Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Amirhosein Izadi

I am surprised that my proposal to ban User:Amirhosein Izadi on account of hoaxing was archived without being refused or heeded. A subsequent sockpuppet investigation had a checkuser request declined, but hoaxing is still a bannable offense, right? I saw no counterarguments being made in the last discussion in regards this user being a hoaxer. He's done this multiple times and has voiced no intention to stop. So, again, i believe it may be necessary to block this user to prevent him from creating further hoaxes. Once he's stopped from creating further hoaxes i'd like to go through his articles and see what is and isn't a hoax. Please consult Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Turkmen Sahra and the previous ANI thread as to how i've deduced this user is a hoaxer. I find this case bizarre, never before have i seen an unopposed proposal be archived and ignored. Koopinator (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It's possible that your thread was archived due to inactivity rather than because an admin declined your request; I think WP:ANI has an automated script which does that. I think one of the issues also is that the user (Amirhosein Izadi)) stopped editing a week ago so the situation would appear at first glance to be less urgent. In the mean time, I think it would be helpful to go through his contributions to identify potential hoaxes. I have tagged one article already as a hoax which you identified, and I am willing to take a look through his history later today to see if I see anything obviously fake. Michepman (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, my first ANI thread was created only a few hours after that user's last edit. The only reason i'm now creating this thread on a week-long inactive user is because the admins have been taking their sweet time with taking action. I think it's better for me to get to work with these hoaxes now rather than wait for the day that the admins actually enforce this consensus. Hopefully that day comes sooner than later. Koopinator (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koopinator: in my experience, just grab the nearest admin and ask for their comment. Also, the less words you make people have to read, the better. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, but have been noticing this case as it develops. Archiving is automatic; it appears your thread was simply overlooked. Good on you for bringing it up again. I support an indefinite block on the hoaxer. If no admins respond, as MJL said, you may have to ask someone directly. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: can you please look at this thread and take action? Koopinator (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Previous Thread: I think Archived here. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC) someone erased this comment twice - not sure why - please explain.

• I removed it twice because the OP linked to it in their initial post, so your link is unneccessary. Surely you know how to look at the revision history of this page to (a) see it was I and (b) see my edit summary explaining why I removed it. But all that for absolutely nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Doh...Thanks, by the time I look for the diff, there are always so many new posts that I could not be bothered to weed through them all. I just kept reposting. I also did not see that the OP included it and that is my mistake. Lightburst (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Viewing the user's fawiki contributions shows "07:28, 10 December 2018 Sunfyre blocked Amirhosein Izadi with an expiration time of indefinite". @fa:User:Sunfyre: Would you mind outlining what the problem was at fawiki? Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's quite concerning. FWIW, I did see the earlier thread. Did not comment at the time in part because what I saw was suspicious but also quite difficult to assess given the obscurity of the subject matter of what they were dealing with. They failure to offer us any explanation was not re-assuring, still I also did not want to kick out an editor who may be an expert on an obscure non English subject area just because of a misunderstanding. While I can't say for sure, I wonder if other than the time of year others also felt the same, hence the limited response. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: At this point i don't think there's any remaining doubt as to this user being a hoaxer. Consider the article Ice Flower (album) by the same creator. "Ice Flower has been featured in several prestigious publications, including the Los Angeles Times" - this sentence is sourced to this article, freely available online. The reference looks convincing, it is from the right publication and the title looks related to the subject matter, the only problem is the source's text does not make a single mention of an album called ice flower. It is deliberately intended to deceive the reader into thinking the reference & info is legitimate when it isn't - a textbook definition of a hoax. I see no reason to keep this thread open or keep this user unblocked. When i first failed to find the sources, my mind went to the Bicholim conflict investigation from 2012. In that case, the AFD immediately led to the article being deleted in a day and the editor being banned within a week. I wish this investigation would've gone that smoothly - that there's wouldn't be a need to wait a week on my unopposed AFD, that i wouldn't have to make 2 ANI threads, no separate sock investigation, no cross-wiki shenanigans, no admin user saying it could all be a misunderstanding and that jazz. Koopinator (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The block log entry at the user contribution page at fa-wiki [1] contains a Persian word with a link. That word put into Google Translate comes out as "Sabotage". It links to a policy page [2] that is apparently equivalent to our WP:Vandalism, per both putting the top of it into Google Translate and the interwiki link. That page of ours does talk about hoaxes. This is all very consistent with this editor being a hoaxer. I am going to notify Sunfyre on their talk page on fa-wiki to ensure they see this, in case that link did not generate a ping. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Thanks. My ping did not work. I forgot that a normal User:Example link is needed to generate a ping, not fa:User:Example. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• User:Amirhosein Izadi (User:Amir.85) is WP:SNEAKY: The user is suspected of creating false articles.--Sunfyre (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• • Thank you Sunfyre. Here is Sunfyre's reply to me at fa-wiki: [3] The translation (with some commonsense tweaks) reads:
  • @Crossroads: Hello, User: Amirhosein Izadi, User: Amir.85, He was making inaccurate information with both accounts, so he was denied access. (en: WP: SNEAKY), For more on this, read this and this. - SunfyreT
  • Each "this" gave me a link. Each discussion can be pasted into Google Translate and read. They are not long, but they establish that this user's content is not trustworthy and most editors were saying his content should be deleted.
  • This all supports that both Amirhosein Izadi, and the account Sunfyre has just mentioned, Amir.85, should be blocked indefinitely. The Amir.85 account does have 2 edits on en-wiki from just the last few months the latter part of 2018, [4] so it should be included.
  • I concur that this user's content is not trustworthy and should be deleted. All of it. Only exception should be if someone else has personally verified it, but that won't be the case generally, as most of the sources are in Persian and it is too hard to check each piece. We already know this user is a liar, and even if there is content that is partly true, it is still totally misleading. I know Koopinator has PRODded some of the hoax articles - I think the rest should also be put through PROD or AfD (possibly AfD to prevent WP:REFUNDing, and perhaps they could be bundled into one nomination as well). Finally, any PRODs that get removed for some reason should be sent to AfD.
  • I think we should also commend Koopinator for insisting this not fall by the wayside and for tracking down and destroying false information. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Crossroads: Thank you for your kind words. While i think a lot of this user's articles are unsalvageable, there are some articles from this user which i think should be partially kept. These are Battle of Rasht, House of Dadvey, Mohammad Qoli Salim Tehrani. Recapture of Isfahan, Siege of Tabriz (1908), and Atabak Park Incident. These articles were translated from good-faith articles from Persian Wikipedia, with the user in question adding fictitious material. I used Google Translate on the original articles to get an idea which claims were fabrications and which were good-faith importations, then i removed the fictitious material and copied the original sources to verify the good content. In Battle of Rasht i also added a small amount of information, since i was familiar with the subject at hand. Koopinator (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Agreed with you here. Basically my thought was that any content original to this user should be presumed false. If some of it was on a page created by him, but was original to good faith users on fa-wiki, then that could be fine. You seem to be doing the right thing with regard to what to save and what to cut.
      • Johnuniq, any further thoughts at this point on the two problem accounts? -Crossroads- (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @Crossroads: By two users, do you mean Amirhosein Izadi (talk · contribs) and Amir.85 (talk · contribs)? The latter has a total of two edits, plus several entries in the edit filter log, and no activity since October 2018. The former has no activity since 27 December 2019. If they were to resume editing and declined to engage with other editors asking about the veracity of their articles I would be willing to block indefinitely until a satisfactory explanation was available. However I do not see proof of a hoax at enwiki and blocking now might not be right. I'm sorry to drag this out but can we leave it another week and see if they have resumed editing. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
          • @Johnuniq: You see no proof of hoaxing? To repeat myself, consider the article Ice Flower (album) by this user. "Ice Flower has been featured in several prestigious publications, including the Los Angeles Times" - this sentence is sourced to this article, freely available online. The reference looks convincing, it is from the right publication and the title looks related to the subject matter, the only problem is the source's text does not make a single mention of an album called ice flower. It is deliberately intended to deceive the reader into thinking the reference & info is legitimate when it isn't - a textbook definition of a hoax.
            "Subtle hoaxes seriously undermine enwiki. If there is some possibility that a hoaxer will start editing again in the future, then a block prevents that harm." Koopinator (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
            • @Koopinator: Thanks for your work on this—maintaining the integrity of articles is very important. Be assured that if the editor resumes editing but fails to provide a satisfactory explanation, they will be blocked. As a clueless admin, all I can assess is what good editors have concluded and I don't see very many such editors who have concluded that a particular article is a hoax. The biggest clue is the block at fawiki but we don't know much about that. Google finds lots of pages discussing the singer Kourosh Yaghmaie and his song "Gol-e Yakh" which apparently is "Ice Flower", for example [5]. The question remains concerning whether Ice Flower (album) exists. The Los Angeles Times article is definitely about Kourosh Yaghmaie (with a different spelling of the second name). It discusses "Back From The Brink" by Kourosh. According to this the first track is "Gol E Yakh" which, as mentioned, is apparently "Ice Flower". That makes the topic very murky and I would want to see more evidence before blocking the user before they have responded. Johnuniq (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
              • @Johnuniq: Well, maybe i chose a poor example since this was an example of a claim that is a hoax and not an article topic that is a hoax. Take Capture of Ardabil and Battle of Turkmen Sahra (of which the latter was deleted in prior AFD): In the former article you have sources with bogus page numbers, Iranica which does not contain info about Ardabil in the 1910s, and a non-existent (as far as Google search will tell me) work from 2008 called "Russia in the Constitutional Revolution". In the latter article, Battle of Turkmen Sahra, none of the sources supported the existence of the battle, and no google books searches indicated that it existed. Claims unrelated to the battle's existence were also unsourced or had sources which had nothing to do with the claim presented. And this user has had plenty of opportunity to prove he's not a hoaxer, i invited him to comment on the possibility of hoaxing back on 20 December in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Turkmen Sahra, but he continued editing unrelated articles. Koopinator (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, below there was an indef issued on the basis that indef need not mean infinite, but it was partly to force the user to acknowledge the complaints and address them. [6] Couldn't there be a block of Amirhosein Izadi on that basis? It seems dangerous to leave him free to roam without addressing this. What if he pops up again months or years down the road when or where nobody is scrutinizing? As for not having edited since 27 December, that is the same day Koopinator opened the first report. It's just taken a while to get it handled. It seems pretty clear that Amirhosein Izadi is ignoring us. I say we force him to pay heed.

As for Amir.85, I did have a brain fart in saying that account edited in the last few months. [7] I was subconsciously thinking it was 2019, but it's 2020 and the edits were in the latter part of 2018. Still, seems that if one is blocked, so should the other. Fa-wiki established they are the same person and the two edits from Amir.85 are the same behavioral pattern (about music, "creating" an article from an article on fa-wiki, adding dubious material).

Bbb23, Narky Blert, Dekimasu, Michepman, any thoughts on what to do with this? -Crossroads- (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no good evidence for this idea, just a sneaking suspicion: that Amirhosein Izadi has had several or many accounts, and drops them like hot potatoes as soon as rumbled. The high quality of his User Page suggests a second or later rodeo. There can't be many English-Farsi cross-Wiki trolls, but there is at least one: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chyah.

