I "assumed" nothing - I don't recall knowing Springee's edits from any earlier time. I have , however, observed editing from a strong political POV, in the articles mentioned here. I'm sorry you disagree with that, but that is what it is.
    Your gloss on the definition of right-wing populism is, I think somewhat off, but that is (again) not for discussion here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    At a bare minimum, from past interactions, Springee seems to have a problem confusing policy with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and advocating for (yes I'll agree with Beyond My Ken) WP:CENSORing things that they don't like. Bannon is notable. Bannon is, particularly, notable as a populist leader [43]. Bannon said notable things to a particular group the National Front that is described and sourced in the Right-wing populism article as "prototypical populist radical right-wing party". That there is even a question here does not appear to me due to policy. It certainly looks like Springee is filibustering and misrepresenting both wording and policies in service of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT point of view.
    Also, an edit like this[44] by Springee, after Beyond My Ken wrote several paragraphs and checked both the article and sources to make sure that it was Shenkman's own words and not something he was quoting or summarizing, I believe is an attempt to goad Beyond My Ken. It appears similar to Sealioning. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    6Years, by posting here you open your self up for review. You are a new account as of less than 2 months back[[45]]. Your first edit wasn't a typical grammar fix or adding a fact to an article. No, it was the creation of an AFD page! [[46]] Yes, new editors always open with an AfD discussion. Slatersteven was rightly suspicious and asked you about your history here, did you have a prior account [[47]]. You gave an evasive answer. Based on comments from another editor I repeated Slaterseven's question. After that you pinged Doug Weller [[48]] then started following me to other articles [[49]]. HOUND may not have been your intent but it was hardly the advice Doug Weller gave you. So are you here because you have a legitimate complaint or because you are hoping to pile onto someone who suggested that your behavior certainly looks like you had a prior account? Perhaps we shouldn't answer and just let someone kill this train wreck.Springee (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe I have a right to comment on your behavior and how it is coming across (whether you intend it that way or not), and I note that you started targeting me with your accusations in apparent retaliation for Bishonen's topic ban of JWeiss11 very shortly after you commented there. I don't think I need to answer any of your insinuations further.[50] 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the topic ban you are talking about? I'm not sure what I said that bothered you [[51]]. Springee (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the fact that you began running around accusing me of being a sockpuppet very shortly after your post there, showing that you were trying to continue Jweiss11's attack [52]. First at my talk page, then you ran off to another person's talk page, now you're doing it here. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DUCK applies here... Buffs (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose closing this thread

    This is nothing more that an open sewer of an ANI. Would an admin please close it. Springee (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Returning to the purpose of this report

    Another data point in the nominal topic of this (overall) thread, which is behavioral problems. Consider this edit by Springee on Talk:Right-wing populism in which they reject xenophobia, racism, authoritarianism etc. as "alarmist" terms, this despite the fact that the Definition section offers numerous scholarly analyses which say that these things are intrinsic to right-wing populism. "Most researchers agree [...] that xenophobia, anti-immigration sentiments, nativism, ethno-nationalism are, in different ways, central elements in the ideologies, politics, and practices of right-wing populism and Extreme Right Wing Parties" is how one puts it. Despite this, Spingee views these attributes as merely "alarmist" terms, used to scare people about the bogeyman of right-wing populism. This is a very strong indication that Springee is editing not for neutrality or accuracy, but from a personal political point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    TWO people said that "most researchers agree" and are "practices of right-wing populism and Extreme Right Wing Parties". You're stretching here. At this point, you are trying to equate via WP:SYN that popular right wing people are inherently racist, et al. That's absurd on its face. Buffs (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not "two people", two reliable sources, one of which summarized what "most researchers agree" on - and if you look at the paragraphs above that one, you'll see other academics (like Cas Mudde) who agree. If you think that they are all incorrect, then please come up with neutral reliable sources that say that right-wing populism is not xenophobic, racist, authoritarian, nativist, enthno-nationalist etc. I don't think you'll be able to, because -- as the rest of the Definition section shows -- these attributes are commonly cited by academics.
    But, I do note that you're talking about the content dispute, when this report and this section are about behavior, specifically whether Springee and other editors are editing from a personal political point of view, and are not editing neutrally. Do you have anything to add to that, as opposed to attempting to litigate what belongs on the article talk page? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree that there is problem conduct by Springee. This [53] was way over the line on the part of Springee. Particularly vexatious is comments like [54] that show WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior when Beyond My Ken had already written quite a thoughtful response on why Shenkman's comment was not simply a paraphrasing or summation of Rosenberg's. The reply "No you haven't"[55] which is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes level behavior. When Springee did finally provide a quote (after first insisting they had when they hadn't [56]), the quote did not satisfy the wording nor back up what Springee said [57]. In that discussion Springee has also continuously ignored Drmies' admonition that "There is no such thing as a "scholarly section"" and keeps on insisting that Shenkman, despite being the author of the piece, cannot be quoted because despite being in a WP:RS and Shenkman undeniably being a repeatedly published, recognized topic expert on the grounds that it isn't a scholarly journal. I can't decide fully whether that's a Moving the goalposts issue or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but it's part of an overall WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem that's manifesting as a combination of WP:BATTLEGROUND and Sealioning-looking behavior. Regardless, the net effect seems to be that Springee is hoping to provoke someone into crossing a line, and when others aren't biting on their bait, Springee themselves are getting flustered and then crossing the line. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Color me a little skeptical on your edit history, but this looks like a WP:SPA. Buffs (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have an actual comment on the specific links I provided to illustrate the pattern, or are you just trying to attack me personally hoping you'll get a reaction? 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, Buffs, that being a SPA isn't actually against any policies. Most editors start editing a specific topic area and later, some (but not all) became generalists. But there are many editors who persist in focusing on specific interests like politics, football, anime, music or wrestling. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at editor's history...WP:DUCK applies in spades. I'm not against WP:SPAs per se, but the focus of this one appears to be harassment. Buffs (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) You are alleging editors pushing a POV. I think, to the contrary, that you are pushing POV and it's quite obvious. It's impossible to state that without explaining the points which support such an opinion. Likewise, you (and the RS author) are conflating "right wing" with "extremists"/"extreme right wing" as if there is no difference; there most certainly is. I disagree with 6Years' assessment. Buffs (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pushing a POV? Nope. I am reporting the opinions of subject experts that right-wing populism is xenophobic, authoritarian, and racist, among other things. The POV editor is the one attempting to move heaven and earth to prevent those assessments from appearing in the article on right-wing populism. That's really the bottom line here: a POV editor does not want the views of subject experts to be included in an article on the subject because they disagree with them, calling them "alarmist". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The opinions espoused here are literally saying that half of the US (for example) is racist, alarmist, authoritarian. Those creating these papers are either highly partisan or attempting to conflate analysis. Those citing these sources here are (intentionally) conflating extreme views with the mainstream conservatism. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Openmy

    Openmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) FourFive separate users [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] have now written on this users talk page about WP:NOPIPE. In addition to having been reverted with these same concerns. They have been reminded that they are required to WP:ENGAGE in conversation [63]. Yet they continue to make edits in this same manner (as of yesterday [64]), and are refusing to ENGAGE.

    I believe this user is not here to build a collaborative project, as is obvious by their refusal ENGAGE. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note I have edited my original post because I realized another person mentioned the same thing to this user 4 years ago. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Request Ban of Reddragon7 per NOTHERE

    Bishonen has blocked Reddragon7 indefinitely. Still seeking ways to block paid editing companies. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Reddragon7 is a disclosed paid editor who has created and submitted many drafts through AfC which I have come across while reviewing submissions. They disclose being a freelancer and accepted jobs through the website "WikiPresence" which not only offers to create Wikipedia pages, but also offers to create press for such. I asked them previously about using references that don't mention the subject they are writing about as well as unreliable sources such as Medium. The response I feel was canned and normal of a paid editor who is WP:NOTHERE. To be clear, there are paid editors who can follow the rules, but I don't feel Reddragon7 can do that. The reason being is that the majority of their submission through AfC are being rejected for things like advertising, notability, and referencing (the last one I rejected was for WP:REFBOMBING which included sources that didn't even discuss the subject of the draft title). Submissions which constantly don't meet Wikipedia guidelines causes extra work for those of us reviewing drafts at AfC and would request a ban of this user since they can't seem to get that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not review and correct submissions that are paid for and don't comply with guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've looked at their paid work. There are two problems: First, they accept commissions from subjects that are extremely unlikely to be notable (such as this one and thisone, and about 2/3 of his attempted articles. Second, whether or not the subject is likely to be notable, most of the references used are straight PR, from obvious PR sites, such as this and this, or at best clearly promotional pieces on magazine and web sites that let promotional interviews be published. Almost all the references used besides such obvious promotion, are notices about funding or the subjects own site. Only one of their paid articles has been accepted, MGC Pharmaceuticals , and, in my opinion it should not have been, and I have listed it for afd.
    This editor is doing harm to Wikipedia,--and also to his unsuspecting clients. Any of them who might actually merit articles will find it much harder to eventually get them afte the spam that this editor is writing with their money are removed from WP.
    Unless there are objections, I intend to block. The ordinary processes of G11 and G13 will deal with the article drafts.
    The editor has written some acceptable articles for WiR, andhas done acceptable editing in other areas. Butthe harm that is being done outweighs this. I don't think a topic block would be sufficient, for it would encourage sockpuppettry. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppetry is likely to happen with blocked paid editors I agree. Is there a way to do a global ban on the editor and the company they work for so we can simply delete their creations if found to be socks or meat? If these are through a company, they will likely give it to another employee if this one is banned. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection here; I would support a block, for precisely the reasons outlined above. Getting this user to make the correct disclosures has been an uphill struggle, and at the time of writing they still had yet to disclose their affiliations via Upwork. Improving Wikipedia is very clearly a secondary concern to Reddragon7, falling in far behind their primary motivator of "making bank". Yunshui 雲水 07:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a block is the correct action in this situation. Our editors' time is valuable, and maybe even more so with AFC, where article creators should be attempting to create acceptable articles in good faith - so as not to waste others' valuable efforts. The standards cannot be ignored while crossing fingers and hoping for a pass - rather than choosing to not submit and waste other people's time out of consideration. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It makes me very uncomfortable to mandate a person disclose accounts from other sites to avoid blocking. Even in the case of a paid editor. That said, an editor offering to create paid articles (as opposed to an employee whose job it is to monitor an existing article) needs to have a good grasp of notability. It is indeed disruptive to the project if a disclosed paid editor repeatedly fails at getting articles through AfC. That might be in the letter of the rules, but not the spirit. I see a litany of AfC rejections and no indications that these rejections were unfair or contra to policy. I would support a topic ban from paid editing or some sort of non-trivial block (one month?), in order to give us time to clean-up AfC submissions with the next block being an indef (or community ban). There's enough rule following and promise to make me rather have him in the tent than out but that's a pretty fine line. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to add to what's already been said the fact that some drafts they have created (such as Draft:British Herald and Draft:Realtor.ca) have previously been created by editors who were blocked for undisclosed paid editing (prolific sockmaster Amvivek and Jbertho88, respectively). I'm not implying that Reddragon7 is a sock of either of those, but it shows that they are more concrned with what their clients want to add to Wikipedia, than what is appropriate content here. Another red flag is the way Reddragon7 has created new drafts with "alternative" titles rather than work on existing declined drafts: Draft:Voximplant1, cf Draft:Voximplant ; Draft:Techrock1, cf Draft:Techrock ; Draft:Jared Canon about a person called Jared Cannon, cf Draft:Jared Cannon which was recently speedy deleted as spam ; and Draft:Greg Fleishman which was created after Reddragon7 had edited and reverted their own edit to Draft:Greg Fleishman (entrepreneur). They haven't been explicitly asked not to do that, but it's an underhanded tactic that also indicates WP:NOTHERE. I'd support a block. --bonadea contributions talk 12:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That sums up why I think the company as a whole should receive a community block. The company was likely hired by these individuals and they are just using freelancers to shotgun these drafts into AfC, hoping they will be carelessly approved or cleaned up by an unsuspecting volunteer. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it feasible to block the company as a whole? If so, that might be a good solution. RedDragon7’s contributions so far don’t seem malicious or dishonest, just inept, but I agree that it’s a lot of work to clean up these articles continuously and I’m worried that he might cause an otherwise worthy article subject to be banned. Michepman (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be a good idea to block the company, because then it will be simpler to deal with puppetry. But I would not necessarily assume that if two paid editors worked on an article for the same subject, they're certain to be puppets. I've seen cases where the long interval shows that after the subject failed with one editing firm, they tried another. When they're closely related in time, as with these examples, it indicates an attempt to defy our policies. That makes this not only inept editing, but NOT HERE. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked indefinitely. I'll just trot out my usual motto: the time and patience of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource, and is not to be squandered, as has been happening for too long with Reddragon7. As for blocking the company, I'm not sure how we'd do that, but if it's feasible, I'm for it. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Harshil169 is wikihounding me

    User:Harshil169 is continuing to add deletion tags on every page that I am creating for no rhyme or reason like he did to List of Jain Empires and Dynasties and see my talk page he wants to delete my every page and is continuously wikihounding me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh.rsd (talk • contribs) 06:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please follow the instruction at the top of this noticeboard and inform Harshil169 that you have filed this report. El_C 06:59, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    done.... Rishabh.rsd (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi, I am accused and explaining my side here. I contest speedy deletion of the many pages in a single day, I also revert edits those are vandalism and not good for Wikipedia. It is regular practice for me and User:Rishabh.rsd is no more exemption in this practice. I had already gave warnings on talk page and explained my all edits in my summary. Administrators can check it.
    Now, comes to the topic. This user is adding honorific suffix and prefix like Acharya, Lord, Bhagwan, Swami, Ji (like sir) and Shri; after I explained that this is not practice of Wikipedia. Such things can be find 1,2, 3, 4, and 5. These are just example of WP:BIAS and violation of WP:NPOV. Most of his edits are like these. He also added same type of edits in the highly used template of Jainism by adding word Suri and Swami behind it without gaining consensus. It can be find here.
    Not only this, he is removing the deletion template from the pages like he did twice at Anti-Jain Sentiments (now deleted) and once at here.
    Complain regarding WP:Civility. This user complained that I am wikihounding him but he hid the fact that he called me as hypocrite Talk:Anti-Jain Sentiments. Now, it is deleted but old revisions may be available to admin side. He also told that whether I am in my sense or not at here.-- Harshil want to talk? 07:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And this User:Harshil169 didn't mentioned unessecery deletion tags placed on List of Jain Empires and Dynasties and Sanat Kumara Chakravarti. See that page's history... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh.rsd (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Come on Rishabh.rsd. I already explained why I put deletion templates on the pages you made. Rationale has been explained well in the AfD. And one page Jagathitkarani has already been deleted by admin. So, don't be personal here. Stay on policies. -- Harshil want to talk? 16:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Winged Blades of Godric Thanks for understanding. I learnt lots of things from you. -- Harshil want to talk? 16:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Harshil169 has again started wikihounding me see history of pages Trishala and King Sagara I am manually undoing vandalism of anonymous users on articles by seeing history and this user is again and again undoing it for no rhyme or reason. Rishabh.rsd (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Also see Doxography pages history Rishabh.rsd (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Repetitive personal attack on me.