I too would like to commend Koopinator both for spotting the problem and for persevering with it. I've only ever nailed one WP:HOAX, and proving the fact was a real pain. (It had been around for several years, but the creator had made one tiny mistake - linking to a DAB page - which brought it within the scope of my radar.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert - Honestly I cannot think of a real reason not to ban this person. I realize that he hasn't edited since the 27th, but the misconduct that we are talking about here is too pervasive, sneaky, and dangerous to just ignore solely because he has (possibly temporarily) stopped editing. He has over 1500 edits that will now have to be manually checked over for hoax material, and this will be a painstaking process since his hoaxes are constructed in such a way that you have to have a reasonable amount of patience and subject matter expertise to tell.

I too have only discovered one WP:HOAX in my career, and it was one that had managed to go undetected for years because the hoaxer used fake sources and plausible sounding details. This guy is even more dangerous since his area is a less well understood by the majority of English speaking editors. Michepman (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Michepman: (Non-admin comment) Nor can I. Hoaxing is the worst sort of misbehaviour. Even after having spotted something odd, it takes more time and effort to root it out than to write a similar-sized article - very possibly at least double.

Gud catch! I can't remember (or be bothered to look for) mine, but it had the same tell-tale signs. A C18 French painter, knew all sorts of people; all his paintings were collected after his death by one person, and unluckily lost in a fire in late C19. All sources demonstrating notability were print-only, not in English, and impossible to locate. Plausible circumstantial details and bluelinks and sources, which only began to smell after considerable digging.

There's a paradox here: the more you know about WP, the easier it would be to write a near-undetectable hoax; but the less inclined you would be to do so. Narky Blert (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I've actually come around to the view it may be best to block them at least until they are willing to engage. I'm generally also very reluctant to advocate a block to force engagement unless there is a reason we absolutely require (as opposed to desire) engagement. But IMO especially with the Farsi wikipedia question mark, combined with what happened with the battle articles, I think it's got to the point we need the questions answered before they edit again. (I did look into the Ice Flower stuff myself after reading Johnuniq's comment and ended up deciding there was too little info, even having looked at Geocities and other such places to be able to conclude whether such an album existed.) And maybe they've abandoned the account, but maybe not. Given the type of concern, I don't think we should just ignore it as stale since I don't think there's any guarantee anyone will still be watching in a few months. Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to indefinitely block the accounts Amirhosein Izadi and Amir.85 per WP:SNEAKY

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

---

• Amirhosein Izadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amir.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Support as proposer. The evidence above is clear that this user adds WP:SNEAKY vandalism by means of hoaxes that could easily go undetected. Sunfyre, an administrator at Persian Wikipedia (fa-wiki), testified that both of these accounts are operated by the same person (which is certainly consistent with these accounts' behavior here) and that the operator adds WP:SNEAKY vandalism, for which they were indefinitely blocked there. The lack of activity by Amirhosein Izadi since then is just them ignoring us and leaves the unacceptable risk that the person (using either account) will come back and add falsehoods in the future, when they won't be under this kind of scrutiny. I believe there is consensus above already for this block, but since this topic apparently has an uncanny ability to fall through the cracks, I am creating an official proposal and pinging the previous participants: Koopinator, Michepman, MJL, Lightburst, Bbb23, Johnuniq, Nil Einne, Sunfyre, Narky Blert. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin). As positives from this exercise, there are now several editors who know the signs, and collaboration between English and Farsi WPs has worked well. Narky Blert (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I have been supporting a block since day 1 of thread 1. Hoaxing is the worst type of misbehaviour. Koopinator (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I have some reservations because blocks are supposed to be preventive rather than punishment, and the problem user stopped editing last year. However I think such a prolific and sneaky vandal should be banned to prevent them from resurfacing (either as their current accounts or as a "new" user). Michepman (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Seems pretty straightforward. Hopefully, an admin will close this soon. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Possibly relevant

From te:వాడుకరి_చర్చ:JzG:

report vandalist ..... sockpuppets user Modern_Sciences

Please let Wikipedia managers know. This person is accustomed to importing raw and false information into articles. And on several wikis, it has had a history of restricted and unrestricted access and has repeatedly violated access now. Unfortunately, because of Pan-Armenian tendencies, there is a lot of misinformation in the articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Modern_Sciences

long term abuse multi account :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Modern_Sciences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blackorwhite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Europe2009

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Luckie_Luke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/World_Cup_2010

he is an Iranian Armenians and have many edits in persian, english, armenian and arabic .

He has been blocked numerous times for violating the law on Persian Wikipedia. It has also been blocked on endless in English and Arabic Wikipedia, but has broken the rules by creating multiple accounts. He receives extensive support from his friends at local wikis for circumventing access. This user will surely have many other accounts in Armenian and English and persian languages that require more careful inspection.All accounts require a global lock to prevent excessive sabotage. I guess he has at least ten other accounts. I think an LWCU would be required as well.

Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks JzG. How long ago was this? The link above does not work. Koopinator, since you are much more familiar with Amirhosein Izadi's fake articles, would you say "Pan-Armenian tendencies" at all fits what he is trying to do? -Crossroads- (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Amirhosein Izadi never edited anything regarding Armenia. Mainly Iranian history & Iranian rock-related hoaxes. Koopinator (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, oops, soz. https://te.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B0%B5%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%A1%E0%B1%81%E0%B0%95%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%BF_%E0%B0%9A%E0%B0%B0%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%9A:JzG - my user page on teWP. I know Telugu not Farsi, but the timing was a coincidence.

Timestamp is 2020-01-14T14:07:34‎ and reporting account is "te:user:Khaskabul". Guy (help!) 08:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

That is te:User talk:JzG and the post was made by a now-locked user. That makes it highly suspect although even a globally locked user might occasionally be correct. Johnuniq (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. I think these aren't relevant, because I know how and why they have happened. User:Miiquoit is a sock of User:Rowingasia. I reported this at fawiki, and CheckUser evidence confirmed that Miiquoit and User:Laxesuomex were tied to each other, but Rowingasia has no action in past 3 months and therefore, we couldn't technically tie it to other accounts. However, these two account are now blocked indefinitely per WP:DUCK. I also requested for a global lock and login.wikimedia ("global") CheckUser at Meta, that resulted in globally locking ~50 socks, including User:Rowingasia2. The user who wrote this at JzG's talk page, User:Khaskabul, has been locked globally as well for the same reason. This probably dates back to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rowingasia, but it has been discussed if these are related to User:پارسا آملی or not. Ahmad^talk 06:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of English-Farsi cross-Wiki trolling

There are now three in this thread:

1. Amirhosein Izadi and Amir.85, the main topic
2. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chyah and its Farsi equivalent fa:رده:سوءاستفاده‌کنندگان از حساب‌های کاربری زاپاس/Sonia Sevilla.
3. User:Modern Sciences and alleged family

(2) can be taken as proved on both WPs by similar-fact and WP:CheckUser evidence.

I have suggested that (1) and (2) may be connected. This could only be confirmed or denied by new evidence sufficient to justify a CU investigation.

(3) The other two seem to be active solely in English and Farsi WPs. This one is said to have been active in Arabic and Armenian WPs also. User:Modern Sciences (who was WP:INDEFfed in February 2018) claimed to have been a native Georgian speaker and to have only limited proficiency in Farsi. At first sight, all that evidence suggests no connection with the other two. Narky Blert (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate claims

I try to edit article "Statuta Valachorum" to be as accurate as possible and editor Sadko (talk · contribs) makes unacceptable claims. I quote: "because this is some new sort of revisionism" "This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles" {I am just reading what is in front of me. I do not need help of any sort, I do my own work. The current text is a Frankenstein-like creation and I plan to alert various Wiki projects of any problems, bad use of sources and lack of consensus, because this is some new sort of revisionism - and we already have enough of it in the Balkans. The idea is pretty much simple (and this is not addressed to you Ktrimi); one should add Vlach where there is a mention of Serbs in modern-day Croatia. It will furthter prove that Serbs of Croatia are only some poor Vlachs, and that they were brainwashed to become Serbs by the Serbian Orthodox Church, which can be later used for daily politics. Vlah holds the same meaning for Serbs as Šiptar does for Albanians... I hope that you will have this in mind. This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles. I claim that this is only a more sophisticated form of bias driven POV, which can be seen from the whole body of work. And no, I am not attacking anyone, just analysing what I can see here and telling you what you are taking a part of, because I guess that your knowledge of Serbo-Croatian circles and various data is limited. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ktrimi991#Statuta_Valachorum"}. It would mean that my involvement in editing Wikipedia is revisionism and close to Nazism and Ustasha regime. I want that this clames be harshly punished and not to be repeated again. I am here in good faith and please respect me as a person. If this needs to be reported elsewhere please direct me to the right place, thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, which I think is the case here. Everything which I said is correct, I stand by all of it and every Balkan editor is aware of those facts. I did not say that it has anything to do with Nazism, please do not play the victim when you do not have to. You made a logical mistake right there. I said that it is used in those circles, and it is, which is rather alarming. I have a duty to my ancestors who were fighting various dictatorial regimes to point to any possibility of such ideological moments dominating editing of a noble project such as Wikipedia. Revisionism and creative entepretation of history should have no place on Wikipedia. These are great articles covering some of these issues, you can use Google translate and I can help you with translation of some parts, if the Google's tool fails.(Бранимир Марковић: Хрвати сви и свуда, EPOHALNO OTKRIĆE Bošnjački akademik: "Vučić i Srbi iz BiH poreklom su Vlasi") Thank you very much for reporting this as in incident; this is the way Mikola thinks he can edit controversial articles, just take a look at this creative editing, so to say - I am deleting this part "(mainly Serbs)" because this requires consensus, the other sources(books etc) do not mention mainly Serbs as Orthodox refugees in that part of Croatia ie Varaždin Generalat and evidence for this is provided in the sources I cite below throughout the page. The direct source mentions Serbs. 2) Here I add Vlachs because there are no historical documents that mention Serbs in Vienna otherwise this Serbian source(book) Serbs were also mentioned in the source... More of it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ktrimi991#Statuta_Valachorum Thank you for your patience regarding these messy Balkan issues. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to prove that I was not overreacting and that I am not paranoid, here are some of the diffs in which the same user, Mikola22, cites wartime fascist officials as if they were RS - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_Orthodox_Church&diff=925377120&oldid=925375409&diffmode=source https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bjelopavlići&diff=925371428&oldid=924037952&diffmode=source and more on Sremska Mitrovica and other articles. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's previous blocks I'm wondering if this should be seen as an WP:AE issue - if blocks don't work, a topic ban may be the solution. I don't know much about this issues but I'll ping the Admins involved before with the blockes. @TomStar81, Yamla, and Bbb23: any opinions? Doug Weller talk 15:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug, I don't know which editor you're referring to. All I know is that both editors have been disruptive lately, and that needs to stop. I don't know enough about the topic area to comment about AE, one of my least favorite forums on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: fair enough, you blocked both this week. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in the beginning I used data of that historian and I did not know that this historian is forbidden in Wikipedia(otherwise, to this day I have never heard that he is forbidden here), that historian lived and died in Yugoslavia without any sanctions, how could I assume that he has something to do with fascism? I didn't know until then that it had something to do with fascism (this book has doctoral dissertation defense and I thought it was RS). The book is from 1937 and Croatian edition 1991, and today is in all libraries in Croatia especially in Catholic institutions and is used as a source in books or scientific works by Croatian historians or in school system. Otherwise I only put information from the Vatican archives(original archival material) that he has in the book. Therefore from the first day I started editing Wikipedia he saw fascists and Nazis in me. Here I give my energy and knowledge to improve the articles as much as possible while he uses hate speech instead of working in good faith. Therefore, I demand a harsh punishment and that such things no longer happening. I'm not a fascist and a nacist. I am from Croatia and I respect everyone, but this hate speech must be sanctioned. I spend my days here making articles better he offends me in the worst possible way. Mikola22 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I refute the notion that I was (deliberately) disruptive, it is just that admins are sometimes rather busy and have too much on their plate and so they just count reverts (going by the book) and do not have the time to look at the content and the nature of reverts more deeply, which is often the case with issues which are not in their original sphere of interest (Balkan history and what not). I was a collateral damage of one Wiki rules while trying to defend an article from addition of dubious sources, bold edits without consensus and manipulation with sources, as seen above. I rest my case and I am even surprised that this was brought over here, because, in my mind, it's nothing more than looking for reasons to report people, and finding offenses which do not exist in the original text. Historian is forbidden? P.S: The editor who mostly works on articles about history of the region apparently had no knowledge about works by a prominent local fascist official. I simply don't belive it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have promised to the two editors that I will help them find a solution to the said content dispute. It is not a difficult one, just patience and careful use of reliable sources are needed. One thing I would say is that @Sadko: should stop making personal attacks, aspersions and assumptions about other editors. It is sometimes impossible to have a proper discussion with him on controversial stuff. @Doug Weller: is right that such issues are AE ones. Sadko, if an experienced editor, not Mikola22, reported you at AE, no doubt a topic ban would be the result. You have produced massive amounts of evidence against yourself. One just needs to take a quick look at your comments on talk pages and edit summaries, where you continuously accuse other people of having certain goals on Wikipedia and so on. You need to reflect. Sadko and Mikola22 are keen on writing new content, so good faith and cooperation can solve the content issues. I plan to propose some edits on the article soon to help the two editors. Till then they best do not edit the article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Ktrimi991:I came to your talk page with suggestion to tell me what to do next, I have exposed all the changes and sources which I have(and there are more sources) to make article accurate as possible. Editor Sadko comes to your talk page not to make a joint decision in peace to improve accuracy of that article(Statuta Valachorum) but to talk about my edits as Nazi and fascist. This is not right. It is evident that his actions are not in good faith. I have been searching for data and RS sources for this article throughout whole week but it doesn't matter to him, he mentions Ustashes. Mikola22 (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Iam not making personal attacks and there is no "massive amount" of anything, that is simply not completely true. I am having in mind that we different views on a number of things.