    I am Harshil Mehta and User:Rishabh.rsd is assuming good faith on my edits and he did personal attacks on me which harmed my online presence on Wikipedia. I reverted some of his edits, with summary, which were not constructive and gave warnings about it on his talk page too. Still, he didn't improve his edits and started adding honorific suffixes and prefixes on articles. And lastly, he attacked personally. Not once, he repeated this behavior many times and this is violation of WP:Civility, and WP:PA, and hence, I am complaining to the Wikipedia administrators about his behavior.

    1. See, Talk:Anti-Jain Sentiments. User was started Whataboutery in deletion discuss and when I stopped him to do so then he labelled me as hypocrite.
    2. Not only this, he complained that I am harassing him (without any proof) to two editors [same message though, which is also called as disruptive editing]. They can be found here and here. Calling someone as harasser and not assuming good faith in their edits is violation of WP:Civility.
    3. He went on to saying that I lost my all sense at here when he made article of one line and I contested it for deletion.
    4. He even complained on administrator board and wrote with my username that I am wikihounding him and that too without any evidences and details. My defence on this can be found here. This behavior is WP:Uncivil.

    Here is my complaint to the Administrators about this user which harmed my online presence and discouraged me. Wikipedia is not battleground and I am already cool till now. I request administrators to block him on this type of serial offence towards an individual. Regards, -- Harshil want to talk? 05:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi I am getting a feeling of harrasment and I don't think I have to give a proof for it, also I said u are wikihounding me see page King Sagara and other pages also how u r undoing my edits for no reason.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh.rsd (talk • contribs) 07:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your feeling to get harassment is not proof that I harassed you. Provide evidences. If you want to report WP:Harassment then it’s necessary to provide evidences, otherwise, unnecessary accusations are violation of WP:Civility.— Harshil want to talk? 11:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all I didn't use the word harass and never accuse u of harassment in any of my complaints so it's not a matter to be proved and I just asked that r u in ur senses and never said that u have lost ur senses please don't fill words in my mouth Rishabh.rsd (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: an existing thread "#User:Harshil169 is wikihounding me" above, is related to the same users.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Combined. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Smells like undisclosed paidediting

    See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Spidey Sense Tingling

    I got a very odd message on my user talk page recently [65] - this user has never made any other edits and came to me with something... about copyright... at Ghengis Khan - a page I occasionally work on. I pointed them to help desk, but I can't help but feel like there was something off about the request I can't put my finger on. May be nothing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It sounds like he's asking about licensing, but he doesn't know the term in English. I'm assuming English is not his first language. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 17:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean probably. But it was very odd they asked me in particular - or that they created a wikipedia account specifically to ask me a question then provided an off-wiki contact method for response. Like I said. Could be nothing. Or it could be some sort of phishing thing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't email anyone I don't trust completely, even via Wikipedia's email. I left a hopefully helpful message about reusing Wikipedia content on their talk.-- Deepfriedokra 17:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I wasn't comfortable helping them with that as creative commons licensing is not a specialty of mine. Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Luckily, I have a permit that covers all licensing issues. A copy can be found here: [[66]] May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 19:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll see how far that gets you on Wikimedia Commons. ;) Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Offered help on user's talk page. Buffs (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Range Block needed

    We have multiple IPs vandalizing political bio articles in the US.

    There might be more. As soon as one is blocked, another IP takes its place. It's happening so rapid fire in how the address changes, might be more than one individual involved. All are targeting bio articles of past Democratic Party office holders. — Maile (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Maile66: I added the ip links here for you. Cards84664 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the IP addresses above are all on different networks. If more show up, it might be possible to find range blocks eventually, but they're too spread out right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent personal attacks by Jackgrimm1504

    @Jackgrimm1504: is a newly-created single-purpose account. He has 36 edits total, and 6 of those I would count as personal attacks directed toward me and @Xx236:

    1. [67]
    2. [68]
    3. [69]
    4. [70]
    5. [71]
    6. [72]
    Just a quick marginally-useful note that addressed one tiny aspect of this: I suspect Jackgrimm1504 is misunderstanding {{Vandalism_information}}, which is transcluded on Elizium23's talk page. Jack, that is showing the level of vandalism on Wikipedia as a whole, not characterizing vandalism from Elizium. Elizium is not a vandal.
    I'll leave it to others to wade thru the diffs and decide what to do about everything else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case, everything's cool, because WikiDefCon 5 is the lowest level of vandalism overall :-) Elizium23 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, it's kinda cool, but it's not that cool. His harassing behavior towards Elizum23 (talk · contribs) is pretty unacceptable. He seems to be on some kind of crusade to right great wrongs on the topic of Poland. If this passion can be channeled towards productive editing, that would be great, but either way he can't go around taking such a battleground mentality towards other users. Michepman (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like Piotr Rybak (a Polish anti-Semitic activist). But either we support total freedom of speach or we define limits of the freedom for all participants. Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is deeply stupid. All of WP:CIVILITY, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:NLT, etc. are restrictions on some kinds of speech, and they are all essential to the proper functioning of this project. --JBL (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    These comments by Xx236, in regards to LGBT and reliable sources in Poland, are very concerning:

    1. [73] - British culture has been anti-Catholic since ages. The reader should be informed about the bias. Burning of Catholic Guy Fawkes effigy is a part of British culture.Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
    2. [74] - If Elżbiet Podleśna is a civil right activist, Piotr Rybak is one too. And the anti-LGBT ideology protesters are ones. Who decides which rights are better? The Daily Telegraph?Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

    Comparing civil rights activist Elżbieta Podleśna (described as such by - BBC for instance) with Piotr Rybak - who is covered in the context of "The 50 protestors from the Polish Independence Movement were led by Piotr Rybak, who was once jailed for burning an effigy of a Jew." in the context of: "Far-right Polish nationalists organised an anti-Semitic protest during a Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony at Auschwitz. per Independent. Other commentary challenging mainstream RSes has been made on those pages. Jackgrimm1504, who is a new account, definitely had some cause for concern here.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also very concerned regarding the future of this Wikipedia. I expect a Wikiprison for not-enough-progressive editors.Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @François Robere: has joined in and rehashed Jackgrimm1504's canard, alleging that I have a "conflict of interest", and therefore should not be editing an LGBT-related topic. This was brought up in article talk space and not on my user talk page or on WP:COIN. I have disclosed that I am a member of an organization, and therefore I will not be making edits related to that organization, but I fail to see how the article in question is related to my affiliations. Elizium23 (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea who Jackgrimm1504 is. The concern is that someone affiliated with an organization that has been politically active on the subject (in this case LGBTQ rights) may have a COI when approaching it. François Robere (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Terminology concern: I believe this is more "potential bias" than "COI." Given that Elizium23 is associated with a Roman Catholic diocese and the Knights of Columbus, there's a good chance they're Catholic, which means that they may hold certain beliefs independently of their affiliation with those organizations. That does not cross the line into COI in my opinion. Per WP:COINOTBIAS: Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. It's also unclear exactly what "affiliation" means in this case - member of? employed by? If the former, then (for example) anyone religious would automatically have a COI with anything their religion has an opinion on. If the latter, it's a bit of a gray area since the line between "personal belief" and "affiliation" is very fine in this situation, but I'm inclined to say that this isn't COI. creffett (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel that it is a foregone conclusion that I have inherent biases because of my beliefs and identity. I also felt that justice requires me to disclose my affiliations, and yes, in the past I have edited articles on the topics with which I am directly affiliated; I have resolved to stop doing that, and disclosure was a good way to keep me honest. I do not feel that this article talk page is the right forum for having a discussion about my biases or anyone else's, because the article talk page is for building consensus and improving the article. If anyone feels that I have a COI, there is a noticeboard for raising concerns and I am happy to address good-faith questions placed on my user talk page. But I won't apologize or refrain from editing in contentious subject areas, and I wish to be open to constructive criticism from people who say things like: "hey, aren't your beliefs and prejudices beginning to get in the way of objectively participating as an editor and amicably working out disputes with people different from you?" Yes, I think that our personal circumstances can lead to bad decisions here, and if I were in a better mood or having a better life, I probably wouldn't be here in the first place. Frankly I regret that my bias has been so arch-conservative and unyieldingly unforgiving of anyone on the other side of the fence. That's why I will never be an admin here, and that's why I've been taking significant wikibreaks, because it's not fair to innocent bystanders like you that I get a catharsis from arguing about trifles all day. Elizium23 (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You may refrain from those arguments yourselves. The day LGBT-free zones were chosen for the DYK you began to erase a lot of information from that article, including my edit. I may be new to Wiki and misunderstood the "vandalism scale". But your began a "crusade" against me, as if asking if you're not biased is a capital crime. You can sort that yourself really, or well for instance - don't care, if your truly believe in what you're doing. I hereby apologize you if my "accusations" were wrong, and can we put this to an end? It feels really silly to be hopping around whole Wikipedia about an editiorial argue in one single topic. Everyone can read the whole story at Talk:LGBT-free zone themselves Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that this is a very new editor who may not have realized they were stepping into a drama situation. I think this person is likely well-intentioned and just needs to get some experience. I don't think they even realized that bringing up suspicions about other people's motives was something they shouldn't be doing. I think a warning and advice to read our policies about civility, personal attacks, and assuming good faith is probably sufficient. --valereee (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He seems to misunderstand more than that; he hasn't grasped salient aspects of WP:N, WP:SPS, and so forth, and he's using his misunderstandings to advance his side of the content dispute. If he's gonna argue for inclusion of stuff, it's gonna need to be based in a sound understanding of consensus, policy, what's acceptable on the project. But it is not really my job to hold his hand, and no matter how accurately I present facts, it won't get through anyway. (I am not sure how he wouldn't guess that the topic is contentious: he identifies as gay and Polish), but perhaps he underestimates the interest of English-speaking editors in what he considers a "niche" and insignificant event (and yes, for perspective, this is a niche and insignificant event; Icewhiz's efforts to push DYKs of this sort are the only reason they've come to our attention.) Elizium23 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Niche doesn't mean that something is insigificant. Niche means "having specific appeal". The LGBT related topics are Niche in themselves, because LGBT community is a whole is only a fraction of society and therefore topics regarding them are usually not interesting to the rest of the society, not for any other reason than that they simply do not concern them. I still do not understand why do you so presistently bash that petition, but it has been removed, end of discussion, what else do you expect? Elizium I did apologize, but now you're acting as if you believe that I'm not doing something in good faith. So do those policies work both ways or do they not? And you don't have problem with me alone back in LGBT-free zone article, but with several other editors too. I too feel that you're doing a personal attack one me just because I'm new and I'm an easy target. Jackgrimm1504 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:STSC and WP:NOTHERE (September 2019)

    User:STSC is continuing to make POV edits regarding contentious China-related issues. This was raised in 2015 by User:Feminist in the aftermath of the 2014 Hong Kong protests, and has come up sporadically since then.

    The latest batch of questionable edits surround the ongoing 2019 Hong Kong protests. Here are some examples:

    • Referring to the protests as “riots”. In Hong Kong, the term “riot” has hefty legal ramifications. Given the fluid and most often non-violent nature of the movement, reliable sources have not broadly characterised the protests as “rioting”.
      • 15 August
      • 8 September – the cited sources do not use the term riot in relation to the Sheung Wan protests, as the edit summary falsely suggests
    • Changing Tiananmen Square “massacre” to “protest”, even though the legislative motion in question specifically applied to the June 4 massacre, not the 1989 protests as a whole (9 September, 10 September)
    • Denying that “protesters” are citizens, or falsely suggesting that crowdfunded newspaper ads were not funded by “citizens”, but exclusively by “protesters”, which is a claim not reflected in any of the cited sources (8 September, 12 September). Meanwhile, STSC portrays pro-Beijing protesters as "ordinary Hong Kong residents" (12 September). The difference in how the two groups are characterised is suggestive of bias.
    • Blanking “potentially libellous” content from the article for Junius Ho, a pro-Beijing legislator (2 August, 6 August, 21 August, 10 September, 10 September). In order for something to be libel, it must be false. However, the “potentially libellous” content in the article is all well-sourced to reliable secondary sources.