This is a fine example that I am doing no such thing; I attacked the text, the content, the way in which sources are used and not anybody personally. That can be seen on your TP, for starters. I am sorry if you do not like what I was able to read into. I can agree with the last sentence. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment that I have a duty to my ancestors who were fighting various dictatorial regimes to point to any possibility of such ideological moments dominating editing is rather confusing. I think that editing Wikipedia is not a "duty" to our ancestors, and should not seen as such. Anyways guys, the new year is in its first days so we better focus on other things right now. I will soon ping you two on my talk page with a proposal on the article. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Idk if @Doug Weller: or @Bbb23: or someone else wants to close this discussion before it becomes too long. This might be better suited for AE rather than ANI/I. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing by Mikola22 is very tendentious. He uses different methods, at first he tried to make his own interpretations of primary sources, then he used outdated sources of 19th century and fascist historians. Now this is cherrypicking and strong violation of the "weight" rule. But his bias remains the same.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes at first I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia and I thought that Wikipedia was based on original information ie sources, if I used outdated sources I dont know what should that mean, I thought every source was RS and now I use the latest data. This fascistic historian are in every Catholic library in Croatia, and this historian is also mentioned in some schools master's thesis and other Croatian historians use his data. I used his information from Vatican archives and I no longer use it even though it is a valuable source of information in Croatia. Therefore I once again ask that this attack on me is properly punished because I'm neither a Nazi nor a fascist. We must understand that Croatia has a history which is based on historical sources while someone does not like that. I have already found more forgerys that existed in articles about Serbs from Croatia and editor Sadko did not want to accept that editing in peace and obviously this is a problem for someone here. However, we all work together to make articles accurate as possible. If someone does not like some historical facts this is not a reason for insults me with hate speech that I am a follower of fascists and Nazi Croatians. Mikola22 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's more recent information on the fascist historian I quote: "Croatian Cultural Society Napredak Zadar and the Archdiocese of Zadar organize the presentation of Proceedings from the International Scientific Symposium Krunoslav Stjepan Draganović - Priest, Historian and Patriot" Welcome word: Msgr. Želimir Puljić, Archbishop of Zadar and President of Episcopal Conference of Croatia(2015). Does not mean that Croatian Catholic bishops are fascists because they promote Krunoslav Stjepan Draganović. At first I thought it was RS and my intention was to present some information about Catholics from the Vatican archives.Mikola22 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the problem: Mikola is eager to find the arguments for whitewashing, but he, for some reason, failed to see numerous sources about Ustashe background of Krunoslav Draganović. And the similar story is repeated with his edits again and again.--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in fascists and Ustashas and I do not know who is Krunoslav Draganovic. I only know that he is a patriot in the Croatian Catholic church. And I used information from his book from the Vatican Archives, the book is from 1937 and 1991. And now I know this facts. Therefore calling me a follower of Nazis and fascists for editing some article in good faith should be harshly punished. Mikola22 (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

No one says that you are Ustash. But you make a tendentious selection of information. For you, Krunoslav is a patriot and a Catholic, and you do not notice everything else. And you do the same thing with every "Croatian" issue.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Krunoslav Draganovic is patriot for Croatian Catholic Church not for me. I put information from his book(Vatican archives) at the beginning of Wikipedia editing because I only knew this fact about him. Today some others historian use his book as a source of information. For you he is a fascist and for the Croatian Catholic Church he is a patriot. I do not research his works or his history because I am not interested in it, I am interested in information from books to make Wikipedia accurate as possible. You are probably obsessed with Krunoslav Draganovic but I didn't know who he was. You have to know that Croatia also has a history and we must respect it no matter how much you dislike it. I respect Serbian history but we also need to enter information from the Croatian view. I know this is a problem for you and Sadko but we need to make Wikipedia more accurate and better. If I do it in good faith that is no reason to compare me to fascists and Nazis. Mikola22 (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You are probably obsessed with Krunoslav Draganovic Here is another problem. Instead of apologizing for your errors you are starting acquisitions on other editors. It was your job to find out who is the author of the source that you tried to use.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

After administrator rejected his proposal in White Croats article this is how editor Nicoljaus expresses his good faith (White Croats talk page) I quote: "A simple “fuck off” would help to express the same thought much shorter. And with about the same level of validity.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)" Therefore this statement is clearly not in good faith but no one accuses you of insulting administrator decision. You were just angry and that is why such a reaction but it's not my fault for such decision of administrator.Mikola22 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, here is diffirent story. I was naive and thought that there was just a technical question and a misunderstanding. However, it turned out that in certain circles they still talk about the giant White Croatia from Elbe to Dnieper with its seat in Krakow. And to protect this ancient myth, a real mobilization was carried out. I have learned a lot of new things there!--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of a LONG week, but after looking through this briefly I say AE-block his ass and wait for that to fail so we can indef the account. And best protect the article pages too since this comes under not one but two different AE sub headings: Eastern Europe and German War Effort. Food for thought.

@TomStar81: I have no idea how to solve this dispute, but I think you forgot to sign.--Calthinus (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I think a TBAN for both users. I am not sure both are being exactly honest and are both POV pushers.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What concrete did you do for accuracy of Statuta Valachorum article? I quote: "no, you have to get consensus for these changes. You do not get to make a case and then act as if you have won the debate." You supported Sadko although you do not know history of that region of Croatia at all. You didn't help with anything and now you would ban and me? POV pusher? You did not see that this was largely a copied article from Serbian Wikipedia? Is it then a neutral article? But these are laws for the Vlachs, Croats are also Vlachs and where they are in the article? Do you know history of Croatia? Do you know that Croats in Dalmatia are Vlach in documents, we're not Serbs because of that or maybe we are? You support that article and Sadko, and my edit where I placed Vlachs with the Serbs consider POV pushing? What if I put information about the Croats who were under the Vlach name at the time? Whether and this is POV pushing? From where Serbs in an article that talks about the Vlachs? Then the Croats etc are actually of Serbian origin? Promotion of this claim is called how? Then we will also change the article about Vlachs from Wikipedia, there are not mentioned any Serbs there.(The Orthodox Vlachs spread further northward along the Carpathians to Poland, Slovakia, and Moravia and were granted autonomy under Ius Vlachonicum (Walachian law), there is no mention of Serbs in that law. If someone does not know the Croatian, Bosnian, Albanian etc history this is not a reason for all those who know that history a little better consider POV pushers. And that is why we need to work together in good faith to keep the articles accurate as possible. And normally without insulting anyone that is personal Nazi or fascist, that deserves the harshest punishment. Mikola22 (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I am talking not just about one article. I recall your attempt to use the dodgy source discussed at length above, and how you at first claims you were using historical documents rather, and ironically as I pointed out a third party source interpreting them. In fact if I recall it was only after some effort you seemed to accept this [[8]]. It maybe just bad use of English, but you seem to often say things that seem to not gel with what you mean. You (for example) seem to claim you have personal access to the Vatican archives, do you? Its clear you mean "his book about the Vatican Archives, but you said "I used information from his book from the Vatican Archives". In a less contentious area this might not be an issue, bit in a highly controversial topic not being able to make yourself clearly understood causes confusion and conflict. Also you say you will now not use Krunoslav Draganovic, but you also )in effect) try to defend his use by "Croatian Catholic Church", and strongly imply that many Croatian sources use him (do the ones you want to use?). It all adds to a sense you are more interested in pushing a Croatian nationalist POV. You are (in effect) pretty much a wp:sap. By the way I have called for you both to be TBAN'd this is not some one sided attempt to silence some "truth about the Vlachs", its an attempt to stop the pair of you ruining it for everyone else.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

If I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia at first what does that have to do with this edit or in the last month, or with the fact that Sadko insults me for being a Nazi? You (for example) seem to claim you have personal access to the Vatican archives, do you? I used this information from the book (1991), about these Catholics Bjelopavlići a few days ago I found it in the book of Malcolm Noel "Kosovo: A Short History". I can't find the whole book anywhere, when I find it I'll edit Bjelopavlići artice. Where the conflict is, the Bjelopavlići are referred as Catholics is that a problem for you and Sadko? Bjelopavlići are allegedly Serbs, whether that may be a problem? Do you edit article in good faith or what is it about? It is forbidden to mentione Catholics? I'm not defending anyone, I live in Croatia and I have not researched the work of Krunoslav Draganovic. I know that he is a patriot of the Croatian Catholic Church, I only knew that about him. And I thought it was RS. I don't know how you can't figure it out. "Croatian nationalist POV" maybe it's from your viewing angle because you don't know Croatian history. If you knew the history of Croatia then you would not defend Sadko, you probably would defended accuracy of information in Wikipedia articles and the principle of good faith. Why you don't change the "Statuta Valachorum" article for the better. Whether it is the law of the Serbs or Vlachs? Have you read the article? If you don't know Croatian history then ask me. Therefore, you have no good faith in this case. This is not right.Mikola22 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hold I am even more confused, you launched a RSN thread about using historical documents, now you seem to be saying you do not even have access to the source you were quoting, but rather a source even further removed form the archives (one you also say you do not have access to at the moment). As to Draganovic, again this may be a language issue but you made much about how Croatian historians use him, Now it may be that you are trying to say "he is used widely in Croatia and I was mislead about his nature". The problem is it can be read a number of ways, as we cannot guess at your real intention.