    Considered altogether, these diffs are additional evidence that this user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push a particular political agenda. Citobun (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Out of all these diffs, the only one that rises to the level of a behavioural issue as opposed to a content dispute is this. Several of these look, honestly, like improvements from the perspective of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I'd suggest, at most, that STSC be cautioned not to use misleading edit summaries. But to claim WP:NOTHERE no. That's overreach. Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (For instance, STSC's argument that a small-sample survey from a potentially biased source isn't WP:DUE seems quite solid.) Simonm223 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth noting that the extent to which respondent's sentiment to being considered Chinese changed was documented at less than the margin of error for the survey. As a result, it's questionable the extent to which Wikipedia should be making interpretive statements of the raw data per WP:SYNTH notwithstanding the issue of the small sample size and risk of bias in sample selection, which is a bit of a black box here. We know they conducted phone interviews with a live interviewer but there's no information about the interview script, or number selection. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For additional grounds why this particular edit on STSC's part was actually probably a net good for the project see also WP:PRIMARY as the removed source is, in fact, a primary source. I use this as an example of why it's for the best not to initiate AN/I complaints to settle content disputes. However I should note that STSC did not deny that the protesters were citizens. STSC clarified that the citizens blocking traffic were protesters. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Oops, hit publish too fast) I mention that one in specific because there are some complaints on this list that fail verification in similar ways. I'd suggest that the Citobun's POV may be colouring their perspective on STSC's edits. I do not think a boomerang is at all necessary here, but I would suggest that this complaint be closed promptly. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can find elements of some questionable edits that are constructive in some way. Others are purely blatant POV-pushing. Regarding the Ho example, potentially controversial content on that page is well-sourced. His polemic makes him one of the most notorious politicians in Hong Kong. It isn't "potentially libelous" to write about these incidents as long as it is all well-sourced. Citobun (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Simonm223 seems to have hit it on the head. I concur in general that, for example, "Tienanmen Square Massacre" is the appropriate verbiage to be used. While the protest indeed spanned a longer timeframe, he appears to be expressing support for those killed in the crackdown/massacre. Buffs (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Just recently user Citobun has been blocked for harassment [75] but he/she still does not want to give up his/her hate campaigns against other editors in content disputes. STSC (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if this is in fact part of a pattern behavior wherein Citobun has targeted STSC it might be appropriate to reconsider whether a boomerang was appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was told by an admin (User:NinjaRobotPirate) that I need to provide more substantiation to claims that STSC is engaging in unconstructive POV-pushing. I have therefore provided ample evidence above. Please read the policy at Wikipedia:No personal attacks. This clearly does not constitute a personal attack – it's about content. On the other hand, STSC repeatedly accusing me of undertaking a "hate campaign" is indeed a personal attack. So is your baseless claim that my supposed POV is "colouring [my] perspective". I have barely ever edited the protest page. Citobun (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I had raised the concern on the article (or the set of article) for POV pushing and the emerge of a few SPA account. Experienced editor that synthesis source, that made up new thing from source is not that surprising to appear in the article. Just are there any admin dare to lock the article and allow editors to settle stuff on talk page first. Matthew hk (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of this specific complaint, and the long term interpersonal conflict it appears to be part of, I concur with Matthew hk that edit protection would be a good idea on these articles. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and question about BLP violations I recently removed this defamatory/libelous statement [76] from Talk:Joshua Wong (originally posted [77],[78], went to look at the editor's talk and came here. I am actually quite surprised to see users allowed to use the talk page for posting rumours about living people and then discussing them like a forum? I thought the WP:BLP policy applies everywhere. What is Wikipedia's mechanism to address such issues?--DreamLinker (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it seem a serious BLP violation by User:STSC (edit: the ip 94.134.89.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), i misread the talk page. 09:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)) regarding Joshua Wong. Unless the user genuine believe the fake news / misinformation on state-owned newspaper inside the Great Firewall of China. BTW, his father seem a highly educated professional, which at least South Horizons is an expensive private estate. To add my point, even they are Vietnamese-Chinese (i did know some personally), it is a serious OR and UNDUE accusation on linkage to their political spectrum . Tung Chee Wa was from Shanghai/Zhejiang, Bernard Charnwut Chan is a Thai-Chinese diaspora and so on. Carrie Lam and her family have/had British citizenship too, so do predecessor CY Leung . Matthew hk (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I dismissed that rumour as I could not find any reliable source to confirm it. Even if it was true, being a Vietnamese person does not mean he would be a bad guy in Hong Kong. STSC (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your so called "dismissing of the rumour" was actually not a dismissing, but rather indulging in gossip and using the talk page like a forum to discuss unsubstantiated rumours. This is a serious BLP violation. We are not supposed to further discuss unsubstantiated claims (which is exactly what you did). I also wonder what do you mean in comments such as [79] where you say I agree. The "5 deaths (all suicides)" in the infobox does sound like they were suicide bombers for their "revolution". I don't know if you are doing this intentionally and trying to game the system by casting aspersions, but no English speaker would confuse "suicide" with "suicide bombing". I want to WP:AGF here, but your behaviour is somewhat close to what is described as Sealioning. I trust that you will take the advice and refrain from such behaviour.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) A user wanted to include a piece of information in the article, I replied there're no reliable sources to back it up. Am I not allowed to do that in talk page?
    (2) A user expressed his/her concern about a piece of information maybe misleading in the article, I replied and exchanged my opinion on that issue. Am I not allowed to do that in talk page?
    STSC (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I will describe what happened
    (1) A user posted unsubstantiated libelous content on a talk page which was clearly a WP:BLP violation. Instead of removing, you engaged in discussing claiming "you've heard something similar". Then you added you don't don't have sources so cannot say it is true to false. We are supposed to remove unambiguous BLP violations, instead of commenting that "yes, I have heard something similar" and using the talk page like a forum
    I would rather give the user a chance to reply and back up his/her claim in the talk page. STSC (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your second edit which I pointed out is an example of a borderline edit which (while not breaking any explicit Wikipedia policies), tends to either show a deliberate attempt at Sealioning or a non-understanding of English (though I find it hard to believe the latter). It makes it hard to assume good faith, that's all.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have any issue, why don't you discuss it in the article's talk page? Your problem is you don't even participate in that discussion about the deaths but tried very hard to make a meal out of nothing on here. STSC (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am commenting on your behaviour, not the content. This is the correct venue, not the article talk page.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You disagree to my opinion about "suicide" in the infobox, that's very much about the content. Just say my opinion is not to your liking. STSC (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said again, the issue is with your behaviour, your civil POV pushing.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all "POV pushing". I hardly engage in edit wars. I just make edits and corrections per WP:NPOV in a relaxing way. You and your friends do not seem to be able to accept in a real world there're people with different views from yours. STSC (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We also don't give let users post unsubstantiated libelous claims about living people, in the hope they maybe they will back it up someday. That's pretty much against BLP.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I dismissed the claim because I myself could not find any sources, not because I know Mr Wong personally. I don't believe it's true but I chose to let the user justify the claim if he/she can. STSC (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Letting someone justify a BLP violation is not OK. It is still a BLP violation. Anyway, I trust that you will understand.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, you may say it's a false claim but please don't use the term "libelous claim", you have insulted to all Vietnamese people. STSC (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying stuff like "please don't use the term "libelous claim", you have insulted to all Vietnamese people" is precisely the problem with you. This [80] comment is definitely defamatory and libelous but you seem to not accept it. All I see here is a refusal on your part to even understand the basic fact that the comment was a BLP violation.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To say someone is Vietnamese is libelous and defamatory? You don't see that's insulting to Vietnamese people? STSC (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So you acknowledge that there is nothing defamatory or libelous in [81], correct?--DreamLinker (talk) 18:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You avoided my question. STSC (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When you answer whether [82] is libelous or defamatory, I will answer your question. Your answer is important because it indicates if you understand WP:BLP, which is actually quite relevant here, since we are discussing your conduct.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked you the question first but you avoided it. I take it you agree it's defamatory and libelous to say someone has Vietnamese descent. STSC (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so not answering means saying yes. Wow.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I consider this comment [83] to be libelous/defamatory statement and a BLP violation, since you are so insistent.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this seems like over-reach based on the diff presented. STSC acknowledged they'd heard the rumour, said there were not reliable sources and that it shouldn't be included. That's precisely how one should respond to a BLP question like that.Simonm223 (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but posting random unsubstantiated rumours is very obviously a BLP violation and should have been removed immediately, instead of acknowledging the rumour itself. I would find it extremely unsettling if editors are allowed to post such rumours and let it stay anywhere on Wikipedia.--DreamLinker (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was a few years ago, but it demonstrates that STSC has been pushing for a pro-Chinese government POV to an extreme degree, justifying the "elimination" of a religious group: Not every cult is harmful. Falun Gong was considered as posing a danger to Chinese society and therefore must be eliminated from China; such process should not be described as "persecution" as if the elimination is undesirable. Wikipedia is neutral and should not make judgement on the Chinese internal policy for the good of its society.[84] That is quite shocking IMO, but that said, "detestable" views itself are not blockable. It should be assessed whether these pro-Beijing views were pushed in a disruptive way and how they communicated with others. --Pudeo (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to bring up here this old FG issue of 2015. Arbitration Committee had dealt with it long time ago. STSC (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    IvanScrooge98's edits in the area of Germanic languages

    Hello. Over the last year, IvanScrooge98 has made a series of dubious edits in the area of Germanic languages (specifically IPA transcription). The issue reminds me of LoveVanPersie. What's the same is this:

    • Inability or (even worse) unwillingness to read the relevant literature - in other words, issues with WP:COMPETENCE and sometimes also with complying with WP:RS.
    • Issues with WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT.
    • Relying on other users to clean up after him (or at least to notice his mistakes, he tends to clean up after himself after that).
    • Relying on other users to teach him phonetics/phonology for free instead of reading the literature.

    I should've reported him sooner, definitely.

    First the discussions, which IMO show his lack of competence:

    • In this discussion, he asked me whether we could manufacture a pseudo-consensus regarding the use of the secondary stress mark in IPA transcriptions of Swedish, regardless of what reputable sources say about the subject (so that he could keep editing in the area of Swedish phonetics). Other discussions about that include User talk:Kbb2#Blekinge and User talk:IvanScrooge98#Long consonants in Swedish - I think that they prove that he hasn't improved his knowledge in the area of Swedish phonetics and phonology at all. He had a year to do that.
    • In this discussion, he was pointlessly arguing with me that Swedish [ɪɛ] can be understood as anything other than a sequence of two vowels, which is unlikely (especially if you only consider those of our readers who can only read English IPA - in English, [ɪɛ] [mostly written as [iɛ] or [ie]] can't be compressed to [jɛ]). Plus, the pronunciation with [j] is possible in Swedish. Maybe not in all words, but it is possible and I gave him a source for that. That argument, as well as this discussion was a waste of time for everyone involved and a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. What else should you call repeating "I'm not convinced" or "I don't agree", no matter what I say? Pronouncing "copy-edit" as [ˈkɒpjɛdɪt] (or [prəˌnʌnˈsjeɪʃən] for "pronunciation") is impossible in native English. Here's a quote from Geoff Lindsey's "English After RP", page 25: [S]ome of the words which are most commonly mispronounced by non-natives are ones in which weak FLEECE and GOOSE are followed by a vowel, such as association and situation (see Chaps. 8 and 9). In such words, non-natives very often fail to separate the two syllables in 'ua' and in 'ia'. Here, FLEECE should be taken to mean HAPPY, which isn't a true phoneme in English (HAPPY = KIT in older Received Pronunciation, hence the transcription ⟨ɪ⟩ in some sources. Other sources use ⟨i⟩, which is a symbol that means "either /ɪ/ or /iː/".
    • In this discussion, I noticed that he misheard [trɔlˈhɛtːan] for [²trɔlːˌhɛtːan], which means that he knows little about the Swedish pitch accent. He was partially right about the long consonants though.

    Now the diffs.

    • He's made a series of mistakes when transcribing German:
      • He transcribed /ən/ after /m/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [85]
      • He transcribed /ən/ after /ŋ/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [86]
      • He transcribed /əm/ after /t/ as if it were syllabic, which is an impossible pronunciation: [87]
      • He mistook the syllabic [ɐ] for the non-syllabic [ɐ̯] just because it was preceded by a vowel: [88]
      • In this edit summary (of an edit that's a part of [this edit war), he told me that we should either transcribe [ʁ] everywhere (no source does that) or use [ɐ̯] instead of it (which is a solution used in a minority of sources). This shows that he's not reading the literature (AFAICS, he also wasn't aware of the fact that [aɐ̯] and [aːɐ̯] fall together with [aː] for all speakers who consistently vocalize their /r/ [though in regional SG there may be a difference of [aː] (phonemically /ar/) vs. [ɑː] (phonemically /aː/ and /aːr/)] - ⟨aɐ̯⟩ and ⟨aːɐ̯⟩ is just a convention used for the sake of phonemic identification, mostly for speakers of Swiss Standard German). The relevant discussion on his user talk page is here. In it, he admited that he can't really distinguish between a uvular approximant and [ɐ̯], which is an amateurish mistake. Most sources use ⟨ʁ⟩ or ⟨r⟩ after short vowels and ⟨ɐ̯⟩ after long vowels.
    The relevant discussion on his user talk page is here. These are amateurish mistakes that nobody who's well-versed in the area of German phonetics would make.
    • He's made a series of edits in the area of Icelandic phonetics, here are some of them: [89], [90], based solely on Help:IPA/Icelandic and Icelandic phonology#Vowel length (I guess he didn't know that Wikipedia is not a source and that they can be incomplete or even plain wrong).
      • This edit has an alarming edit summary - he shouldn't have performed it if he wasn't sure of the correctness of the IPA. Here's basically the same kind of an edit in another article.
    • He edit warred with me on Henryk Sienkiewicz over a regional IPA: [91].
    • He's made a series of dubious changes to Swedish IPA:
      • Somewhere in this discussion it becomes apparent that he changed tone 1 to tone 2 in some transcriptions based on his assumptions and/or his untrained hearing (again, how can you mishear [trɔlˈhɛtːan] for [²trɔlːˌhɛtːan] if you claim to be competent enough to transcribe Swedish into IPA?). I'm not sure what those edits are ([92] is one of them) exactly, but they were performed roughly between August 25, 2018 and September 1, 2018.
      • Here, when fixing the Swedish IPA, he forgot to change the first vowel to [æ], which is an obligatory allophone of /ɛ/ before /r/ in stressed syllables. Again, an amateurish mistake.
      • In this edit he basically told me that he WP:OWNS Help:IPA/Swedish (that's how I understand it anyway) and I should just accept that edit based on the fact that he knows what he's doing (whatever that means, he didn't feel the need to clarify that).

    I propose a topic ban for editing anything IPA- and phonetics-related in general in the area of Germanic languages (excluding English, with which he seems to have no problems). With such disregard for WP:RS we have no idea what he's gonna screw up next. It's not our role to clean up after him.

    It'd be great if someone could check his edits in other areas (Italian, French, Slavic languages other than Polish, etc.) Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, you did not understand (or pretended not to) my argument regarding Swedish [ɪɛ], involving instances where an English speaker might use /iə/. The examples you put are just unrelated.
    What should I say about the rest? My fault is that when I see a transcription that is more or less incorrect or does not follow what appears to be the implicit consensus stated in the help, I tend to try and correct it myself instead of using template tags such as {{fix}}. I must admit that, and all can do now is promising I will use them more often when I am not sure about my editions, however late this may be coming. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 07:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @IvanScrooge98: If they can read IPA it's impossible that they'd confuse [ɪɛ] for [ɪə]. Pronouncing English /ɪɛ/ as anything other than two consecutive vowels is a non-native mistake (and, in Swedish, unlike English, [jɛ] is a possible pronunciation of /ɪɛ/!)
    You need to have the WP:COMPETENCE to perform those fixes. That you can gain by reading the literature (WP:RS). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A concern is that editors are coming to conclusions about IPAs based on their own opinions as to how indirect sources in literature such as textbooks should be interpreted or as a result of their own WP:OR. Surely IPAs should only be added if directly cited WP:V? Help:IPA/Italian is a further snare in that it seems to encourage original work.SovalValtos (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern with this but I still think it's the optimal approach. It's preferable for Wikipedia to contain pronunciation information than not to contain it. It is also preferable for our IPA pronunciations to line up with IPA help pages, which means occasionally transliterating into IPA from other pronunciation systems or making trivial tweaks to what is in sources like dictionaries (remember that there is often more than one acceptable or established way of transcribing something in broad phonemic notation, for example in Czech the vowel <o> can be transcribed as /o/ or /ɔ/, it doesn't matter, but we use /o/ to be simple and consistent.) IPA help pages can be created from reliable sources in such a way that any native or competent speaker of a language can interpret them and know how to transcribe anything by analogy to the example words given next to each phoneme. Calling that OR is not that far off calling translating OR in my opinion. The main purpose of the help pages however was to help users unfamiliar with the IPA make sense of transcriptions (hence the "nearest English equivalents"), and when they were first created they were made intentionally over-broad and simple. I am not sure how much that still rings today as certain pages such as Help:IPA/English have become overcomplicated to the point of just becoming summaries of technical phonology articles like English phonology. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely IPAs should only be added if directly cited WP:V? Yes please. It's preferable for Wikipedia to contain pronunciation information than not to contain it. Not if it is just made up by random people with no basis in anything but their own opinion. Calling that OR is not that far off calling translating OR in my opinion. Obviously translation can be OR, and if there is a question of two different meanings/translations then the correct way to settle it is by consulting reliable sources. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably a Wikipedia IPA help page should not be used to justify one editor's preferred transcription as was done by User:IvanScrooge98 in this edit [93] having previously changed another editor's preferred version in this edit [94] without source? Later in this edit [95] he persisted in adding his version without supplying a reference and without consensus.SovalValtos (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SovalValtos: I had explained there was no need for further refs other than the one I had provided, as Modern Greek pronunciation is constantly predictable from the spelling. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 11:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. This is really unnecessary and premature. ANI is your last resort; you shouldn't bring anything here until other resources have been explored. Seems like you learned nothing from the friendly caution FeRDNYC gave here just a couple days ago. It also seems you didn't notice the warning at the top of this page, which tells you to be concise: I mean, do you seriously think admins and veterans who frequent here are going to read and understand all of what you wrote there? Invite editors well-versed in the area for their opinions at a more appropriate forum (like WT:LING). At this stage this is simply a content dispute. So seek for arbitration, not sanction.

      IvanScrooge98 is a prolific editor in this area and, as far as I've encountered and as far as the languages I'm familiar with are concerned, a very competent one. And there are few competent IPA editors, let alone such prolific ones. So far I see no reason to believe he will not be persuaded when confronted with reasonable evidence that disagrees with his behavior. So if he's not, then maybe you haven't been doing a good enough job convincing him. Have you, for example, asked for a third opinion? (I know I've been asked by Ivan, which I was about to get to, but then this happened. Thanks for your patience.) I advise Ivan to stick strictly to WP:BRD, i.e. always prefer the version before you arrived at the article whenever your edit is challenged until it is settled in a discussion. I advise Kbb the same. Nardog (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nardog: You're probably right. I'll let this discussion come to an end in a natural manner (unless more users join and decide that a topic ban is a reasonable solution after all - that could happen too) and will start a discussion at WT:LING. Though I don't see how this report (apart from the wording of a few sentences, which could be improved) could be understood as a personal attack. I saw sufficient reasons to report him and so I went ahead. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. Agree with the above, this is premature. I did as you asked and checked Ivan's scant contribs in Czech and Slovak and found one incidental error which anyone could be forgiven for and is of little consequence. I have more bones to pick with some of the English transcriptions being added (not just by Ivan) which I will gladly elaborate on in a more appropriate venue. Also, responding to one specific point raised above, if IPA help pages like Help:IPA/Icelandic are wrong (as in actually wrong, not just intentionally broad, which is by design), then I think our priority should be fixing them first before we get into disputes over individual pronunciations. I recommend using sources published by the International Phonetics Association to adjudicate any disputes around IPA help pages, as no one can sensibly claim that those are unreliable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked the Icelandic edits that are linked to and they are fine. The first vowel in Katrín is indeed long and IvanScrooge98 was right to correct that.[96] Haukur (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban. I checked the German edits that are linked to. I see no basis for claiming that any of them should be “an impossible pronunciation”. On the other hand, I know that Kbb2 rejects variants very strongly. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @J. 'mach' wust: Then you also don't know how syllabic consonants are formed in German. The first three mistakes in transcription are, in fact, an impossible pronunciation (which is how I phrased it). The first two would be heard as [m̩] and [ŋ̍] [which is a correct pronunciation and not necessarily very informal] by native speakers (their established transcription is [mən] and [ŋən], nobody would write them [mn̩] or [ŋn̩] except for few phonologists, these transcriptions are very abstract by the way and so is [tm̩]) and the last one as [pm̩], which is a serious pronunciation error. Neither German nor English allows the schwa in /mən, ŋən, təm/ to be dropped (in that manner anyway, the first two can be pronounced [m̩] and [ŋ̍] in German).
    The pronunciation of /eːər/ as [eːɐ̯] is colloquial and shouldn't be transcribed in an encyclopedia.
    Please leave the topic of Help:IPA/Standard German out of this. I have nothing against posts that genuinely support Ivan but your message shows a similar lack of research in the area of German pronunciation as Ivan's edits themselves. IMO it's also alarming that a native speaker that's been dealing with IPA for at least 15 years (if I'm not mistaken) would endorse those specific edits. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have dealt long enough with German pronunciation to be extremely skeptical when somebody claims that some plausible transcription should be a mistake or impossible or not allowed, especially when these bold claims are not backud up with any sources. You are accusing IvanScrooge98 of making mistakes and of using impossible transcriptions, but you have not given proof to substantiate your accusation. I therefore oppose a topic ban. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 22:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. 'mach' wust: You cannot be serious right now. Insisting that [mn̩], [ŋn̩] or [tm̩] are plausible pronunciations shows that you have no idea what a syllabic consonant is. Again, an amateurish mistake. I really hope that you're joking, because you're a native speaker of German. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly was not joiking. Substantiating your accusations would help you more than personally attacking me. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 22:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't ban IvanScrooge98. Although I have differences with that user, at least he's providing information (both English & foreign words) on phonetics & pronunciations. If you are a native speaker of other languages (ie., French, Spanish, etc.) & knows the rules of phonetics & pronunciations, do provide the correct information. Banning that user would be total loss to Wikipedia. NKM1974 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User Nicoljaus

    User Nicoljaus returned his version ([97], [98], [99]) in article John of Kronstadt, did not allow me to edit the article at all. He does not write neutrally. I suggested to write according to Kizenko ([100]), ([101]), but he doesn’t want. He wrote that it will be a fan club ([102]). I consider this to be an absurdity. I am sorry, if my edits were edit warring. Aleksei m (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    See WP:AN3#User:‎Nicoljaus reported by User:Aleksei m (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23, where should I write or can I correct his phrase? Aleksei m (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The best way to solve this is talking it out, which I see you folks have been doing on the talk page. I will chime in my 2 cents there to try to move this content dispute along. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What Aleksei m does is ordinary trolling. All his comments, all his nit-picking is nonsense. He himself will not contribute anything constructive to the article. He has one goal – to remove from the article all the negative facts about John (anti-Semitism, the patronage of the sect, the excuse of Kishinev pogrom, the shameful escape from Kronstadt) and make the Life of the saint from this article. To do this, he will seek a ban for his opponents. So he acts everywhere.Wlbw68 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is boomerang territory. I tried to engage at the talk page, and got a combination of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT problems. This dispute? Over the use of the word "moreover". Aleksei seems impervious to logic, and is incensed that someone would use the "moreover" instead of "however" or "also". Perhaps a language barrier? Or just a competence barrier. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV

    May we get some administrative attention over at AVI? Thank you. Lupin VII (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I fixed the header, I assume this is what you meant? Praxidicae (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae Er, no. More so the page being backlogged. Thanks for doing so anyways. Lupin VII (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davey2010 and uncivil behavior

    I'm going to be bold and close this complaint with a plea to all editors to refrain from profanity, cursing or personal attacks when you get into a dispute with other editors, if not for civility's sake then because you don't want to spend time at ANI defending yourself. There are better ways to spend your time on Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Note 1 :my two correspondance with this user are at [this revision], and [this revision], as the user removed it all from their talk page.
    Note 2 :much of the content of this is based off of my initial [post here], which I deleted when I saw the user apologized to the person they were singling out.

    On 14 August, I noticed Davey2010 had reverted an edit by FaZeBlueThunderShocker (talk · contribs) to Jake Paul which removed alot of cruft and unsourced content, re-adding all of the poor content. I reverted the readdition of the content and I left the user this message: "Hey, I know it may not have been your intention, but you should pay closer attention to what you revert. Your reversion at Jake Paul re-added a huge amount clearly unacceptable material, including two entire sections of unsourced content, which was also poorly written fancruft. ([103]) The edits by User:FaZeBlueThunderShocker, while not described well, were very helpful in removing alot of that. Please pay closer attention in the future! :)

    I did a little digging and then noticed Davey2010 seemed to be singling out FaZeBlueThunderShocker (talk · contribs) by following their edits across Wikipedia and reverting them: Actually, I'm now noticing you happened to revert another edit by the same user and claim it was "unsourced," when it was very clearly sourced.([104]) What are you doing?

    I did some more looking and realised Davey2010 had inappropriately given many warnings to FaZeBlueThunderShocker (talk · contribs) for "vandalism," which were not warranted:Hmm the more I see your editing patterns, the more concerned I am that you are abusing your editing privileges. It's not appropriate to have warned User:FaZeBlueThunderShocker with a final warning and you definitely should remove that. (Note that you cannot immediately use a final warning when there have been no other warnings issued or instances to be noted.) Secondly, you warned them for vandalism, but their edits clearly aren't vandalistic, they aren't even disruptive. Actually, you shouldn't have even warned them at all since the edits were valid. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism, specifically Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism and the subsection "For beginners." While you're at it, please also see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

    The response from Davey2010 was to remove my post and call me a dick, in breach of WP:CIVIL: [Mistakes happen, and I would've apologised right here had you chosen not to be a dick about about it.]

    I posted my initial post here because I assumed the worst but upon seeing that a few minutes later that Davey2010 had issued an apology to FaZeBlueThunderShocker, I removed my post to ANI as seen above. [Here is the apology and action which Davey2010 took]: Hi FaZeBlueThunderShocker, Apologies for the reverting and warning which I've now struck, It looked like you were vandalising and blanking content which is why I reverted but indeed you were actually removing unacceptable content (thanks for doing that), Unfortunately I only ended up having 4 hours sleep yesterday and then the day went wasn't great either but that still isn't an excuse to not pay closer attention to what I'm reverting so again apologies for reverting and warning you yesterday, I hope you stick around and continue editing :), Happy editing."

    I removed my post to ANI because of this, and instead issued friendly reminder to Davey2010's talk page [here]: Not matter how annoyed you are, you need to keep in mind that personal insults are against WP:CIVIL. There are two sections on this, one explicitly devoted to edit summaries. Thanks!

    Davey2010 responded by removing my comment and telling me to ["Fuck off."]

    The user, who has been editing here for 8.9 years now, needs to read up on alot of Wikipedia policy, and in regards to the last incident, WP:CIVIL, especially Wikipedia:Civility#Edit_summary_dos_and_don'ts, which clearly states:

    Review your edit summaries before saving your edits. Remember you cannot go back and change them.

    Here is a list of tips about Edit summaries:

    • Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess your changes accurately.
    • Use neutral language.
    • Remain calm.
    • Don't make snide comments.
    • Don't make personal remarks about editors.
    • Don't be aggressive.

    - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not really sure how his reversion of a repeatedly blocked editor above is uncivil, the fuck off, maybe but meh. Praxidicae (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So to be clear, a load of stuff happened around the 14th August which involved Davey reverting an editor and then apologising to them after you had posted on Davey2010's talk page. Five days later, on August 19, that editor was indefinitely blocked as a sock. You then didn't edit from 14 August until 10 September, when you posted an ANI report about an edit that Davey2010 had made on the 14 August. You then decided to lecture him on his talk page about civility for that edit from 27 days previously, which he was very unsurprisingly irritated by. And now, another three days later, you decide to bring it to ANI again? I think not. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fish supper? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Black Kite has summed it up beautifully, In short:
    I was OTT with the way I dealt with someone, I immediately apologised to that editor when it was pointed out the editor wasn't a vandal[105], R9tgokunks came to my talkpage lecturing me about CIVIL[106] to which I left a slightly snarky edit sum (Mistakes happen, and I would've apologised right here had you chosen not to be a dick about about it.)[107], A month or so later (this month) they file an ANI report[108] and then deleted it soon after[109] and again proceeded to lecture me[110] to which I replied "fuck off"[111],
    This all started because like I say I treated an editor like a vandal when they wasn't and like I said I immediately apologised to them when it was pointed out I was wrong .... so why in gods name are we here? ....,
    I will just add had R9 come to my talkpage in a non-lecturing way I would've happily admitted fault to them and apologised to them too,
    R9 really has made a mountain out of a molehill imho. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 20:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Praxidicae's "meh". @R9tgokunks: You say you "issued a friendly reminder" because of Davey2010's use of the word "dick" in an edit summary. It might could also be seen as a fussy reminder, especially since you posted it nearly a month after the offense. What was your reason for going back in history like that? I would have been pretty aggravated myself by such a delayed ambush. Please don't perpetuate this further. If I had been you, I would have just fucked off from Davey2010's page as requested, rather than going to ANI. Just sayin'. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Not to pile on, R9tgokunks, but while the editor you were defending wasn't vandalizing, the fact they have been blocked for the past three weeks for sockpuppetry should have made you think twice about filing a report involving them today. Even if this had been filed in mid-August, I'm not sure this rises to the level of an ANI report since Davey2010 did apologize. Blocks for incivility are not common on Wikipedia and the behavior has to be much more egregious and extensive than one "dick" and one "fuck off" to cause an admin to lay a block on an editor for this reason.
    • R9tgokunks, if it helps you at all to come to terms accepting this, please know that everyone who responded to you here has probably been called worse over their time editing on Wikipedia so it is not that we are unfamiliar with being cursed at. We've all been told to "fuck off" (or worse) so it is not just something you have experienced. It's just behavior that one usually shrugs off unless the personal attack is persistent or if the language is racist, sexist or anti-semitic. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Permit me to note the irony that the OP, the same person who rebuked Davey2010 in somewhat patronizing fashion for not being careful enough about what he was reverting, initially posted this a few days ago and then removed it because he realized that Davey2010 had already apologized. Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Never-ending dispute

    AnAudLife and I have been involved in a dispute regarding the sorting of The Real Housewives of New York City article since June due to their bold edit that did not adhere to WP:BRD. Since said edit, we engaged in an edit war, for which I received a block. During this block, AnAudLife proceeded to form a conclusion based on their own argument with zero user involvement. After the completion of my block period, a formal discussion on the article's talk page commenced. However, after a while, it felt as if they and I were regurgitating the same points over and over, which prompted me to request for a third opinion on the matter (given here), open an RfC, and request dispute resolution, all of which have not resolved the dispute. Now, I am starting to think that the reason for this lack of resolve is due to what I perceive as AnAudLife's refusal to accept that not one (myself), not two, not three, but four users believe otherwise and that the only person on the article talk page that explicitly supported their theory has been checkuser-blocked.

    Another isue that I would like to address is the constant broadening and narrowing of the scope of the dispute. After a third opinion was generated, AnAudLife, fully knowing that the dispute has always been about the sorting of a specific name on a specific article, broadened the scope out of left field. Then, during the RfC, it was back to the sorting of the specific name. I believe this confuses the discussion and makes it harder to assert points.

    In relation to the scope, AnAudLife keeps contradicting themselves. Regarding the subject of one's nationality and the part it plays in determining indexing, they originally stated: Myself and others still don’t know why you think her nationality is a factor at all. Then it became: That is why this conversation was started, sorting indexing, alphabetizing...should be done according to the name itself, not exclusively the nationality, acknowledging that there's merit in the opposing view without acknowledging the shift in their view in regards to the dispute. During this process, they also referenced a WP guideline without addressing that the exact guideline was used to challenge their view.

    AnAudLife has also exhibited a tendency to regurgitate points that have already been discredited. In regards to their claim that Alexandre de Lesseps is a Count and Luann maintains she is still a Countess . . ., I referenced two articles from the New York Daily News and the Miami Herald, respectively, that says the exact opposite. They then kept arguing their point, citing a dead link from a gossip site to support it.

    They also failed to adhere to WP:OR, with statements such as . . . I’ve spoken with 2 English professors casually regarding this debate . . . and In order for Luann to carry the title of Countess, she had to become a French citizen and maintain that citizenship . . . without citations.