Your attitude (also displayed in a number of edit summaries reading (quite literally) "I have spoken") seems to be "I am an expert, I have final say". This is not how we do things (and I note your DR was closed for lack of real discussion at the talk page). Also I am not defending Sadko I have said (for gods sake read what people write, I have already pointed this out once) he should be TBAN'D too for the same reason as you.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You do not even have access to the source you were quoting, What are you talking about? At the beginning of editing(two months ago) I used Krunoslav Draganovic's book as a source of information for Catholic Bjelopavlići, since this source is not acceptable I found another source ie book of Malcolm Noel "Kosovo: A Short History". when i find that book and page then I will post that info in the article about Bjelopavlići. What's the problem here? as we cannot guess at your real intention. And these are Nazi and Fascist intentions? You've been torturing me with this Draganović for two months now, what you want from me? To admit that I'm a Nazi? Do you understand that i'm not researching Draganović, he is a patriot of the Croatian Catholic Church and I used his information from the book (Vatican archives) the same archives uses and Malcolm Noel and I thought it was RS. This is not how we do things (and I note your DR was closed for lack of real discussion at the talk page)Where is the consensus and discussion on talk page about entering "Serbians" throughout whole "Statuta Valachorum" article. Show link. He should be TBAN'D too for the same reason as you. I'm trying that this article be accurate as possible, Sadko wants nothing to change in the article and calls me a Nazi and your suggestion is TBAN'D and me? I have been searching all week that the article be accurate as possible but you and Sadko didn't want to accept that. For that reason Sadko called me a follower of the Nazis and now you would TBAN'D and me. I have no more words. Mikola22 (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

"I found it in the book of Malcolm Noel "Kosovo: A Short History". I can't find the whole book anywhere, when I find it I'll edit Bjelopavlići artice." which book could you not find the whole of?Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

In the Serbian review of book ""Kosovo: A Short History" are mentioned Bjelopavlići who are and Catholics. It's a book review and I still do not have book as a source. Mikola22 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

John V. A. (Jr.) Fine in his book(When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkan, page 410) cites and work of Krunoslav Draganović from year 1938(talking about Catholics, Croats, Illyrians, etc) which is published by "Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences and Arts". If someone quotes John V. A. (Jr.) Fine and that part of the book probably you're not going to talk about that edit for two months and insult some editor that he's a Nazi because he put that information on Wikipedia. And if you and Sadko want some information not to be entered then that's another problem. So administrators and moderators should pay more attention to this. Otherwise when I put data about Bjelopavlići and their possible Albanian origin according to several RS. Sadko did not want to put this information from several RS as part of the article. It seems that the present situation is being defended from a few editor here ie Serbian point of view which is not in good faith and neutral point of view. Interestingly Bjelopavlići are a tribe from the territory of Montenegro with possible various origins and in the article it was wanted assume their Serbian origin without some concrete RS. Mikola22 (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Good faith does not mean we have to accept "I am using an RS" when in fact you are using an unspecified review of the source. Can you not see how this is disingenuous? Nor it is the fact time you have made claims that have turned out to not be quite truthful. This is why I see a problem, this is why I do not think it is a language barrier thing. Not was it only me and Sadko who pointed out Search Results

Web results John Van Antwerp Fine is a reputable and reputable historian (and as far as I can tell his books are published by the University of Michigan Press, not the "Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences and Arts", at least "The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century" was which was the source I believe was brought to RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact you are using an unspecified review of the source. I do not use review but I have found information about Bjelopavlići in that review(of Malcolm Noel book). And when I find that book then I will put this info in the article. I haven't put anything in the article yet since I don't have RS. I can tell his books are published by the University of Michigan Press, not the "Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences and Arts", John Van Antwerp Fine cites Krunoslav Draganović and the same information was released in 1938 by "Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences and Arts". Sadko uses hate speech and speak that I'm a fascist and a Nazi and John Van Antwerp Fine cites Krunoslav Draganović in his book. Otherwise what are you doing here? Article "Statuta Valachorum" waiting for you to refine it and make it more accurate. You reverted article and my edit and now you talk with me about Krunoslav Draganović. Sadko offends me that I'm a follower of fascists and Nazis because I edit articles to be accurate as possible and you talk about Krunoslav Draganović? So far I have not noticed any contribution from you? Except you're always around Sadko. We must all work to keep the articles accurate as possible and not because of that insult someone that he is a follower of fascists and Nazis. Mikola22 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:Both users, care to explain>? I do not want be dragged into the mud because I pointed out to a bad use of sources and what not. Several other editors and myself are fighting this sort of vandalism and POV pushing and yet, I am to be found equally guilty? Take a look at this cherrypicking, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yugoslav_Partisans&type=revision&diff=934721120&oldid=934282768&diffmode=source The whole point was: I was reported for some "inappropriate claims", I gave links and proves that they were not inappropriate and that I had a solid basis for my assumption. I shall not answer on this thread any more, I have other projects to work on. cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You edit warred, that is one reason (we all forget or get carried away but even so). You do appear to have a similar battleground mentality towards preserving the Truth as Mikola22. Let me be clear, I came into this dispute (not the ANI, the dispute) because of RSN notices. Thus I am not aware of any history behind these articles or you editing history. As such I can only judge you based upon the intransigence I have seen form you towards compromise. Maybe you are right and every source Mikola22 uses is crap, or maybe (as in some cases does appear to be the case) the articles need a bit of a re-wording. The problem is that neither of you seem to be capable of compromise, its either your way or escalation. But as you both feel a TBAN in unfair.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal regarding Mikola22 and Sadko

Neither Mikola22 or Sadko may make changes relating to Balkan ethnicity (in any article) without first achieving consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yoicks. That sounds like the best.. Endorse/support.-- Deepfriedokra 10:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Note Sadko appears to have rejected this [[9]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the proposal but it must state here what that consensus means. Does this mean and third party assistance, arbitration, etc because we may not reach consensus on talk page and Sadko did not come to joint discussion (Statuta Valachorum article). What if someone seeks consensus on talk page or elsewhere and there are no interested editors or as Sadko does not want to reach a joint decision in good faith. I can't wait for consensus five years. They must also be specified and articles which are under that consensus. There are also, unfortunately and some editors such as Slatersteven who reverted my edit although he does not know Croatian history but he must have noticed that my changes had RS. Then I guess he probably read that RS and in good faith accept that edit. I suppose he stood up for the Serbian name in the article and he probably expected a consensus for that change but where is consensus for puting Serbian name through article even though we have very little mention of Serbs in that area of ​​Croatia. If someone(editor) wants to contribute to the accuracy of some article he can do a little research and contribute with something and not leave things as as they were. Maybe Slatersteven is administrator or moderator I don't know, so he just monitors it but in any case we are all working on the accuracy of the articles and not just me. However, punishment for insult must be because I am not follower of Nazis or Fascists. Sadko didn't work in good faith to make Statuta Valachorum article as accurate as possible, he came there with purpose to insult me. Mikola22 (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Be rational enough to stop with the constant aspirations allegations. I am alive and well and can speak for myself and my motives, thank you. There is no insult, as the text and selective use of sources were criticised. I am generally inclined to reach a consensus with fellow editors and have a good discussion in order to actually get to something (a conclusion/solution), with editors who are capable of such a thing, and behave like adults, with Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility in mind. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

After this block: [10], Mikola22 continues in the same style:

• Edit: [11]
• Revert: [12], with explanation on TP: [13]
• Re-revert: [14]

Is there anything can be done at last?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

What writes in the book of the Austrian historian? Greek-Orthodox. Then we must respect RS. Why you bother people with something that is properly made. Now you all see with which editors I must struggle to keep articles accurate as possible. They follow each other and they do not work in good faith. RS mentione Greek-Orthodox and they keep in the article Serbian-Orthodox. And how many such irregularities still exist. I'm alone here, and Sadko offends me that I'm a Nazi follower. Simply with these editors here should be no change for the better. Mikola22 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22: I am not sure you understand what is at stake here. You say that you agree with the proposal about not making changes relating to Balkan ethnicity (in any article) without first achieving consensus, while at the same time continuing the edit war at Vlachs in the history of Croatia, which most certainly is about Balkan ethnicity. --T*U (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

TU-nor This is not final decision. It must be specifically explained what it means and when this decision starts. Which consensus? Who entered Serbian-Orthodox information without consensus? On Reliable sources/Noticeboard is said that Austrian historian is RS. Everything is explained on talk page. I'm constantly in touch with two people, where are the editors, we need ten editors here. In the book and census writes Greek-Orthodox and someone puts Serbian-Orthodox. What should I do, to go to arbitration? Mikola22 (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 for some reason believes that while there is no "final decision" he can arrange wars of edits: [15], [16], [17] ,[18]. Is everyone allowed to do this or is he some special?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have an alternative proposal - [19] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"...and that any further big or bold edits on the article and other articles about Vlachs would NEED consensus" is what I have more or less suggested. Plus you seem to be suggesting an IBAN. NO issue with any of this. I can support a no edit without consensus on all articles related to the Vlachs as well as an IBAN between the pair of you.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nnadigoodluck and WP:BADNAC

A few months ago I came across Nnadigoodluck when I noticed AFD space being flooded with edits (and a few AFDs I initiated were changed.) There were several bad clerking actions ranging from NACs to inappropriate relists, which I laid out here less than 2 months ago, which included:

• this inappropriate relist
• this relist with no reasoning which was later overturned and deleted
• same, subsequently deleted

And you can obviously see the rest in the diff I provided above. I'll also note that I am not the only editor who has raised concerns with Nnadigoodluck over their AFD activities. Fast forward a month and a half, this user again pops up on my watchlist with several BADNACs, though there are some okayish AFD edits, they still seem to be overly concerned with dabbling in AFD clerking.

Just two days ago, another user brought up some bad relists and NACS here. I also noticed this and reminded them of our previous discussion (though one mistake was mine, I misread a vote and thought it was this editor.) Not long after this conversation, with no resolution, this editor again removed the discussion - I understand that they are allowed to do this and removal of the discussion indicates that they've read the feedback and it shows an unwillingness to actually change their behavior.. Within hours of this discussion they went back to clerking AFD and this led to two DRVs related to their closures[20][21] and several more closes, some of which are okay, but in my opinion, demonstrate the same unwillingness to change their behavior. Today, another editor brought up some concerns which were dismissed twice. Their AFD stats are also misleading and it shows a clear lack of experience as the bulk of their votes were padded votes, meaning they were at the tail end where it was inevitably going to result in keeping/deleting or pile-on votes.