    And finally, a personal attack in the form of an accusation of bullying. KyleJoantalk 20:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's ... a lot of discussion about whether to alphabetize it as "Lesseps, Luann de" or "de Lesseps, Luann". A lot. I understand it's easy to get sucked into this kind of thing. Eons ago I was sucked into a long argument about capitalization. Luckily I had a friend who noticed the dispute and pointed out to me that it really doesn't matter. I have some small hope that I can do the same for you. KyleJoan, I promise that it really doesn't matter how it's alphabetized. For that matter, AnAudLife, I promise that it really doesn't matter. The first one of you to realize that "wins". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input, Floquenbeam. I think at this point I have realized that it doesn't matter that much. However, I still take issue with the way the discussion was conducted. I don't know if you ever felt gaslit during your dispute, but I certainly have felt that way multiple times during ours, especially being accused of bullying, which was why I felt compelled to open this ANI discussion. KyleJoantalk 21:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you start this dispute here? When the moderator on the dispute page (that you initiated) here hasn't even written the RFC on MOS?
    I honestly can't believe most of what you just wrote on this page and I refute most of it. I invite everyone to read my contributions elsewhere on this topic, addressing every point you make, leaving nothing out.
    Why are you starting yet another argument in another place before allowing completion on the dispute page?
    Also, I didn't think I've ever accused you of bullying, but I have certainly felt that way myself with the never ending disputes and accusations. However, if you feel as if I have bullied you, I do apologize.AnAudLife (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never felt bullied by you. Never said it. Never felt it. Regardless, thank you for the apology. KyleJoantalk 21:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) This was so long ago that "gaslit" wasn't really a thing yet. I mean, certainly not before the movie, but before it became a popular reference. But yes, at the time I did honestly feel that way. With time and distance, I realize he probably honestly felt the same way. The "bullying" accusation is sub-optimal, but (a) if you take it as an honest description of how AnAudLife feels, it's useful info even if not objectively true, and (b) you're kind of accusing them of intentionally gaslighting, right? Seldom are these things 95% Person A's fault, and 5% Person B's fault. Usually they're 45% Person A's fault, and 55% person B's fault, and it takes a lot of real, honest effort to figure who the 45% is and who the 55% is, and at the end of the day, after all that work, the difference between 45% and 55% is so small that the best solution is "why don't you guys kind of avoid each other for a while?". For something as low stakes as this, is it really worth finding out? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "gaslighting" dates to the 1930s. --Jorm (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in no position to determine whether someone does something intentionally or not; I'm only saying that I feel gaslit, especially when every single one of my grievances contains direct links to specific instances of the problems I presented and they're still being disputed. I also do plan to avoid the dispute from now on. I think this ANI discussion is my final attempt to ensure that I address these problems in case they ever arise again in the future. KyleJoantalk 21:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that's... special. Is there even a MOS guideline for this? I have seen "De Word, William", "Word, William de", an algorithm that says De Word for single syllables and Worsmith, De for multi-syllable, I have seen "de Word" but alphasorted as Word, and so on. It's a muddle, so I am not surpised it's not settling. Much as I hate the MOS, this is really a job for a style guide. Best of luck. Guy (help!) 22:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a vague, horrifying recollection that Belgium and the Netherlands traditionally treat the nobiliary particle differently (one omitting it and one including it in alphabetization), so it's...difficult to write a broad rule for this that won't make swathes of people unhappy. Choess (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Different nations use different rules. The content issue that I was trying to resolve at DRN is whether the national rule should be based on the nationality (citizenship) of the person, or on the national origin of the surname. I thought that I had agreement that the matter would be resolved by an RFC, which I was in the process of drafting. Their arguments weren't going to affect me, because I was drafting it to be a neutral RFC to be resolved by the community. I had asked the participants in the DRN where to post the RFC to get the most responses. I am now asking the community here where I should post the RFC. I have failed the DRN discussion because DRN does not handle a case that is also pending in another forum including ANI. I am still willing to try to address the content issue with an RFC after any conduct issue is resolved here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I felt that the DRN had become a proxy forum for more regurgitations of points already made, and I knew this ANI discussion wouldn’t affect the neutral RfC Robert McClenon was drafting. My intention with this ANI was to address behavioral issues related to the dispute. If the dispute itself could still find a resolve, then great. KyleJoantalk 01:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I thought KyleJoan planned to avoid the dispute from now on, as I stated previously, I personally would still like to see the RFC that Robert McClenon is drafting come to fruition to be discussed with other users. I'm not sure that this specific case can ever be definitively and satisfactorily decided, especially without further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general. I noticed when KyleJoan begins a dispute she visits other users talk pages and asks them to visit said dispute and give their opinions. Is that standard procedure? Can I do that as well? AnAudLife (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @AnAudLife: To clarify, I'm distancing myself from arguing for the acceptance of one theory over another regarding this dispute. I still find your behavior problematic and will continue to respond to questions and comments revelant to said behavior as well as previous discussions that took place. Speaking of problematic behavior, it's difficult not to feel gaslit when viewing statements such as I'm not sure that this specific case can ever be definitively and satisfactorily decided, especially without further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general because you know good and well that you have personally initiated two MOS discussions, which others can find here and here, that did faciliate further deliberation from other editors regarding MOS in general, so the idea that the deliberation process on this matter did not go far enough is outright false. KyleJoantalk 03:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I fail to see that my "behavior" is any different than yours, you have argued your position just as vehemently as I have so there's that. When this journey (yes, that's what its starting to feel like) began, I felt that this case particularly was all that needed to be addressed, but then as other editors weighed in it became obvious that a more broader guideline needs to be established, not to mention all of the outside information available, it's mind-boggling. So the scope changed a little, it is not the end of the world. Either way it's a win for Wikipedia if we clarify this AND other cases in the future where this may happen. The discussions you spoke of, which I have NEVER denied initiating....nothing came of them. Nothing was concluded. Nothing was decided. Conversation dried up and that was that. Nothing changed. I'd like to see a RFC written by a NEUTRAL party and have other editors, not just the ones you recruit, to offer their opinions. Now if we're allowed to ask others to join in the conversation, then I will do so as well. AnAudLife (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @AnAudLife: One key difference between our behaviors: I've legitimized your view. Never once did you legitimize mine. You simply changed the scope of the discussion multiple times and took bits and pieces out of my analyses and presented them as if they've never been said in the discussion (i.e. acknowledging that one's nationality is a factor in indexing after weeks of denying it, referencing WP:MCSTJR, etc.), therefore, gaslighting. I'm going to stop engaging you now. I'll continue to address my concerns regarding your conduct if anyone else would like to discuss it. Thanks. KyleJoantalk 04:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I don't even know what gaslighting is and certainly didn't do anything underhanded or intentional. I merely stated my position and presented facts, when you would bring additional points to be discussed, I discussed them, you changed the content, you set the tone, I simply followed suit. You consistently brought up nationality, I had to address it, right? As well as all the other points you brought up? And if you must know, in this case, it's a mixed bag. Luann de Lesseps is French, Algonquin and French Canadian, born in America, married to a Frenchman. How's that for confusing? I'm sorry if you feel I did something wrong, I certainly didn't mean to and not sure that I did. Is this just because you don't like to be challenged? No one does but isn't that what we're all doing here, trying to better Wikipedia? Isn't that the ultimate goal? AnAudLife (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal A: Interaction Ban

    The above uncivil back-and-forth between User:KyleJoan and User:AnAudLife is oddly clarifying, in that it shows that we have two users who do not like each other and do not get along, and their interaction is a problem. I propose an interaction ban between these two editors, with the usual exceptions. I will complete posting an RFC within 48 hours, which should resolve the content dispute. The interaction ban will prevent the conduct dispute from interfering with resolving the content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Genuine question: Is pointing out patterns of behavior complete with direct quotes and direct links and addressing how said patterns make one feel considered uncivil? I really tried my best to focus on content, so I apologize if some of my comments went beyond that. That was not my intention. I always aim to use discretion to maintain civility, and I'm sorry for the times that discretion was lost during this discussion. KyleJoantalk 07:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Genuine question: What does all this mean? Does this mean when you post the RFC that neither one of us can comment on it? And that if we run into each other again like say 6 months from now that we can’t change each other’s edits...or challenge the validity of their content or even converse on each other’s talk pages? And that we can’t ever address each other again? While I joined Wikipedia in 2012, I didn’t begin actively editing until this year so I am new to it and am learning as I go along, please pardon my ignorance with what you’re proposing and help me to understand fully. While I’ve felt attacked and belittled and falsely accused, I still don’t hold it against KyleJoan and have also apologized if they felt slighted. AnAudLife (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

    Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:

    • edit each other's user and user talk pages;
    • reply to each other in discussions;
    • make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
    • undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
    • use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
    From WP:IBAN. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So you can both post to the RFC, just not comment on each others' posts. You have been commenting on each others' posts at too much length. You will notice that it also says that a no-fault two-way interaction ban is used to prevent a dispute from spreading. Also, you haven't been interaction-banned yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not plan to engage the other user, but if I can't raise concerns regarding their conduct or even reference their conduct at all, then I'd like to ask for another solution. KyleJoantalk 21:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (if I’m allowed) Assuming the other user abides by the ban, I can't imagine there would be a problem with this at all. I would feel a bit safer and happier if I knew this would end the turmoil, the reverts, the arguing. BUT, if they continue to revert or undo my edits or contact me in any way on Wikipedia, will I have a means to report them? AnAudLife (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (if I get to state a position). I feel that the interaction ban does not address the conduct concerns I raised about the other user. Now, if anyone would like to raise concerns about my conduct in this dispute and reference specific instances of when said conduct needed correcting, then I would like to hear them and have the opportunity to address and correct it. KyleJoantalk 23:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Zenodo and copyright

    This is not a user conduct issue, so not pinging the editors tangentially involved, it's a copyright and links policy question.

    The problem I am seeing is that Zenodo is on the OABot list, so people using OABot to add free to read links are very often including links to Zenodo, which applies, as far as I can tell, no checks at all for copyright status. It's not quite sci-hub, but it'as a problem per WP:C because what you get on Zenodo may be a pre-review copy (which may not be the same as the final published article) or it may be an upload of a published article in a paywalled journal, either by an author or by someone else. Neither the authors nor third parties have rights to upload copyright material to repositories like this.

    As far as I can tell, an article that identifies as being http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.040 cannot, per policy, be linked here from a third-party site that does not have a clear statement of right to host. I am not even sure we can make an exception for uploads in authors' own institutional web pages, because the copyright status there is also dodgy, but that's another question I guess.

    As far as I can recall, we have always applied a bright line rule: if the person linking a document cannot show clearly that the site on which it is hosted, is either the rights owner or is hosting it by permission, it has to be excluded. This was always the rule for, for example, scans of newspaper articles and the like.

    I need to check if my understanding of copyright policy is correct here, because if it is, we have to get the OABot folks to remove Zenodo from their source list, and then either roll back all OABot additions of Zenodo or review every single one by hand, and that is an absolute mountain of work. Guy (help!) 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I'm also concerned by this. WP:COPYLINK states our policy that we may not link to copyright violations (but we can, of course, link to copyright material). So that is a bright line so far as copyright ever is. The policy also states that we may link to internet archives such as Wayback because archives are not, of themselves, copyright violations. However, undoubtedly some of these archived pages will actually be of copyright violations but we hope they are sufficiently few that we do not ban all linking to Wayback "even if there are possible copyright violations somewhere on the site". Where does Zenodo fit in? Quite a few pages on my watchlist have had Zenodo added to them recently and some seem to be of documents that have fallen out of copyright but where the DOI link only gives obstructed access. However, a recent link was added to a Zenodo copy of this DOI which hence looks to me to be a copyright violation. Am I right? I think I found other such dubious links but I have lost track of them. Thincat (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jytdog's analysis of one editor's additions for a day showed 40% were copyright violations. I think the problem is significant enough that we should not be including Zenodo in OABot's list. Anything more than a minimal chance of being either a copyright violation or not the actual published paper should be disqualifying for an automated process, right? Guy (help!) 10:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I raised the use of Zenodo via OABot in the thread at User_talk:PedjaNbg#Adding_redundant_links_to_articles_with_existing_DOI_links. Slightly different concern as the specific examples I was referring to are definitely out of copyright in the US but we seem to be encouraging a breach of JSTOR's terms and conditions nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically on the issue of copyright, I was always told by Moonriddengirl that we do not allow links to scribd.com because of the copyright issues. Zenodo seems to raise the same concern. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Another never-ending dispute

    Whether the Kent State incident was a battle, shooting, massacre or riot should be determined by examining sources on Talk:Kent State shootings and that decision should be honored in references/links to the page on other articles. Be consistent and put aside any POV on this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An edit war between an unregistered editor 4.53.195.98 and I has now become a 3RR dispute. Before I request or recommend a page block, I would like to get feedback on the issue in dispute and opinions on a page block request.

    The article in question is List of battles fought in Ohio which includes the Kent State riot. The unregistered editor has repeatedly blanked the section and started the edit war by creating a section entitled "Block Spacini from this page" (please see Talk:List of battles fought in Ohio. I feel that I responded appropriately to this by pointing out that other riots are included in not only the List of battles fought in Ohio page, but on other pages entitled List of battles fought in X-state for example (noting specifically the Tulsa race riot (Oklahoma) and Columbine Mine massacre (Colorado). I even asked that the editor stop blanking until a discussion and then a dispute resolution discussion could be had. Today this was met with, "Kent state has been removed again pending its approval. Any content can be viewed in the history if needed to be seen during conflict resolution. Misleading and incorrect info does not need to remain on the page until then."

    4.53.195.98 is taking a very narrow view of what constitutes armed conflict/battle and is, I believe, taking a political position that the student protestors at Kent State were unarmed. It is simply not true that they were unarmed, although it is true that they did not have firearms. That is, I feel, a discussion that needs to be had solely apart from this page block request as part of the 3RR discussion, although it is important to note here as 4.53.195.98 has accused me of perpetuating "false information", deliberately misinterpreting the definition of a "battle", and whether or not the "murder of protestors" falls within the definition of a battle by reverting his blanking of the topic from the list page.

    4.53.195.98 is also unnecessarily repeating points that do not support his stance on this issue. Claims are being made that are ahistorical and even contradictory to points made in the Kent State shootings page. I simply cannot understand why this one riot/massacre is causing so much distress to 4.53.195.98 when other list pages, including the one for Ohio, has other examples of riots/massacres and they're not being reverted or requested to be reverted.

    Finally, this edit war was started by 65.60.152.41 which is, I believe, a strawman sockpuppet account for 4.53.195.98. Thank you. Spacini (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute. Go to Talk, provide reliable independent secondary sources that describe this as a battle and place it on lists of battles, and you're good. Otherwise, well, sometimes the anons are right. Guy (help!) 22:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Without reliable sourcing, we can't call that a battle. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See my comment on the article talk page. (Executive version: Kent State should not be included, Spacini should not be sanctioned.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, detailed discussion should take place on the article talk page, where I have commented. I find it somewhat disconcerting that Spacini chose to pipe Kent State shootings to Kent State riot, which looks like POV pushing to me. It was not the rioting of previous days (widespread in the aftermath of the invasion of Cambodia) that was notable. It was the massacre of four students, two of whom were not even protesters, that makes this event notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Anthony22

    Anthony22 has been warned by Bbb23 not to sock or try to circumvent his topic ban. If you have suspicions of socking, SPI is thataway and you are welcome to file a report with your evidence. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Just recently, after a long discussion, a topic ban was levied on Anthony22 [113]. During that discussion, Anthony22 made an implied threat to sock if he was sanctioned:

    "What good is it going to do to block me from editing? All I have to do is register a new account with a different username? Blocking me is the equivalent of putting a Medeco lock cylinder on the front door but leaving the back door open." [114]

    Today, on their talk page, Anthony22 reiterated their implied threat to sock in greater detail:

    "Topic bans and blocks can very easily be circumvented. A person can use the account of a family member, co-worker, friend, schoolmate, or another person to continue editing. If I were to continue editing in this fashion, you could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am the culprit." [115]

    Anthony22 has not made an article edit since 6 September, [116] several days before the sanction was levied on him. [117] I am concerned that today's repeating of the implied threat to sock and his lack of editing adds up to the possibility that Anthony22 has actually been socking, either with an IP, a new account, or a borrowed account. Unfortunately, if that is true, there's no way to file an SPI, because while the master account is known, the sock is not.

    I do not know how to resolve this dilemma. Do we just wait until someone comes across an obvious Anthony22 clone by happenstance, or do we take him at his word at how easy it is to get around his sanction and take steps to stop him from socking? And what does that mean? Should Anthony22 be indef blocked, or should a CheckUser take the available evidence as sufficient to take a look into things?

    Just in case the latter is the case, Checkuser needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned Anthony on his Talk page not to make any more threats.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Beyond My Ken. The probability that Anthony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made good on his repeated threats to sock combined with the wide-ranging and difficult-to-search-for nature of his disruption justifies a checkuser to find any socks and/or sleeper accounts. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, let's get this right, you want to checkuser an account because he said he would sock, there is no evidence presented of any socking, if such a checkuser request under guidelines is allowed I would be very surprised.Govindaharihari (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. They would need evidence of Vandalism; Sock puppetry; Disruption (or potential disruption) of any Wikimedia project; and Legitimate concerns about bad-faith editing. - if they or you can show evidence of such then carry on. Anthony22 has made 35000 contributionns from this account, the last content contribution was a few days ago after thirteen years of contributions here. this request to indef him or checkuser him without any evidence is undue excessive imo.Govindaharihari (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its already been shown than Anthony22 is disruptive, that's why he had a topic ban placed on him. And a threat to sock is pretty serious business. I'm not a CheckUser, so I cannot say exactly how serious such a threat is considered, but A22 has made it twice now, elaborating further on how it could be done in the second threat.
      Remember, Wikipedia is a private website, and no one has a right to free speech here, we have only the rights that the community and the WMF agrees to give us, and if those standards hold that threatening to sock is a sufficient condition to run a CheckUser, then I assume that one would be run.
      Of course, Anthony22 could just be blowing off steam, I don't know -- none of us know what going on in his mind, except that he's certainly thinking about how to go about socking, whether he's doing it or not. That we know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I just checked meta:CheckUser policy, and I don't find support for Govindaharihari's "They would need evidence" claim. That page says

    "The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, spamming, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects."
    "The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position)." (Emphasis added)

    We know that Anthony22 disrupted the project. The topic ban prevents him from further disruption of that type -- any further edits of that nature would be a "violation of the policies". We know that he is of the opinion that his edits are good, not disruptive. We know that he is of the opinion that he could easily engage in sockpuppetry to make further "good" edits, that we would be unable to detect the socking, and thus that the topic ban is useless. And we know that, unlike the case with a WP:SPA who goes right back to making the same edits to the same page, the nature of his disruptive edits makes finding him engaging in sockpuppetry with a search unlikely. In the opinion of at least two editors (Guy Macon and Beyond My Ken) this is "a valid reason to check a user". So far one editor (Govindaharihari) disagrees. The final decision will be made by someone with the checkuser right, all of whom are very familiar with the rules saying when it may be used. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Bbb23, a CheckUser, has issued a warning to Anthony22 that if he threatens to sock again he risks being blocked. I think for the moment this is a sufficient response, the danger having been brought to the community's attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User archived active discussion

    I have unarchived this discussion at Talk:Android 10 and editors can return to that talk page to discuss issues. Premature archiving is not ideal but it sometimes happens and can be easily undone if not everyone thinks that a discussion has run its course. Better to unarchive a discussion than to come to ANI on grounds of "incivility". Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User archived active discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAndroid_10&type=revision&diff=914534633&oldid=914534622 This goes against wikipedia's policy of civility, dispute resolution, and to communicate. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It may have been accidental, as OneClickArchiver lives up to its name. That, or since the discussion seemed to be going nowhere and hadn't been commented on in a week, it was an intentional archiving. That hardly breaks policy. If you feel the archiving was wrong, just open a new section on the talk page and keep talking it out. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't a week since a reply to that thread as it was archived on the 8th immediately after the last comment was left which was only a few minutes after the comment before. And the editor involved said 'archiving' in their last comment suggesting it was not an accident. You may be confused because the whole thing happened 6 days ago. Which may be fine if attempts to discuss it have proven futile and there is need for administrative attention, unlikely as that would be. But that isn't the case. There has been no attempt to discuss this archiving anywhere before this ANI that I can see. So why on earth is this at ANI? If there's something that "goes against wikipedia's policy of ..... dispute resolution, and to communicate", it's bringing someone to ANI for something that isn't so egregious it requires instant action, without communicating with them about the alleged problem first. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a discussion and the user shut down the discussion. Are you suggesting to repeat that cycle so that user can again have his fun by one click archiving? An attempt was made here that went no where. Thank you for looking into this matter,   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The user needs to be reminded that if they want to participate in a discuss, then that is their purview, but eliminating a discussion is uncivil. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Walter Gorlitz cares little for the opinions of other editors. This is habitual behaviour. Not necessarily instant archiving like this, but certainly he has a long record of seeing himself as a gatekeeper on a number of pages and no other views will be accepted. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you show me the active discussion Daniel?
    What I see is a request from me about whether bullet lists are necessary after you were reverted three times for inserting it. The three different editors all gave different reasons. I stated three different reasons why it wasn't a good idea: 1) a summary isn't necessary, 2) USEPROSE 3) references do not belong in a lede. You did not enter the conversation. A fourth editor stated that it was pointless and indicated that there were three other articles where you had done this. I did not recognize that you then entered the conversation and two days after your edit war ended and no one else discussed, you asked what the next steps were. I stated it was essentially a dead issue, you kept arguing that it was needed, but did so subjectively ("I find a list is the best way") and one of my reasons. I pointed that out, added that we were talking about "that new operating system" and stated the article should discuss the new features and the lede should summarize it and suggested that if you wanted a summary, that you should add one. You then missed the point entirely and wrote, "Are you saying the article isn't about what's new, but about the entire O.S.? There is a different article for that." I had clearly written that the article was about the new features in Android 10 but you seemed to think that only the Android Mobile OS was the operating system and I spent the next several edits trying to get you admit that it was indeed an operating system. You completely ignored the fact that I had asked to provide a prose summary. You were not, at that point, trying to discuss adding a summary to the lede, but instead you were trying to make a point about something immaterial. During that discussion, a fifth editor came in and wrote that "Having a bulleted list in the lead is ridiculous" and your response was to equate a bullet list with a summary. Meanwhile, the second-to-last thing I wrote in the discussion—trying to bring us back to a summary in the lede—was to make it clear that Android 10 was indeed an OS and that you're free to write a summary of the article, but to do so in prose. I then wrote, "Any further discussion that tries to be clever or obfuscate an actual discussion will result in prompt and merciless archival of this discussion." Your response to that was to stay on the "is Android 10 an OS or not" rabbit trail and not discuss how you'd create a summary, and then claimed that I disagreed with the article, which makes no sense at all.
    Meanwhile, you were forum shopping (at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Is_there_something_in_this_guideline_that_prevents_use_of_a_clear_concise_list_of_features_when_talking_about_update_to_a_operating_system?) where you were being told essentially the same thing. Having seen that and seeing that the discussion on the actual article was not getting anywhere, I archived it. I could have closed it, but I didn't. Your next forum shop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Grid#What_do_you_think_about_archiving_active_discussion?) resulted in telling you it wasn't a bad thing.
    I do not understand why you're getting bogged down in the minor issues. I also get the feeling that English is not your first language, and that may have something to do with why you're focusing on the wrong things in discussions. In short, I don't understand why you think bullets are most clear, and why you won't write in prose, but at least four editors do not want that on the Android 10 article and if I just sat back, you'd be told that same thing. I repeatedly said that if you wanted to write a summary of the new features in prose, you could, but—and I did not clearly state this on the talk page—referenced details about new features should be discussed in the body of the article and only a summary should appear in the lede.
    So to summarize: summary in the lede is good; referenced details in the body; bullets should not be used in the summary. That's what the discussion on the talk page should have been about, not putting words into other editors' mouths, and not getting caught-up on points not germane to creating an article about Android 10. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Walter Gorlitz is trying to muddy the waters by making this discussion into something else. For active discussion it is first link in this section. You reverted minutes after my comment. There was no forum shopping. Users are encouraged to discuss. First was the Android 10 talk page. Claim was made that it violated MOS:USEPROSE . Best place to discuss if that is on Manual of Style/Lists. And a pointer was placed. After discussion was uncivilly shot down on Android 10, as encouraged by dispute resolution, another discussion was started about incivility. Very far from forum shopping. User is being condescending by suggesting that English is not my first language. User is taunting me with this edit after he shut down communication on article talk page.
    Again this is not about content dispute. This is about incivility. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about civility though, it's about you not understanding the topic and staying on it. Talk about muddying the waters. There was no active discussion, there was you dancing around the fact that no one wanted bullet points and refusing to write a summary in the lede using prose and you refusing to acknowledge that. I probably should have walked away and the discussion would have gone stale, but this had the same effect. Feel free to open a new discussion but I'll not join unless you offer something salient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again the user is trying to change the topic. This discussion was brought up because of your incivility. You need to acknowledge your incivility and undo your uncivil action(s). Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledged that I should have left it in-place and ignored it. It was unconventional. I don't know that it was uncivil. This discussion should not be at ANI though, but you're new around here, so I think that's why it's still open. As for undoing it, not possible. I did, however, state you could start a new discussion. I take it you read that and are ignoring that suggestion just like you ignored the suggestion to create a summary in the lede using prose (from five different editors and climbing). Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Captain Eek, perhaps you'd care to explain this one too, where you used OneClickArchiver to close an open discussion on this page: [118]?
    There is never a reason to do this on a page with auto-archiving on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andy Dingley:Oh goodness, my bad. I did not look close enough, as I believed the discussion had been closed. I did not see that a new section had been opened, just that Bbb23 had closed it as a content dispute. I'll take a trouting for that, and someone is absolutely free to undo the archiving. I'll abstain from this thread too in that case. I'll also be much more cautious with my use of OneClickArchiver in the future. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Walter Gorlitz has a long history of hiding issues on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&curid=59539493&action=history Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That talk page does not have auto-archiving. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec w/ closure) Walter Gorlitz is under no obligation to keep comments on his talk page and can delete them at will per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages Buffs (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Cast-iron cookware