So the tl;dr here is that while there are some okay edits, Nnadigoodluck lacks the understanding and frankly the competence to be clerking AFD and I'd like to request a ban from them doing so for an extended period of time. Praxidicae (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm the most recent editor to attempt to communicate with Nnadigoodluck, after putting their TP on my watchlist a few months ago during the last AFD-related conversation. I'll admit, I was a little bit peeved that they removed my talk-page notice in the middle of a conversation, but... I'm not interested in edit-warring with this editor on their own TP, I have better hills to die on.

Nonetheless, I do think this is a problem - A lack of understanding is one thing, but this consistent failure to engage or even entertain any idea that there may be an issue with their behaviour is exhausting. For the sake of maintaining the goodwill of the editors who've tried to help this user, I'd agree that a ban from clerking AFD is a good idea, perhaps with a provision that if they manage to improve their AFD stats they could be permitted to try their hand at clerking, maybe a year or two down the line. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 17:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you to Praxidicae for the well-researched diffs. I've only looked thoroughly at at the first 7-8 diffs you identified and I'm, too, troubled by Nnadigoodluck's good faith attempts at closing or relisting deletion discussions but without any clear understanding of when to close and when relisting is appropriate. There were a couple relists that might've been useful, but on balance, most of them were either clear delete/merge or clear delete. So, I'm going to build on this thread you started and move a proposal... Doug Mehus T·C 00:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't researched the history of AFD clerking by User:Nnadigoodluck yet, but I concur with User:Praxidicae and User:Alfie that it is troubling to have two closures by the same non-administrator appealed to DRV in 48 hours. I think that one of the closes is completely wrong, and the other one shows poor judgment on the part of the closer. I now see that other editors have already tried to discuss this. I haven't yet researched the history in detail, but it troubles me. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon, That's the same way I feel. Looking through Nnadigoodluck's talkpage, one of the closes appears correct and the other was a bad close. One, two, or even three bad closes, okay, that's fine, so long as a willingness to learn from one's mistakes is being demonstrated. But, as you rightly note, Prax (hope he or she doesn't mind me shortening their nickname) has done his or her homework and there is indeed a troubling number of incorrect closures. I don't think we need to outright ban Nnadigoodluck from AfD or anything, but at least from closing and relisting. Reviewing the policies and essay and closure by non-admins would be helpful. Doug Mehus T·C 00:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment— Praxidicae’s decision to bring this to an ANI seems like the only step or the only viable option they could come up with as from my observation of the diffs they have clearly exhausted all other options. I have also noticed Nnadigoodluck close an AFD they themselves opened although I’m not sure this is proper as this seemed to me like a very controversial move/action. Having said that, I’d play the devils advocate here seeing as he has put in good work in other aspects of this collaborative project in terms of content creation & probably is one of the very few Nigerian editors who are still very much active in this community. I fear a ban from AFD clerking activities (although which could as well be the plausible action here) coupled with an administrator stripping away his Autopatrolled rights for off wiki activities only admins were privileged to view/observe might “hit him hard” & as direct consequence, he may decide to permanently exit the project. I see potential in this individual & as Per editor retention is there a less harsh way of dealing with this? Perhaps a final warning? Celestina007 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Celestina007: Your claim of me closing AfDs that I nominated myself is misleading and untrue. I only close as Speedy keep Nomination withdrawn as seen in here and here. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 01:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Nnadigoodluck please be calm, I am on your side here & trying to make the community let you off the hook with nothing other than a last warning & not necessarily ban you for some months as I see potential in you. You have made some quite bizarre AFD clerking actions in the past of which ironically/coincidentally I personally was going to query you about today via e-mail before I became aware of this ANI case.Celestina007 (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Celestina007: It's okay. Just trying to clear some things that might presume as if I don't know what I am doing. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 01:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Celestina007, Thank you for your reply. Did someone suggest stripping away his autopatrolled rights? Apologies if I missed it. I don't think we need to go to that step, but rather, just a prohibition on closing or relisting certain types of deletion discussions, at least in the short- to medium-term. Nnadigoodluck seems like a good editor and I have no doubt his closes were done in good faith, but I just think there needs to be a restriction on closing or relisting certain types of discussions. He could still be permitted to close discussions that are unanimous in favour of keep or redirect, for example? Doug Mehus T·C 01:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus it wasn’t suggested that his Autopatrolled rights be stripped off but an administrator, I’m not sure who now, perharps Yunshui I believe was the one who carried out this actions after saying he carried out certain off wiki investigations & made some allegations with proof only admins were privileged to view. Yunshui did leave a message on his Nnadigoodluck’s talk page regarding this but strange it isn’t on his talk page anymore perhaps removed or archived by Nnadigoodluck I can’t tell. Anyway I can tell Nnadigoodluck is here to build an encyclopedia and all said & done he is definitely a net positive.Celestina007 (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, Ah, thanks for clarifying the autopatrolled rights change was in reference to a past admin action. Yes, I agree that he is a net a positive to the encyclopedia as well, and I'm open to an XfD or AfD mentorship, but I do think that until the mentorship is complete, he should be restricted from closing (he can still participate) in at least AfDs. Doug Mehus T·C 01:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dmehus seems like a bright idea & even Nnadigoodluck has accepted this already. Which indicates an editor willing to learn & do good work here.Celestina007 (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Celestina007, Yep, agreed. : ) Doug Mehus T·C 01:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Praxidicae has been been hounding me for many months. I think that they are obsessed with me and any of my edit is always wrong in their sight, they won't let me rest, to the extent of wrongfully accusing me of relisting an AfD in which I voted in as seen here, which they later came back apologizing. Some months ago when I started AfD clerking newly, they even proposed that I stay away completely from AfD clerking in a very bad manner, without even giving me a chance or even suggesting ways that I can improve as an editor as seen here. Saying that I currently lack the understanding and competence to be clerking AfD is utterly false and untrue, because I've improved a lot, more than I was when I started newly and can be seen in most of my recent AfD closing and relists which are all in good standing for the past one week in [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]. If they think that I made mistakes many months ago when I was still a newbie, they should judge it with my current editing history and know if I'm still on the same track or not. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 00:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nnadigoodluck, I've not looked through all your linked diffs, but looking through the first few, I see no evidence of Praxidicae hounding you. In at least one case, I think you are selectively cherry-picking an example where Praxidicae admitted afterward their error. In most of the others, Praxidicae was right to point out a number of bad non-admin closures on your part. I would support a mentorship proposed by Schazjmd below, but I think until you complete the mentorship, you need to be restricted from closing or relisting at least AfDs. Sound good? Doug Mehus T·C 01:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Dmehus: Sounds okay. I'm open to it. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 01:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Yuck. The subject was cautioned on their web page about their activity at AFD, and the subject responds by listing 44 AFDs that they have closed. I said that I hadn't researched the details, but the subject is doing the research for me. That is too many AFDs for an editor whose AFD closes have raised concerns, and it raises further concerns that they don't know when they are doing too much and doing it poorly.

Comment - This isn't directly relevant, but indirectly relevant material indicates whether an editor has the judgment and discretion to work at an advanced level in a complex electronic workplace. It appears that Nnadigoodluck was warned at least twice, less than six months ago, about removing speedy deletion tags from pages that they had created. That implies that we have an editor who either doesn't yet understand deletion policy or only has a recent understanding of it and is rushing into deletion policy too quickly, as well as simply an editor who is pushing limits, when pushing limits isn't a good idea in Wikipedia. The subject and I have done enough research for it to be clear to me that mentorship isn't likely to work. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Although restricting Nnadigoodluck from clerking AFDs for some time may be necessary, is there any AFD expert who might be willing to take Nnadigoodluck on as an apprentice? The editor seems really interested in this area, but lacks the experience to do the work yet. An apprenticeship could help Nnadigoodluck develop the skills to resume AFD work later on. (Hit an edit conflict trying to post this; now in the light of Nnadigoodluck's comment, I'm unsure whether they'd be open to this proposal, but adding it as a suggestion anyway.) Schazjmd (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Schazjmd: I'm open to this proposal and thanks for bringing it up. I want to assist in building this encyclopedia in my own little way. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 01:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nnadigoodluck, I'm glad to hear that. I think with the help of an editor experienced at clerking AFDs, you could gain the skills to be a real asset in that area. I hope someone appropriate is willing to work with you on it. I have no experience with it or I would offer my help. Schazjmd (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

When I opened this topic up for discussion 9 months ago there seemed to be some agreement that NAC at AfD should be highly curtailed. In looking at a wider range of AfDs since I've become a sysop I've only become increasingly convinced that this is the correct case. So I am opposed to the principle of non-sysop AfD mentorship on this basis beyond the specific issues noted here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for time-limited restriction

Procedural Comment Please !vote for only one of the following proposals. Doug Mehus T·C 00:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal A: For a period of not less than three months, Nnadigoodluck is hereby restricted from closing or relisting all deletion discussions.

Proposal B: For a period of not less than three months, Nnadigoodluck is hereby restricted from closing or relisting AfD deletion discussions.

Proposal C: For a period of not less than three months, Nnadigoodluck is hereby restricted from closing or relisting all deletion discussions where there is trending consensus towards delete.

Proposal D: For a period of not less than three months, Nnadigoodluck is hereby restricted from closing or relisting AfD deletion discussions where there is trending consensus towards delete.

Proposal E: For a period of not less than x months (where x is identified by consensus below), Nnadigoodluck is hereby restricted from y to z deletion discussions (specified by consensus below, y refers to the prohibition (i.e., closing, relisting, etc.) and z refers to the type of XfD (i.e., AfD, TfD, MfD, etc.)).

• What happened? Did you run out of letters? Lord.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  Bbb23, Le sigh. Doug Mehus has been lecturing us on how Wikipedia works since his arrival. He has about 4,000 edits, and nearly 40% of them are to Wikipedia space. To say that his input often lacks insight would be an understatement. I foresee some restrictions heading that way. Guy (help!) 18:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal F: Per the added proposal by Schazjmd and comment by Barkeep49 above, Nnadigoodluck is to be restricted from closing or relisting AfDs (or, alternatively, all XfDs) pending sponsorship and successful completion of an administrator-led mentorship arrangement. Nnadigoodluck may still participate in said AfD/XfD discussions during the mentorship, but not close them.

• Support F (for all XFDs) because I think that option has the best potential to benefit both Wikipedia and Nnadigoodluck. Schazjmd (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support F (indifferent to AfDs or all XfDs) per Schazjmd and my comments above. (Sidebar: you placed your vote in the correct spot, Schazjmd.) As an alternative, in light of Praxidicae's comment below, I would alternatively, as a second choice, support A or any other of the other proposals when consensus has been determined. Doug Mehus T·C 02:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support A as the closest to what will work, because I have no confidence that a mentorship will work, and I do not want to waste the effort of the community and the subject. I haven't seen the subject at MFD, but I don't have confidence that they understand drafts. I wouldn't have seen the subject at CFD or TFD or RFD. I have seen the subject too many times yesterday at DRV to have confidence that mentoring will work, after the subject was hostile to the suggestion that they were doing too much work at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I honestly don't see anything wrong with the behaviour here, and I've looked through the initial diffs and the 44 AfDs posted by Nnadigoodluck. I think the DRV thing is a red herring because neither of their closes at DRV were technically wrong, though the no consensus close should be backed out on a technicality (delete was a better option.) I'm not sure I see the problems with the relists, either - is the nominator saying the relists were inappropriate because no further conversation existed? This conversation concerns me, because the initial post asks for the user to stop clerking entirely in the very first post, even though in the third link MBisanz relisted the discussion with no reasoning. And the 44 AfDs Nnadigoodluck posted, to me, demonstrates a level of competence in closing AfDs as a non-administrative capacity. On review, I too would be frustrated to have been accused of not doing good work without an accurate explanation as to what I was doing was wrong, and going directly to "you shouldn't do this" instead of allowing the user to have a chance to learn how to do things better.

There are three things I want to say to Nnadigoodluck in terms of clerking and one in terms of AfDs generally. The clerking: 1) if you're clerking in this area, have Wikipedia:Relist bias open in another tab or browser and work through the steps each time you want to relist, making absolutely sure your relist won't be controversial. 2) if you relist, make sure you explain why you're relisting when you relist (and if you're relisting for the sake of relisting, you probably shouldn't relist.) 3) if you close a discussion, you need to be 100% sure your close is absolutely correct and could not be closed any other way. Almost all of your closes are fine, but going forward, I would ask you to avoid closing AfDs as no consensus, or any closes that could be closed as anything other than keep, per WP:BADNAC. In terms of the AfDs generally: At this point, I would encourage you to participate in AfDs rather than clerk them, mostly per Barkeep49's comment above regarding non-admin AfD clerks. But in terms of any sort of ban, I don't think this has been handled well at all by anyone and strongly oppose any sanctions, and that this ANI thread should just serve as both a general warning and an example to Nnadigoodluck of how they can improve as an editor. SportingFlyer T·C 08:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the kind offer of another editor to mentor them, I think this kind of misses the point. This isn't like writing articles or editing broad topics, it's a narrow maintenance area that is somewhat important but should be left to more experienced users (preferably admins but that's another discussion.) So, Support A, an outright ban for 3 months at minimum from doing any maintenance related activities at AFD/xfd. And I saw a comment above about editor retention and fear this user will leave the project and while I understand the overall concern, I'm not sure this should be considered if a user's sole purpose is to relist/NAC afd. As a note, I was not originally concerned about other fd areas but I am concerned that they will move on to that area if they're banned at AFD only. Praxidicae (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support (for all XfDs where applicable) proposals F, A, C, B, D, E in descending order of likelihood to produce good results. (Yes, I reject the proponent's demands to !vote for only one possibility; this is not a bureaucracy.) There is clearly a problem here which needs to be addressed, but we do not need to set ourselves up for yet another ANI on the same problem by, e.g., restricting AfD closures and relistings only to have the problem behavior migrate to another XfD, or shift from relisting of obviously delete-leaning discussions to relisting of obviously keep-leaning ones, or whatever, if we can avoid that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, Fair point. You're right, there's no reason not to !vote for more than option or to rank ordering one's preferences. I'll strike that portion from my nomination. Doug Mehus T·C 09:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose all – One of the DRVs was endorsed, and I don't think the second one will end up overturned either. There have been other NACers, and admin, who are overturned much more frequently than this editor, and whom nobody suggests tbanning from AFDs. I think in order to show a close is a bad close, it needs to be overturned by consensus, and in order to show a closer is a bad closer, they need to have some bad closes. So the evidence isn't there showing this editor to be closing in a disruptive way. As for the relists, yeah, they're relisting too often, but that's really pretty harmless (an improperly relisted page can still be closed right away), and that's the kind of problem we should fix by teaching rather than by sanctioning. I don't see a case made for sanctions here of any kind. – Levivich 18:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to close with no action

I don't think there's any doubt of Nnadigoodluck's good faith here, their actions viewed holistically appear to be within the bounds of what normally happens at Xfd - and yes, some might be considered incorrect, but that's not really Nnadigoodluck's fault specifically because the guidance is (perhaps intentionally) vague and in any case nobody's required to be perfect as long as their actions don't appear capricious.

I think we could do with some clearer consensus guidance at WP:NAC or a subpage on when to leave it to an admin (e.g. minimum numbers of !votes for a relist, maximum number of relists before a no-consensus close, minimum time / !vote count before a non-admin SNOW or speedy keep etc). Not so much to constrain people as to prevent drama like this. I am mindful, though, that admins are not special, and the main reason for admin closure of XfD is (a) the technical need for an admin to perform an actual deletion and (b) the fact that admins have at least some measure of community assessment of their knowledge of policy, so this personal preference for better guidance may be considered unnecessary by others. Guy (help!) 08:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'd have no problem supporting this proposal, Guy, if the nom, Praxidicae, supports it (though I note even the subject has agreed to a voluntary curtailing of XfD closures while undergoing a mentorship). So, call it a conditional support if Praxidicae, and others who've expressed opinions below and above this discussion, support(s) it. Otherwise, it's an oppose. As well, S Marshall's and Britishfinance's comments with respect to the necessity, or not, of further revisions to WP:BADNAC are particularly compelling. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Dmehus, we don’t care what OPs think about anything, we tend to look at the underlying case and consider policy based input from experienced users and admins. With your lack of experience you should focus on other areas not the drama boards. Guy (help!) 19:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose to doing nothing here. The over-involvement of Nnadigoodluck in XFDs is problematic. A closure with no action would risk being seen as encouragement. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Strong Support for the suggestion by Guy for a clarification on Non-administrative closures at XFD. The number of recent DRVs involving NAC and including claims of BADNAC show that the guidelines for such closures should be clarified. Maybe the guidelines were deliberately left vague because it was thought that NACs at XFD would be rare and unambiguous; they are neither rare nor unambiguous. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW I also strongly support the idea of clarifying WP:NAC. I would suggest that Robert McClenon is the perfect person to help move that forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  Well, well. Okay, I guess I am tasked. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support both closing this with no action and clarifying WP:NAC (and hopefully when to relist as well.) I just hope we haven't run off a good faith editor doing good work from the project with this heavy-handed response to a very small issue (especially since consensus at DRV is that one of their closes was absolutely okay and the other was likely okay as well, or at least being considered as okay by several experienced members of the community.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I am trying to start a discussion at the non-administrative close talk page about the need to restrict non-administrative closes. By the way, I don't think that this has been a heavy-handed response to a very small issue. Maybe I am in a very small minority, but if so, maybe I shouldn't have been the one who was tasked to move the discussion forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Please don't add rules about NACs. Firstly, it's a disproportionate response. The way to deal with poor judgment by an individual good faith editor is to constrain that individual good faith editor, not to constrain every volunteer in the project. Secondly, because Wikipedia doesn't have a widespread problem with poor NACs. We've got two by the same editor at deletion review, but this is the first time that's happened in ten years. Thirdly because writing explicit rules generates a clear roadmap showing exactly how to game the system.—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Agre with S Marshall. This is a strange ANI where a well-meaning and enthusiastic 5-month-duration editor (which is to be welcomed), but who never seems to have ever !voted at an AfD (AFAICS here [66]), is closing lots of AfDs, and some have issues? We don't need an in-depth investigation or detailed proposals, we just need the editor in question to stop using the closer until they have experience. If we need a rule, it is that nobody should be closing at AfD unless they have at least 100 correct !votes logged. The real issue here is that a small number of admins/senior editors do a disproportionate amount of work on most WP Boards (AfD being one), and those editors are starting to disappear. For some reason, the new admins don't seem to be high-productivity editors, and thus the problem is worsening. The real issue is not that NAC needs tightening, but that at some stage in the future, we are going to have to give experienced non-admin editors the ability to close as delete under NAC. Trying to address the issues of an over-enthusiastic editor by going against the inevitable reality makes no sense, imho. Britishfinance (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Britishfinance, You've got it all wrong by saying that I've never voted at AfD. The link you're using is not right and not really my username. Take a look here for the right link. And saying that my closing at AfD have issues is untrue, I guess you've not taken a look at them. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 19:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Ah, my bad Nnadigoodluck, not as bad as I thought, however, 5 months in WP is not the right time to start closing at AfD – give yourself more time before doing this level of closing. NACs are going to be an even more important part of WP (per my cmt above), however, NACs always come under a higher level of scrutiny (for rational reasons), and thus you should only be closing when it is obvious (e.g. don't damage your reputation before you even get started). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. We've already had to address the same problem behavior more than once, so it is time to do something about it, not continue to ignore it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  Sure. The "something" is fixing WP:NAC rather than beating up a user whose only real offence is to be Tigger. Guy (help!) 22:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  Not mutually exclusive. It's a common outcome when some party is repeatedly misunderstanding and misapplying a policy, guideline, procedure, or other process (hereafter "P&G" for short), after various objections and previous examinations of the user's behavior, for consensus both a) to enjoin/discourage the party from continuing to do so, and b) to tweak the wording of the P&G to forestall the same misunderstanding of it arising again. The latter part probably comes up more often at the talk pages of the P&Gs (e.g., it's very frequent at MoS), but there is no reason ANI can't also come to the conclusion that revision is needed along with a behavioral change being needed (and/or a remedy to ensure that outcome). Due to ANI not being a content (even an internal content) venue, and P&G talk pages not being disciplinary ones, it's generally going to result in separate discussions anyway, one for the behavioral matter and one for the P&G wording matter; the difference is simply going to be in the order in which they take place. I don't see this particular case as just a "Tigger" over-enthusiasm thing; there's a level of obstinacy in evidence. All that said, I actually concur with S Marshall, above. WP:NAC and related pages (WP:RMNAC, etc.) already have a WP:CREEP and WP:BUREAUCRACY problem. So any revision we do to them should probably be along the lines of just increased clarity and concision, not expansion with new rule-making. Personally, I think almost all of it could just be outright deleted and replaced with something like "Except where a specific process notes otherwise (e.g. at WP:RFARB), non-admins may assess consensus in and formally close any discussions that are ripe for such resolution, provided the consensus result is actually clear (which can include an obvious case of "no consensus"), and the closure assessment accurately reflects that consensus (or the failure of one to emerge).", and leave it at that, and WP would be just fine. WP was just fine before all this NAC rule-mongering, after all. The actual problem in this case is someone (whether an admin or not) improperly closing or reopening AfD discussions in ways that defy the consensus in them. We don't actually need new rules about that, and we probably don't even need clarified ones, since it's not a widespread problem but an uncommon individual one, which seems to resolve to a failure to apply WP:Common sense and WP:Consensus principles, even aside from what WP:NAC says in more detail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comment, on a proposal above:

"Except where a specific process notes otherwise (e.g. at WP:RFARB), non-admins may assess consensus in and formally close any discussions that are ripe for such resolution, provided the consensus result is actually clear (which can include an obvious case of "no consensus"), and the closure assessment accurately reflects that consensus (or the failure of one to emerge)."