    NinjaRobotPirate has fully protected Cast-iron cookware while disputes are resolved. Uninvolved editors are encouraged to participate in article talk page discussions. Editors are also reminded that mockery not an acceptable response to other editors, especially good faith editors. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi all - two editors, User:Roxy the dog and User:Andy Dingley are reverting my edits, claiming they are untrue. They removed sourced information, and I even provided a more detailed source on the talk page. They then refused my multiple attempts to figure out the answer and figure where they're coming from - they haven't even provided a single source to back up their claims, after four attempts just on the article talk alone. Instead they mock my inquiries because it's "basic eleven year old school science"; "you're going to look silly"; that they're "much more concerned with [my] own competence to edit here, in the light of [my] basic ignorance". ɱ (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been correctly notified of this thread. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor concerned here should revise their basic highschool thermodynamics. There is also no reason whatsoever, other than just to waste others' time, to move this discussion from the article talk: to ANI.
    If you're one editor telling a number of others that black is white, or that reality doesn't work the way they all think it does, then it's time to look at your claims. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "High-school [originally 11-y.o.] thermodynamics" is not the issue here. ANI is about user conduct. I have been simply trying to rationally discuss the issue, giving a credible source, and you have been continually mocking and insulting me. ɱ (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here (p. 59-60) is another excellent source that disputes your 'basic knowledge' that cast-iron is excellent. In both conductivity and heat capacity, it is average at best. Mass of the pan is also important, a reason why cast-iron is often chosen, but a steel or aluminum pan of the same mass will retain heat better than cast-iron. ɱ (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If "ANI is about user conduct" (and it is) why are you continuing the content dispute here? That source and the reasoning about the quality of pans should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay fine, I am just continuing the conversation, showing that I want to find the answers, unlike the other two here. ɱ (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As well, I should note that these two editors have repeatedly reverted my and User:GliderMaven's unrelated edits, in apparently uncareful attempts to restore their preferred article versions. ɱ (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ɱ's discussion with Roxy just popped up on my watchlist, so I may weigh in on the matter if you don't mind. Roxy's behaviour is clearly unhelpful, as he shows no intention to settle the issue and instead resorts to unnecessary personal attacks (yes, accusing someone of a lack of competence without providing evidence does constitute WP:PERSONAL - see WP:WIAPA). Furthermore, they did violate WP:3RR with these edits: 1, 2, 3, 4.
    However, while Ɱ does show intention to settle the issue and is willing to discuss the issue, they have also violated WP:3RR and are editing back new information without consensus (furthermore, there are currently two editors, user:Roxy the dog and user:Andy Dingley opposing their changes and only user:Ɱ supporting the changes, so it doesn't seem like consensus for Ɱ's changes will be reached).
    Both users have violated the WP:BRD cycle several times, and both should try and discuss the issue first before edit-warring. However, as that doesn't seem to be happening, I am proposing that user:Roxy the dog receive a short block for violating WP:3RR and that user:Ɱ receive a similar block as WP:BOOMERANG to stop the edit war, and we'll see whether further action should be taken if the edit war continues.O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 16:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: user:Andy Dingley has now joined the edit war as well.O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 16:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am restoring cited content, reverting bad-faith edits, during multiple fruitless attempts to talk rationally and exchange evidence. If you think I should be given a block for that, the system's clearly pretty messed up. ɱ (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do personally believe that the system does require some improvements, and I have fallen victim to it in the past, but, as it stands, you have violated WP:BRD and WP:3RR, which is punishable with a block. It is indeed unfortunate that one of the two users that don't agree with you isn't even willing to properly discuss your proposed changes, but that doesn't free you from abiding by Wikipedia's policies (WP:CONSENSUS) and not editing in any new information without having gained consensus for it first. If you don't like these policies, you might propose a change to them elsewhere, but WP:ANI is not that place.O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 16:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you fail to understand consensus: it's not a vote based on number of bodies. Even in a deletion discussion, if 20 editors vote one way without providing any evidence or rationale, the 10 editors who do clearly state it rationally, clearly, logically, and truthfully will succeed. Andy's and Roxy's opinions based on "11 year old school curriculum" mean nothing here. ɱ (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that better than anyone. I was literally topic-banned chiefly for claiming consensus (where there was one), because some users, including administrators, could not understand than consensus is not a count of the number of votes, which forced me to edit-war, which eventually gained me my topic ban. However, here, you are trying to edit back new information without ANY consensus. As it stands, the only editor that supports your edits is you. Neither Andy nor Roxy need consensus to justify their reverts: you are the one proposing the edit, and so it is you who needs to convince the other editors that your change is worthy of being implemented. As of yet, you haven't done that, and so you should not be restoring your edits. It's really simple. Take a look at WP:BRD.O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 16:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As well, you're the first one to even mention edit-warring. Clearly Andy and Roxy don't care enough about rules and are continually doing that, and I won't let them simply get away with it. I am bringing them to ANI here for removing cited information, failing to provide sources, failing to discuss issues rationally and civilly, and insulting and mocking me repeatedly. What do you think of those issues? ɱ (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that both Andy and Roxy are being disruptive, but so are you. Someone else's bad behaviour doesn't justify your own bad behaviour. Also, failing to provide sources and removing cited information are not behavioural issues if the user is editing from consensus or status quo (which they are). And the other two elements that you have included only apply to Roxy the dog and not Andy.O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 16:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They are breaking many more rules, I was mostly attempting to keep 'citation needed' tags in place, something that only vandals and bad-faith editors remove. Edit warring to keep maintenance and citation needed tags intact from irrational editors isn't problematic. Like I said - they have no consensus over this topic, and both were failing to talk rationally and were insulting me, actually. ɱ (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "They are worse than me" isn't a good argument at all. You're still edit-warring, no matter for how good a cause, and edit-warring is always problematic. Also, please WP:Assume good faith; assumption of good faith is literally why Wikipedia exists. Finally, they don't need consensus over this topic - you do. You are the one proposing the change, and so you are the one who should gain consensus for your edits to be justified. Once again, see WP:BRD.O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 16:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One of them just caved in and started citing sources, though they're still edit warring, reverting my two good edits out of what appears to be WP:Ownership. ɱ (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked deeply into this discussion, but when you state that "temperature is a measure of heat", Ɱ, you've placed yourself squarely into WP:RANDY territory. Temperature is, loosely speaking, a measure of average molecular speed, and is measured in Kelvin; heat is a form of energy, and is measured in joules, an entirely different unit. Andy is correct: by equating the two, you've shown that you lack the subject matter grounding to usefully contribute to a rational discussion of this subject, regardless of whether you or anyone else is following the forms of rational discussion, civility, etc. I recommend you drop the point. Choess (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, come on, don't be like that. Even if you believe they've made a mistake, that's just ONE mistake. One mistake doesn't suddenly make an editor incompetent. By calling Ɱ a Randy, you are essentially launching a personal attack. Furthermore, as Ɱ has rightly stated, WP:ANI is about discussing behaviour - not content. Please stay on topic and do not create conflict where it's not needed. Lastly, heat, loosely speaking, is the total random kinetic energy of the molecules, so temperature and heat really do measure very similar things. Calling someone who says that they measure the same thing (when they do actually measure similar things) incompetent is overreacting at best.O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 16:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just insulting me further, thanks for not addressing the issue at hand and actually continuing being awful - the issue being people mocking me for not knowing "middle school science" and then finally citing sources that are wrong. ɱ (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an extremely rude response, I'm surprised you're an administrator. I am trying to figure this out rationally, people shouldn't expect me to have a master's degree in physics, but I have found that some of what Andy/Roxy were stating is factually inaccurate. So thank you for the boost of support. ɱ (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you read WP:EXPERT: "No editor is exempt from fundamental Wikipedia policies; in particular, the policies of no original research and verifiability", "Experts, of course, can be wrong; and different experts can reasonably disagree on the same topic.", "Wikipedia does not grant additional powers or respect to subject-matter experts."
    "Experts do not have any privileges in resolving conflicts in their favor: in a content dispute between a (supposed) expert and a non-expert, it is not permissible for the expert to "pull rank" and declare victory. "Because I say so" or "because I have a PhD from Harvard" or "I wrote the most-used textbook in this field" are never an acceptable justification for a claim in Wikipedia, regardless of expertise. All editors, whether they are expert editors or high school graduates must cite reliable sources for all claims. Likewise, expert contributions are not protected from subsequent revisions from non-experts. Ideally, if not always in practice, it is the quality of the edits and the reliable sources upon which they are based that counts." ɱ (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, Ɱ, not everyone saying you are wrong is being "extremely rude." Count me as another person urging you to drop this and go back to trying to persuade people to your point of view. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to say, though, user:Choess did call Ɱ incompetent because of what they believed to be one mistake. That is quite rude, in my opinion. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 16:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, no, I don't have to say. Perhaps I come from a more contentious background, or am just a congenitally disagreeable sort. Either way, we'll have to agree to disagree on this! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll agree to disagree!O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅? 17:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    RANDY based on one largely-true comment is obscene, I agree. ɱ (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ɱ may find my essay at WP:1AM to be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes. Close and send back to article talk page. Edit warring reports should be posted at WP:ANEW, not here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Changed my mind. There is more than enough incivility to require administrator intervention if it doesn't stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's about user conduct, as stated many times. ɱ (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Again ANI fails to do anything except scrutinize the poster's behavior, with little to no analysis of the reported individuals' behaviors. Consider this another useless report to add to an already useless system (though it did spur Andy to finally begin finding refs and improving the article a little). ɱ (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some incivility on the talk page and edit warring on the article. Both should stop. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry for edit wartring, I had not realised, and I was going to thank Oldstone for noting it until I realised why he was stirring the pot. He is the subject of a community imposed topic ban which I heartily endorsed at the time, and still do. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 22:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption by Guy Macon

    OK, this is just sheer disruption. Will someone uninvolved please revert it, and maybe griddle him a nice trout. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:STATUSQUO says:
    "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting.
    If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.
    If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles). Note that this process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place." (Emphasis added)
    --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Two "thank you" notices in the first few minutes after making that edit. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither from me, I might add!!;) -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: "breaking all of the references" (one reference, actually), see below. Re: heat/temperature and McGee, those are content disputes, and you have been around long enough to know that ANI only deals with behavior. You know, edit warring, incivility, bogus complaints against users who did the right thing at ANI -- that sort of thing. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there have been enough reverts already. I've fully protected the page for two days. Use {{Edit fully-protected}} when there's a consensus on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate, I was in the middle of searching through the edits and restoring any that were uncontroversial and not part of the edit war. I am fine with it as protected, but would you be so kind as to fix the citation error in the lead? Just reverting my final edit would be fine. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Aggressive editor behavior

    Editor SuperWikiLover223 has apparently retired, so I think I can close this complaint with a word to Johnbod to use more caution when characterizing other editors. Best to focus on content, not contributors, even--make that especially--during heated discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    Recently I made an edit to a page that was reverted because an "in use" tag (which was on for almost a day, and is continously put on the page despite sporadic editing), I had scruples with the current edits, and the editor told me to "Go Away!" in big bold letters, see here. Totally unneeded. A remark on my talk page would have been nice, and would have sent the message way better. I do not want to edit war, and would like to squash any animosity, but this behavior is making it hard. This is also recent:

    "He needs to back off, calm down, and come back in a few days to see what he makes of the article then. He also needs to think more carefully about many of his spray-gun arguments." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/915702345

    SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You have not addressed the aggression and persist to call my behavior "hysterical". This is what I mean. I would like to gain an accord but it is becoming difficult.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SuperWikiLover223, just today, you have been talking about this particular article at AfD, NPOV and, now, at ANI. And yesterday, you created a related article Machiavellianism scale, separate from Machiavellianism (politics). While Johnbod could have been more civil, this looks like forum shopping. Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but to be fair the split-off of Machiavellianism scale (psychology) was pretty much agreed on talk, by me & others. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I forum shopping? Never knew reporting aggression is forum shopping.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • SuperWikiLover223's recent edits are bizarre. Adding personal opinion to articles, no-hoper AfD and so on. I think the time has come for him to slow down and start asking for advice. Guy (help!) 21:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Screw this, if no one is willing (or simply ignoring due to favoritism) to see the other editor's errors, I just wasted my time. Nevermind this report.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to read WP:BOOMERANG. Guy (help!) 21:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When did I say I was above reproach? I think this is diverting from the original discussion, but since it is deliberate, I choose to let it slide. That's fine.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't simultaneously AfD an article, and claim that you're the only editor who can save it. I've certainly seen (and suffered) Johnbod being super-aggressive at defending his articles. But that doesn't (obviously) excuse this. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse what? Trying to AfD an atrocious article filled with NPOV and CFORKs? You people are hilarious. Seriously consider making a comedy trio.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you ought to tone down on the aggression yourself, SuperWikiLover223. El_C 22:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you my father, EL C? Is it past my bedtime as well? Oh please. Give me a break. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the admin looking into your conduct, which does not really inspire confidence, I'm sorry to say. El_C 22:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, while User:SuperWikiLover223 is not doing themselves any favours, neither is Johnbod - repeatedly calling someone else's behaviour "hysterical" is getting into personal attack territory and certainly doesn't aid in gaining consensus.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, twice, and that only because I copied my response at the section at the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard here. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    @Liz: Not so sure about that retirement...see Special:Diff/915728943 (edit summary), Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Machiavellianism_(politics) creffett (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Liz: I suggest you reopen the thread and note the change in username (the new one is charming).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor creating a string of hoax articles

    Berean Hunter has blocked Homer Simpsons666 as NOTHERE. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Homer Simpsons666 has been on Wikipedia since February 2018. During that time he has created a very large number of hoax articles about tramways and railway lines that he has made up. His talk page shows the many that have been deleted. I've just gone through and tagged the recent batch as WP:G3 hoaxes as well. On one of the very few occasions this editor has interacted with anyone, he admitted that the articles are indeed fake: [119]. It is clear that Homer Simpsons666 is not here to help build an encyclopedia, and no amount of deleted articles and talk page warnings will stop them. Could an admin review this, please? My suggestion (for what it's worth) is this user should be indefinitely blocked. Thanks, The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if they are hoaxes - Rowntree's Halt existed, for example - but he has learned exactly nothing about how to write a Wikipedia article. Guy (help!) 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    He's playing games in the virtual world and mentioned Grand Theft Auto 5 as the source. Blocked as NOTHERE.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Berean Hunter. On the question of Rowntree's Halt, yes it was real, the hoax is "These years we will reopening the whole line from york railway station including new railway stations and new railway junction will be can be opened as electronic railway track too details will be available this week. Work Start 15th July 2024 GTM. Work finish: 27th December 2030. Cost: £51,000,000" That's obviously untrue, he's not spending £51M with his friends on re-opening that station! We already have an article on Rowntree Halt railway station. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dave Meltzer disruption

    Black Kite semi-protected the vandalized article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For the past few months, basically every other edit to Dave Meltzer has been vandalism. Meltzer is notable for being perhaps the most prominent journalist to cover professional wrestling, which now falls under sanctions per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling. A discussion about this issue on WT:PW previously said that a request for page protection was declined. Can an admin here put something in place to make the page history more stable going forward? Thanks.LM2000 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not finding any discussion on WT:PW which references a RFPP for the Dave Meltzer article. I found this, but RFPP is mentioned, not (apparently) even applied for. Am I missing the pertinent discussion? KillerChihuahua 22:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a BLP, it's getting persistently vandalised (particularly, it seems by a dynamic IP with a point to prove), so there's no problem with semi-protecting it, which I've done. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In the linked thread, ★Trekker said on August 12 that a page protection request had been denied. Thank you, Black Kite.LM2000 (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unconstructive edits to get extended confirmed.

    Although edits like these could be more constructively done in fewer edits, I see no evidence of vandalism or that there is a deliberate attempt by Jhummu to rack up the edit count. No admin action required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user is doing unconstructive edits like removing redirect links, and adding again. He did all these edits to get included in extended confirmed users. Admin should look at his contributions to decide and block him for unconstructively vandalising the Wikipedia. — Harshil want to talk? 06:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Editcountitis at best and gaming the system at worst. EC requires 30 days and 500 edits, so quite possibly there wasn't a need to rack up the edits so fast, but again, all of this is speculation. We should explain to the editor that removing red links is not helpful and splitting edits to increase count is not helpful either. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Nanda sai karthik

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

    Can someone block this editor? See Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan: Revision history. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. El_C 06:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Long-term financial vandalism at selected pages

    This is the second time asking help for this matter due to continued vandalism. Last time it was archived without even a reply. Last post:

    A Mammootty fanboy is repeatedly exaggerating the budget of Mamangam (2019 film) and reducing the budget of his professional rival Mohanlal's Marakkar: Arabikadalinte Simham, disregarding sources. This is the nth time this guy is fudging the budget, even after multiple range blocks. IPs are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 (and probably more). Because of a single guy, both pages were page protected. Sometimes also damaging other pages by reducing the box office numbers of Mohanlal films and exaggerating Mammootty films, a terrible version of that can be seen in the 10th and 11th IPs. Another trick of this guy for reducing the budget of Marakkar is exaggerating it first to a HUGE number beyond expecting and then reducing it in the next edit to a desired low figure like he was correcting it. Probably unaware that there is a page history and people can see.