That is supposed to be clear? I have legal qualifications, and I don't know where to begin trying to construe that. Narky Blert (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment One of the two closes this user made at DRV was endorsed, and the other is on its way to being endorsed. Two of the three relists weren't good, but those can be easily fixed. I still have no idea why we have knives out when this issue could have been solved with a little guidance. SportingFlyer T·C 03:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Close / no action per SportingFlyer; any concerns seem to have been overblown and if there is an issue it would appear to be a systematic one. ——SN54129 08:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support – per my and others' comments above – Levivich 18:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Philip Cross BLP issue

I have no choice but to post here as I have some serious concerns here. I don’t know where else to go but Philip Cross has recently been making some questionable POV pushing and borderline slander (in my opinion) on the Rania Khalek article. I would include diffs, but there are too many. Some admins should have a deep look at this. IWI (chat) 01:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A lot of edits have happened in recent weeks and it's not easy for uninvolved people to judge if there is a problem. The first step would be to post a new section at Talk:Rania Khalek with, say, two examples of text which you think are a problem, and why. The last edit at the talk page was on 31 October 2019. If unsatisfied, repeat at WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes a lot of edits have took place. This user has had a pattern of issues in this manner. Just read some messages left at User talk:Philip Cross/Archive 27. This user is cherry picking articles with defaming comments about this woman. I would revert all of his edits but I think an admin needs to assess this. This user clearly has a POV, as he is removing anything positive in place of something negative. IWI (chat) 03:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, this user is already topic banned from Post-1978 British politics, for a similar reason. IWI (chat) 03:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Can you provide a diff or point to the archived discussion for the topic ban? --David Tornheim (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the link you gave and cannot find "Khalek" on that page. This is a busy noticeboard so please get to the point: what text in the article is a problem and why? Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed the citation to an apology for a (deleted) SPLC article which mentions Rania Khalek because the piece, and the responses to it more heavily concentrated on Max Blumenthal. I moved the passage to the SPLC article last year as it more directly concerns that organisation's reputation and activities. (I have only just switched the emphasis on the other article to Max Blumenthal. The media responses to the SPLC's removal of its article in 2018 mainly concerned MB.) I removed a positive comment by Mark Hand on Rania Khalek's coverage of the I/P issue, cited to Counterpunch, because that website has a poor reputation on issues concerning Jews and has published articles by Alison Weir and Israel Shamir among others who have been accused of antisemitism. So on this point at least it is not likely to be considered a mainstream source. Philip Cross (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I should add, in case it seems disingenuous, that I did not wholly remove the Counterpunch article. Despite that websites reputation (I believed the other citations added in the last week would not be considered non-RS) It seemed highly unlikely that it would falsify a quote by Rania Khalek, so I substituted a brief passage from the Mark Hand article which related to her issues with The Nation and Israel, an issue to which articles about Ms Khalek regularly return. Philip Cross (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Her page is now under ARBPIA sanctions and ECP protected. This includes 1RR. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If there are a lot of diffs, then it should be easy. Pick your best 3-5 and show them. As it stands, it's very difficult to assess whether your complaint has merit since you've provided us nothing to judge. I also see no discussion on the talk page about actual problems, instead just another complain of the editor. If you have concerns over an editor's edits, you really should be able to articulate why somewhere. Also admins don't just go around randomly assessing editors. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

My point is that the user has had a history of this kind of POV editing. I am aware that her name isn’t there. IWI (chat) 13:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• On this diff, Cross states that Khalek "denied the Syrian government had carried out the Douma chamical attack". In fact, she said that there was no evidence for it. This is not the same as denying it.
• here, cross removes a passage that shows Khalek in a good light altogether, with little explanation other than it is "elsewhere" (where then?).
• here, the material from the source is switched from a third party assessment to a direct quote of Khalek. This clearly aims to discredit.
• here and here, an unnecessary third party accusation is added.

They are some of the issues that I noticed. IWI (chat) 13:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The user appears to have discredited multiple journalists in a similar subtle way. IWI (chat) 13:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"I removed a positive comment by Mark Hand on Rania Khalek's coverage of the I/P issue, cited to Counterpunch, because that website has a poor reputation on issues concerning Jews and has published articles by Alison Weir and Israel Shamir among others who have been accused of antisemitism. So on this point at least it is not likely to be considered a mainstream source." - if you thought the source was unreliable, why would you switch its usage to a quote that discredits the BLP? Wouldn't this make it even worse in terms of the BLP policy than it was before? IWI (chat) 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

On the Douma attack (the first diff), I later modified the passage to quote Khalek. It suggests she did not believe the attack had occurred at all. The Haaretz article I drew the quote from is concerned with the rejection of certain individuals rejection of early information about the attack which is clearly interpreted as denial. The "elsewhere" comment from the edit summary refers to the SPLC article which I mentioned above. The "aim to discredit" assertion I think refers to the Counterpunch issue I mention above, though the diff seems to be wrong. The penultimate diff refers to a LARB article where the issue of Nation staff members is covered in more detail. I explained in the edit summary that the Eric Alterman Nation blog comment on the issue is rather brief and thus less than ideal. The last addition is not a real addition at all, but the Alterman blog entry restored and fully cited. It includes The Nation's official response to the issue before the main article. Philip Cross (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There were at least 15 direct quotes on that article and you chose the one negative one. IWI (chat) 15:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

IWW, sources and websites can be partially reliable for certain things. As the Counterpunch article is a positive article about Khalek, I believed it could at least quote her accurately. (Assuming IWI, you mean the Counterpunch article in your addition above, I have already explained why the opinions expressed on a questionable website are probably not admissible to cite within Wikipedia rules.) Philip Cross (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC) (Parenthetical addition: Philip Cross (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC) )

• Concerned I too have have concerns about Philip Crosses's editing on a different BLP: Max Blumenthal. I will provide diffs later and look at this particular complaint. The main thing I noticed at Blumenthal's article is that Cross tended to improperly summarize the WP:RS he found. He cherry-picked what I found to be quotes which would portray Blumenthal in the worst possible light. He tended to choose critics who had vociferously negative criticism calling Blumenthal an anti-semite, when Blumenthal has a Jewish background. It's the self-hating Jew argument that is applied by Zionists to people who do not support Zionism and point out war-crimes of Israel. I mentioned it here (might be easier to read here at bottom), but will expand on the particular edits by Cross that emphasized this criticism. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I just read the complaint and see Cross is doing the same thing here with cherry-picking of quotes, emphasizing negative and removing positive, and that Cross has allegedly been topic banned from certain British articles for the similar behavior. Do we have a diff of that topic ban? Although I am not an admin, I will look over Rania Khalek to see what is happening and provide diffs if I see the same problem there as with Max Blumenthal. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

User:David Tornheim removed a citation to an RS, Commentary, because he found the author Bruce Bawer objectionable. Bawer has opinions I do not agree with myself, but that is no reason to not use to his article. As is clear from the RS I cited, Blumenthal is now considered way outside the mainstream and only non-RS are likely to consider his work as being reputable. (I am aware a query on RS/N found otherwise.) As with Rania Khalek, WP editors go with what reliable sources say about an individual. Philip Cross (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: The topic ban is here. IWI (chat) 14:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Concerned, too. We could add Cross' extensive fiddling on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP to this list. One diff in particular refers to an op-ed making exceptional claims as an RS. Another pushes the TG is a Russian assset line [67]. Really, have a look at just about any Cross modification of that BLP and you will be able to see his POV loud & clear. Suggest topic ban from anything related to the Syrian war.

NB: the original topic ban sidestepped the main issue which was the Syrian war.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I cited The Washington Post for the first diff in which it is Kamala Harris who called Tulsi Gabbard an apologist for Assad. The reference (although it is an op-ed) is clearly factual, and the passage which might be thought the journalists opinion does not differ from multiple claims made about Gabbard when she was a presidential candidate. The other, a brief addition, is factual also ("[The] three major Moscow-based English-language websites [are] affiliated with or supportive of the Russian government.") I did not consider these additions to be tendentious. Philip Cross (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The citation you added: Only Gabbard asserts that the United States (not Assad) is responsible for the death and destruction in Syria, that the Russian airstrikes on civilians are to be praised, that efforts to protect Syrian civilians are wrongheaded and that the United States must side with Assad., sourced to an op-ed by someone with a strong POV. I believe you cannot be counted upon to contribute neutrally on the Syrian Civil War, though I don't always think you are wrong. (I remember backing you up on the Douma page itself recently, for example) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 15:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support full BLP ban on Philip. This is the same modus operandi as he operated on british political articles that eared him a well deserved ban from them, he is editing in a similar manner on this topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. Philip is a very experienced editor it is a shame he seems unable to edit and improve articles without what is apparently a personal slant. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I would also support this. His aim appears to be to discredit anyone he doesn’t agree with. IWI (chat) 19:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose full BLP ban. @Govindaharihari: That is unjustified by the evidence at hand. Please bear in mind that Philip Cross has contributed to many nonpolitical bios. He is, for example, the top editor of Duke Ellington and literally hundreds of other Wikipedia bios of musicians, more than a few of them still living. A full BLP ban would deprive us of his unparalleled expertise in this field. Let's not toss out the baby with the bathwater. NedFausa (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

At the very least we need a topic ban on the Syrian Civil war/Israel-Palestine conflict as well as journalist BLPs. That would be the minimum. IWI (chat) 20:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa picked up on something on the Abby Martin article. It seems strange to me, as the user stated, that Cross makes this change after Martin herself makes this tweet referring to Cross himself with criticism. Seems like too much of a coincidence and would show blatant bad faith. IWI (chat) 00:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Totally bizarre, evidence-free filing. BLP does not require us to portray individuals in a favourable light. The diffs produced by IWI are utterly mundane. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

My concerns are only one part of this. There are at least three other BLPs that this user has clearly used subtle synthesis to POV push their views about someone the user clearly disagrees with. Cherry picking particular negative quotes and using synthesis to make them look even worse to make outrageous claims of antisemitism is more that just portraying negatively. The user has used falsehoods or misquotes, which is a big deal on a BLP. IWI (chat) 07:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't get the feeling you understand what the BLP policy actually says. If RSs are generally critical of Khalek, or Blumenthal, or whoever, then the article will be generally critical of them. We don't scrub criticism because the article subject doesn't like it; the Donald Trump page would be a one line long if that was the case. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Philip Cross: Re the first diff, above you say "I later modified the passage to quote Khalek. It suggests she did not believe the attack had occurred at all". How does the source justify that claim? How does it justify how it appears you left the article at permalink: "Haaretz quoted her denial in April 2018 that the Syrian government was responsible..."? To my simple mind, it looks like the source said Khalek had posted that there was no evidence and that means the above are very bad WP:SYNTH violations. Normally, SYNTH violations are a dime a dozen but they are very big deal when present in a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The internal link is to "Douma chemical attack", not "Alleged Douma chemical attack." Philip Cross (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever your opinions, the source did not say what you said. IWI (chat) 07:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

ImprovedWikiImprovment, Being attacked by a subject of an article you've already edited doesn't constitute a COI. That would implement an effective heckler's veto. Also calling this as discrediting journalists is tendentious as most of them are provocateurs, not rapporteurs, often working for disinformation outlets sponsored by think tanks or hostile governments. Guy (help!) 19:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