    New IPs: 1, 2. This guy has now created user accounts, Ayisha1209 [120], you can see other edits are all exaggerating the box office numbers of Mammootty films and the same "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit PHP7", now blocked and created M0hamedr0shan007 the next day [121], same activity and articles and the "Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit PHP7" and there is Xskullxxrider. Please use a check user or anything and find out who this is. 2405:204:D285:C47F:955F:3C32:2586:C082 (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ceoil

    Ceoil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), despite having a lengthy block log, is still engaging in personal attacks, including using "autistic" as an insult.[122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130]

    Related:

    --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm seeing this as a move towards indeff, rather than being actionable. This reads more as a grudge, and opening old woulds, some of which are very old. Also, why now & today? Reads more like an arbcom case rather than an an/i. I stand 100% over my comments at talk bus stop, where in I advised a fellow Visual arts editor to drop the stick and not be baited and was instead baited. To note the *The Cloisters* discussion ended with myself and Beyond my Ken reaching an amicable consensus and taking the page to FA. All in all, this all makes no sense, unless you consider the plaintiff had some of the very old diffs ready and waiting. Ceoil
    This has no merit.....seems like a vendetta...Ceoil is an important and articulate content editor...Modernist (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? You are actually excusing persona attacks because the person doing the attacking is a content creator? WP:UNBLOCKABLES. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the original post looks like grudge mongering, which is forbidden by WP:BATTLE. However, calling somebody autistic is out of bounds. Ceoil, would you please redact that word. The rest of the comments are just colorful criticism. If you agree, we are done here. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I retract, Jehochman, yes it was unnecessary. I was being overly dramatic to convey a decade long approach, but that said stand over my argument in context. Ceoil
    My 2c as the target: While there is plenty of NPA vio there, starting with "fool", I don't expect the community to suddenly start enforcing NPA now – and I've learned to ignore empty ad hominem insults, which say a lot more about the issuer than the target. Kudos to Guy Macon for taking ANI action where he doesn't have a dog in the immediate fight; we could use more of that; but this one isn't going anywhere. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which will never change, so long as those of us who believe in the fourth pillar continue to allow the sweep-it-under-the-rug crowd to carry the day.
    The "autistic" insult was the worst, but not the only personal attack Ceoil made in that thread, or since that thread [133], or even since this report was filed. Immediately after removing "autistic", Ceoil's next two edits are to Jesus's Guy's talk page, calling him "dishonest" and "coward". Just as we would not allow an editor to continue editing if they routinely ignored WP:V, or WP:NPOV, or WP:NOR, so should we not allow editors to continue to edit while routinely ignoring WP:CIVIL. A change in behavior by Ceoil should be a prerequisite to their continuing to be a part of this community. – Levivich 15:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Levivich, its commonly known as reacting to being poked by out numbering antagonists, aka baiting. I note you are taking this grudge from my wife's talk page...for shame[134]. Ceoil
    Why should it change? It is only a small group of campaigners such as yourself who make such a big deal of it. Most of us have thicker skins and/or realise that tempers will flare from time to time. We can't even decide what is civil, so whinging about sporadic accusations of incivility by people who actually do most of the ground work here isn't particularly useful. If you want a social website, where you can make lots of friends, try Facebook - although even there you'll see lots of vitriol etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [135] talk
    This was not tempers flaring, nor a momentary lapse, nor an understandable loss of patience.
    • The first insulting post directed at Mandruss took five edits to construct: each one more insulting than the last: [136] [137] [138] [139] [140]. "Fool" was added in the fifth edit. This shows a deliberate and careful effort at drafting a personal attack.
    • The second insulting post directed at Mandruss took seven edits to construct, again, with the edits increasing the level of personal attack: [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147]. "Autistic" was added in the sixth edit, and then Ceoil came back in a seventh edit to change "you autistic" to "your autistic".
    • A third insulting post directed at Mandruss took five more edits to construct: [148] [149] [150] [151] [152]. That last one, complaining about "your bludgeoning superior approach", was the seventeenth personal-attack edit.
    After all that, they made the other PAs against me and Guy that I referred to above. This is routine incivility, on multiple pages, towards multiple editors. – Levivich 16:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I rather think you and Guy are inviting feedback. Lets be honest about what is happen ing here. Guy is punting, you are being dishonest and trying to get at Kafka Liz through me. Thats vindictive, and if you get called then maybe next time wear big boy pants. Its clear Guy's approach is entrapment. Ceoil
    • I would have thought taking multiple edits to construct something, certainly to this degree, is the very definition of someone's temper flaring. It's the equivalent of spluttering. - Sitush (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a case of an uninterested observer. Guy has been waiting for an opportunity to get Ceoil banned. If persistent, this behavior is called headhunting, and is itself sanctionable conduct when extreme. Guy, thank you for raising a valid concern about the word “autistic”. Ceoil has agreed to fix it, and hopefully we won’t be back here again. Please consider that our goal is to help every editor be their best self, not use their weaknesses to set up their downfall. Jehochman Talk 15:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps a review of WP:CIVIL is required, as it seems to be brought up often that it's being unevenly applied to editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Goddday's primary concern is about standardising image size, a trivial matter, but why he is posting here - he sees the opportunity to eliminate a perceived foe. It seems fantastically shallow, but that is obv why he is posting here. This is the easy picking baggage you carry if have a block log like mine (that even most the then involved admins is undeserved). Ceoil
    ...and right there is another personal attack by Ceoil. – Levivich 16:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude I'm just calling that all might not be as it seems and that some (including you) are using CIV to further unstated aims. Again, for shame. Ceoil
    I've been around the topic of WP:CIVIL on many occasions. Have always been in favor allowing editors to 'express' themselves. Political correctness isn't something I would promote. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm unaware of any "grudges", and such allegations need to be substantiated or at least explained. The original post on Bus Stop's talk page seems innocuous and valid, and not remotely something that would prompt that subsequent, protracted campaign of egregious personal attacks. I'm inclined to block unless there's actual convincing proof that this is nothing but an existing conflict between these two or three users, but in that case, an IBAN is probably warranted if it's descended to such blatant name calling. Swarm (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That has been tried umpteen times in the past and ArbCom have had words to say about it, too. We've also had noticeboards such as the Wikiquette (or whatever it was) that have come and gone. Uneven application is in the eye of the beholder and it just happens that we have a few very vocal, quite new contributors who are going ape shit about it. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Swarm is inclined to block, omg, go on then, do your worst. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG, let's block the man who admittedly cannot spell (there's um, a word for that, but I don't want to shame anyone, unlike the rest of you), for ... um ... not being able to spell. So happy to see that Levivich can count the number of edits it took. Victoria (tk) 16:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubt anyone would really question a NPA block here. Fairly simple tl;dr, Ceoil repeatedly attacks editors and reasons their attacks to be the product of "baiting", AGF can only extend so much. If getting baited is an issue and you need to attack editors to make your point, it is impossible to be part of an online community like Wikipedia and work productively (WP:CIR). --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Like 70 featured articles and that's not productive?? Fuck this place and all you people. Victoria (tk) 16:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Victoria. QEDK, why not sort out the fucking baiters? You're putting the cart before the horse. - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I admire the tenacity you put into your first interaction with me anywhere Victoria, but I can see the apparent issue so let's put it clearly here. And replying to you too Sitush, I will admit baiting is not okay, but nor are personal attacks because if you need to use personal attacks while interacting with a person, then maybe you should not be interacting at all. I think there is a definite issue with the fact that you think personal attacks are justified anytime in the first place, accidents are fine, but here, a pattern has been demonstrated and saying you got baited is well ...pointless. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I have is there is an incredibly low blow (not from Ceoil) right here on this page, and I don't think an ANI report justifies crucifying someone. There are better ways to go about these things but generally bludgeoning, something along the lines of how many zombies can I kill in this video game, is the status quo in these threads. I don't like it. I don't like that just because Ceoil was rude everyone else gets to be rude too. Why? Aren't we better than that? Any of us? I'd like to think so, but it's been really really hard since June. The writing is on the wall in terms of detoxification and whatever it takes to pull the weeds, then fine. But in the end the product, the encylopedia itself, and the people who create it for free, suffer. Victoria (tk) 17:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you apparently don't have a problem with the use of "autistic" as an insult, which statement was the "low blow" with which you do have a problem? – Levivich 17:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 with QEDK, I think a NPA block is quite reasonable and in line with our policies. It's greatly disheartening to me that there's a sizeable and vocal crowd of editors who will go to any length to justify retaining editors who do good work regardless of how many other editors they drive off in the process. Sam Walton (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems fairly open and shut doesn't it. Civility is something every editor is required follow regardless of the situation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I suggest that these two folks disengage. If they are both on board, it would not require an interaction block.
    Obviously, we need them to act on WP:Civil and to promise on their honor to keep the peace.
    This is all old business, and much ado about nothing. Name calling is a waste of everyone's time, as is repeated trips to WP:ANI. Sincere mutual apologies for ill considered over reaction would go a long way toward putting oil on the waters.
    I apologize for getting involved, and mean no aspersions to anyone. I am simply proposing a truce.
    Good editors are hard to find. And keep. Both of them are important and consistent content creators. Good behavior is important, as is good content creation. Editor retention is an important value that cuts in all directions here. The least restrictive alternative that keeps them both on board is a win for them and the good of the project. That is my cherished hope. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Which two editors? There are not two editors making personal attacks at each other here; there is just one editor in all of these diffs. Mandruss said nothing in that talk page thread that was uncivil, where as Ceoil made multiple attacks at Mandruss and others. (Guy Macon also has not said anything uncivil to cause Ceoil's attacks against him.) This kind of false equivalence and everyone's-at-fault thinking is part of the problem. Only one editor in that talk page thread was chasing away good editors–the one using "autistic" as an insult (among half a dozen others). – Levivich 17:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can fix the blame.
    Or you can fix the problem. I proposed doing the latter for the good of the project. But I can't make anyone sheath their swords. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I commend to you the analogy that one person has a sword, and you're arguing "arrest them both, for the good of the community". We can't fix a problem if we don't identify it correctly. – Levivich 17:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds very nice, but you can't fix the problem without fixing some blame. The "Can't we all just get along?" approach has been tried for many years as an alternative to behavior policy enforcement, longer than I've been around, and the countless threads like that one are the very predictable result. I'd like to say that Wikipedia will be what a majority of its editors want – in which case editors like Levivich and me just lose and that's too bad – but the truth is that Wikipedia will be what a majority of editors who frequent this page want. And that subset is anything but representative of the community, as an enormous number of calmer, gentler, more reasonable editors avoid this page in droves because they can't stomach the persistent hostile tone here. That situation is what the behavior policy is designed to prevent. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to address Mandruss. Sorry man I personalised. We are perennially at odds on modern art images, and too often talk past each other. The conversation to date has been all (us) or nothing (you), lets try and find middle ground, maybe via a third part, and maybe an admin here could suggest. Ceoil

    Perennially at odds? I recently had a brief content dispute with you about the use of |upright= with images in a single article, and I deferred to you. Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall one other similar interaction years ago, and I'm fairly certain I deferred to you there too. In what universe did that "history" remotely justify your calling me a fool, even if regretted after the fact? Apology accepted through your second sentence, but please don't frame this as anything but a complete failure to AGF and moderate your own language – both of which are blockable especially if they are part of a long-term pattern. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly oppose blocking any editor who has contributed to this thread. Instead, let’s try to help each other instead of grossly uncivil activities like block shopping, tag teaming and headhunting. Ceoil, please redact the remark we agreed you’d redact and then let’s all move on. Jehochman Talk 17:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Post-close discussion

    • While I happen to agree with him that a block for Ceoil might not be helpful just now (it's been a hard few weeks for Eric's crew and I feel we should cut them some slack) I'm getting more than a bit tired of Jehochman declaring discussions suddenly over and imposing his supervote. Cut it out. EEng 18:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This one was a peach. Jehochman casts aspersions [153] [154] and then closes the thread. The target of the above ANI report went to an admin's talk page, who responds, "be careful...I’ve been trying to thwart any efforts...", and then promptly closes the ANI report. It's almost insulting in its obviousness. – Levivich 18:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • lol at the description of the number of edits it took to mold the insults, with 'fool' not added until the fifth edit. Comic gold. Hey everyone, maybe realize that everyone here is editing and creating one of the finest human endeavors in the species' intellectual history. Assume good faith works, and luckily everyone involved is used to being insulted by this time in their Wikipedia career. I haven't followed the case, but it seems a recent indef of a popular editor who played a little with a couple of socks is causing some loud hurt. Someone please lessen that ban to a reasonable month or two, and cake all around. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terrible close. Move to reopen. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jehochman: I strongly suggest that you either substantiate your accusation against Guy Macon with diffs or apologize. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This entire thing is a mess and probably needs to be shut down, but not with an involved close. Lepricavark (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      shameless linkspam: Yes, by all means let's get one of our WP:UNIVALVED or WP:UNEVOLVED admins to make the close. EEng 19:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the autistic comment still hasn't been retracted IMHO this should've still remained open, The damage has been done and reopening this now would be pointless and would no doubt create more drama, Knock off the autistic comments and comments such as this and everyone will live a happier life. –Davey2010Talk 19:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is the second time I've reverted a premature close by Jehochman. I don't want to make a habit of it, but this one was clearly involved and inappropriate. Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was retracted, if not redacted. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:7&6=thirteen "The very definition of a strawman, in fairness well done, but used to further a campaign of harassment and baiting based on shallow and ungentlemanly reasoning. Your autistic, single purpose career here is similar to anti-matter, adding nothing, disillusioning many; you are not respected. Ceoil (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)" (emphasis mine). –Davey2010Talk 19:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you ought to read what you're linking to as he didn't even remove the word .... –Davey2010Talk 19:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Now removed, I would suggest someone closes this so we can all get back to improving the project. –Davey2010Talk 19:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lmatt and Disruptive Editing

    Recently Lmatt, an old user that was more dormant until this year, has been making many disruptive edits to controversial pages TERF and Transgender as follows:

    Edits to TERF (note: active RfC for LEAD wording active since prior to Lmatt's edits)
    • [155] WP:LEAD Rewriting (1)
    • [156] WP:LEAD Rewriting (2)
    • [157] WP:LEAD Rewriting (3)
    • (User Paused Edits For Few Days After Twinkle and Manual Warnings)
    • [158] WP:LEAD Rewriting (3)
    • [159] Remove Well-Sourced Paragraph (Claiming WP:FRINGE)
    • [160] WP:LEAD Rewriting (4) - Incorrectly redefine "TERF" as term instead of acronym
    • [161] Remove Sourced Paragraph (Claiming WP:UNDUE)

    (Edits likely ongoing)

    Edits to Transgender

    Mathglot and I have warned the user on their talk page many times about disruptive editing and tried to influence them toward the consensus-building processes (Talk/RfC). However the user appears to have ignored most of the discussion methods and continues to disruptively edit.

    I decided to list the incident(s) here because of multiple issues. Not only has Lmatt's behavior disregarded consensus standards, some edit wars have occurred, and considering both pages are controversial gender-related articles, the behavior likely violate current ArbCom sanctions regarding gender-related disputes. In addition, Lmatt's ECU status precludes easy page-protection limits or reversions. As such, I request admin intervention for the foregoing reasons. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 14:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gwenhope: Unfortunately I did not know about the RfC before I saved my edit to the lead section on Transgender. Flyer22 Reborn reverted the edit and warned me on the talk page about making any further edits to the Transgender lead section. After Mathglot gave me some helpful guidance on my talk page I have tried to bear WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY in mind and explain my edits to TERF on the talk page. Lmatt (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is best on controversial articles to gain consensus or explain before you edit. Regardless you have even continued to edit more today even after all the edit warring warnings and RfC establishments. This morning you deleted first and discussed later. Regardless, I would like an admin to weigh in. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this edit on Transgender [171], which I would have self-reverted had you notified me of the RfC, I have avoided making any reverts on controversial gender-related articles and I have not edited any wording being discussed in an RfC. Lmatt (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone explain ECU status is? Lmatt (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It means Extended Confirmed User, see: Wikipedia:User access levels#Extended confirmed users. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Music proekt

    Could an admin take a look at User:Music proekt's edits (e.g. edit warring to repeatedly remove a deletion tag)? DexDor (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Belarusian music chart "LF Top Songs"

    This page is not related to Alex9777777, please do not delete the category!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Billboard_Hot_100_number-one_singles there is , then let it be and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Belarusian_music_chart_%22LF_Top_Songs%22 The world is equal for everyone, the category has the right to exist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The chart has official pages -> https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x Please respect the work of other people and do not delete the category!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music proekt (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=915881181"