JzG So you’ve not mentioned the most major point directly above, that the user inserted his own synthesis of a source on a BLP to suggest something controversial. It doesn’t matter who she works for or whatever, because this goes against policy directly. Now I shouldn’t need to explain this to such an experienced editor. What Cross is doing goes is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I have no conflict of interest whatsoever here, with only the interests of the project. IWI (chat) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering arbitration warned you "to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest. Further, he is warned that his off-wiki behavior may lead to further sanctions to the extent it adversely impacts the English Wikipedia", how do you explain, following this tweet by Tim Anderson (political economist), making many edits such as this to his article? Wouldn’t this be a blatant violation of that warning, along with the Abby Martin issue mentioned above? IWI (chat) 07:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I recommend administrators search Twitter using my name as there is evidence suggesting WP:PROXYING, especially concerning the Rania Khalek article. My edits to the Tim Anderson article do not "adversely impact" Wikipedia as they are derived from RS and develop the article. Philip Cross (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No proxying occurred. I made these edits at my own direction after people highlighted your edits to me on Twitter. Even if it did, they are not banned editors. Your claim is absurd. IWI (chat) 07:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Correction, they were highlighted, but not directly to me. IWI (chat) 08:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Philip Cross is the victim of an off-wiki smear campaign who should never have been topic banned from British politics in the first place; as all that led to was the smear campaign scrutinising every single one of his edits for something they don't like, and then abusing BLP to try to get him punished in any way they can. If this was a genuine complaint, why is Philip Cross the only editor they complain about? Iffy★Chat -- 09:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Because, very simply, the complaint is about Philip Cross i.e. this is a genuine complaint about Philip Cross. I admit this so called campaign brought my attention to it, but on inspection I became concerned. The editor is simply discrediting the project, and I can’t let that happen. (I answered because it appeared this was a question to me directly). People are saying they won’t trust Wikipedia again, and that is a big problem. IWI (chat) 10:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@RaiderAspect: but sources are not generally critical. In fact even the sources used are mostly not critical. The user took a direct quote. There are about 20 of these direct quotes from the person, he chooses the one that would be most defaming. It should also be noted that the person in question actually expressed concerns about her Wikipedia page. Cross has gone through a process of removing positive sources and replacing them with negative ones, or emphasising negative ones more, even to the point of synthesis in one case (the Douma chemical attack one) and literally saying something that wasn’t exactly in the source. Believe me, I understand the policy well and I would not post here lightly. IWI (chat) 13:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• OK, so the RT fanclub is out for Philip Cross' blood again. Cool, cool. Guy (help!) 19:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ah its those pesky Russians again! Bla bla bla same old bullshit I see. PackMecEng (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The RT fanclub is mainly not Russians. Russians are not the target audience. Guy (help!) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@JzG and PackMecEng: What a load of crap. Can we keep this serious here. RT is an unreliable source and it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. You haven’t even took the time to look at my query. Not a response I would expect from admins and I am genuinely shocked. IWI (chat) 20:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Your logical fallacy is: begging the question. I looked at your query. I find your case unpersuasive, per my comments above. Guy (help!) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure but that’s doesn’t mean you can make comments like that, not really productive. I don’t see how it begs the question, considering none of my argument included RT, neither did anyone else’s. IWI (chat) 20:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with IWI. JzG first comment is disruptive just like most of his comments in American politics related area. Like for example, in here, he has made dozens of comments mocking Trump because he couldn't pronounce the word "origins". And there are a lot of examples that show how disruptive this editor JzG is. This provocative comment might be the latest but probably not the last. This would probably not change unless that Admin tag that is next to his username got removed because it is obviously providing some impunity to his disruptive and provocative comments and he probably senses that impunity and continues with this type comments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support full BLP ban I found this in his talk page after he crossed the line and suggested in the talk page of Max Blumenthal that Max Blumenthal is anti-semite saying: [68]

I am not necessarily referring to Blumenthal, but being Jewish does not mean people cannot be antisemites

This was absolutely unnecessary, unrelated comment and should, in my opinion, be removed. It turns out the editor has a history of BLP violations.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at the current state of the talk page reveals that there have been several discussions in the past about whether to include language discussing accusations of anti-semitism. If criticism of the subject is discussed in reliable sources (and many different reliable sources call Blumenthal anti-semitic; just look at the article), then it's not a BLP violation to discuss that criticism on the talk page. Nothing in that dif you linked violates BLP. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing suggests he is anti-Semetic, so I’m not sure why Philip Cross even mentions it, especially considering the man is Jewish himself. My conclusion is that Cross can find a way to call anyone anti-Semitic if he wants. Any good admin who sees the issue on that page would probably agree. IWI (chat) 09:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you respond without looking at the point? The discussion was clearly referring to the last paragraph of this section, where Blumenthal is accused of anti-semitism quite publicly. WilyD 09:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing suggests he is anti-Semetic. Apart from appearing on the Simon Wiesenthal Center List of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Israel Slurs. And numerous reliable sources that describe anti-Semitic remarks. Your obvious animus towards Philip Cross is leading you to make indefensible statements. Perhaps step back and don't argue every single point here? Guy (help!) 09:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you even read the article in question? There are a several sources that explicitly call Blumenthal anti-semitic or tie him to anti-semitic groups [69] [70], and another where Blumenthal himself discusses a time he was called anti-semitic [71]. WP:BLPTALK forbids "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices". But these accusations are well-sourced, and the discussion surrounding them is a notable part of Blumenthal's career and public life. On top of that, the specific comment that Shar'abSalam quoted didn't call Blumenthal anti-semitic. Shar'abSalam demands that an editor be blocked from editing BLPs, but his evidence is an edit that doesn't violate BLP policy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair points, my apologies. IWI (chat) 10:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The leaders of the Wiesenthal Center are avid Donald Trump supporters. Does that seem centrist and unbiased to you? There's no evidence that the Wiesenthal Center speaks for most Jews, and according to Peter Beinart and The Forward, quite a bit against it.[72] GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wiesenthal Centre is a storied organisation, they have a certain agenda and POV (so we attribute their statements) but they predate the Trump regime and any support will be solely due to Trump's support for Israel's agenda in Palestine and Jerusalem. Guy (help!) 22:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnic group. Israel is a nation-state. To directly conflate the interests of the two is itself a |hard Right ideological position. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to push that ideological position, although it does appear to be the purpose of Philip Cross.

Peter Beinart and The Forward are also broadly pro-Israel, but even they consider the Wiesenthal Center extremist, however "storied" it may be. Inflammatory accusations from extreme ideological opponents are not appropriate for a BLP at all.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Philip Cross is adding material with citations from relevant media. Eostrix (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support full BLP ban for the reasons stated above. The Wiesenthal Center's hard right POV--that Jews first loyalty must always be to Israel[73]--should not be used to defame people on Wikipedia.GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• No one in this thread has posted a single dif demonstrating a violation of BLP or made any policy-based case supporting a topic ban. Some editors disagree with Philip Cross's edits. Those disagreements should be discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

OK. please explain how this previously cited "diff" works with our BLP protections. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Easy. BLP does not forbid properly attributed criticism of public figures, even when the people making the criticism have strong views on the subject. The Boris Johnson article quotes left wingers describing him as "a nasty right-wing elitist, with odious views and criminal friends", and a "jester, toff, self-absorbed sociopath and serial liar". You could debate whether Rogin's comments are due in the context of the article, but they're not a BLP violation. --2001:8003:5818:6400:208E:F392:5526:5A1A (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's really a moot point, because the content didn't stay in the article long, but I would have thought giving further media amplification to demonstrably false claims about what the BLP subject said would be crossing the line. I guess not. Vive le western... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 02:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Bizarre accusation of socking

I was pinged in a 3RR complaint (where I was not a participant) and Esuka accused me of being an anonIP 46.226.190.219. As anyone here can attest, such an accusation can forever taint a user's edits, and when I asked the user to retract the accusation both in the complaint and on their usertalk page, they said:

"I believe there's enough there to cast reasonable doubt on your story. If that causes you upset or offense that's really not my problem. Also, I don't believe checkuser would clear you either way. Feel free to try and get me hit with a proverbial "slap on the wrist" if it you makes you feel better.".

As you can probably guess, I am angered by not just the accusation, but the cavalier nature of Esuka, who throws out these damaging accusations without a shred of proof and clearly expects to walk away without any repercussions. This user, who has been here less than two years is gaming the system, making accusations they don't have to back up, isn't going to believe the results of the checkuser (if done), and feels there isn't any real penalty for doing so (ie. a "slap on the wrist").
I would like to seek their lengthy, lengthy block from Wikipedia. No one should get to drop in corrosive accusations like that and go to bed happy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Esuka blocked for 36 hours for continuing to cast aspersions, after just having been warned against doing so. El_C 05:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Albeit a NPA-block, if blocks for casting aspersions were commonplace, a quarter of the community would be blocked. No view as to whether it was a good block or not, but imo this would have more sense if the editor had continued after their warning from EdJohnston, the squabble on the noticeboard doesn't really count. Just my opinion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

An editor committed a blockable offense and got blocked. So what? Do people really not realize how weird it is to say stuff like this? @QEDK: "...if blocks for casting aspersions were commonplace, a quarter of the community would be blocked." So what? Because the flip side of that is, "a quarter of the community would find themselves, either because they're blocked or because they fear getting blocked, unable to cast aspersion anymore." If we block people for committing blockable offenses, lots of people will stop committing blockable offenses. Do you know how weird it is to have a problem with that? 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:647C:F1F1:4EBD:BBA4 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Calm down, my man. Blocking to instill fear is a no-no. I'd rather you kept your Orwellian ideas out of this. In case you aren't aware, making accusations is basically how noticeboards work, when you don't back them up with evidence, they are aspersions. No one is denying that aspersions were cast but that the aspersions being made once or twice do not equate to being blocked (on the English Wikipedia), if making aspersions had real consequences, most of the politicians in your country would be doing time. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Having a user accuse another of socking without evidence (outside of and without an SPI report) is... not good. But what is worse, is that when confronted about that, they literally start taunting the targeted user by basically saying: try to get me to stop casting that aspersion on you, it's just not something that is enforced. Well, guess what? Sometimes it is enforced. I would probably would have gone with only a warning if it wasn't for that there's-nothing-you-can-do-about-it, "slap on the wrist" taunt. Note that, even after being blocked, the user continued implying that the targeted user is socking, writing: "Just because I couldn't straight up prove he's socked doesn't mean he isn't guilty either."[74] (No, I did not extend their block for that, but I take a dim view of it, too.) El_C 08:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clear it up, I am in no way saying it was a bad block, in fact, the ensuing discussion that happened leads me to believe you were right to take the step. It is the precedent of blocking without discussion that I want to avoid, if the editor had not heeded to Ed's warning, I would be more amenable to it, but they weren't given that opportunity (whether they should be is also a gray area). If you're interested, you might want to take a look at a SPI filed against Pppery, but that situation ended with no blocks taking place, even though multiple experienced editors cast aspersions on slim-to-none evidence. I'm just saying some conflict is normal, having some thick skin is important and that the block should have been waited out, even if it now appears to be the correct outcome. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm grateful that you cared enough to express concern about this block, but I would like to also point out that I was within my right to be irritated at the situation I found myself in as it was wholy unfair and things were said. I have no history of any warnings or blocks on Wikipedia and have worked in good faith with other editors for years. I have not been such a disruptive user here that I deserve an insta block for a few stray comments. I have not behaved in such a way that I deserve to be blocked without the chance to explain myself. His view that my block was deserved because of things said after the fact is wholy inappropriate. Esuka (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I was blocked within 13 minutes of this discussion being created and was denied the chance to explain myself prior to the admin taking such action. I don't view this block as legitimate as I was warned by Edjohnston prior to such action taking place. There was no reason to hit me with two sanctions and deny me the chance to explain myself and perhaps apologize prior to these sanctions being made. I admit that I overstepped and I was expecting a warning for my trouble and was happy to move on. The admin claims he blocked me to "prevent further disruption" but I have no history of doing this and had not posted on the topic for hours prior to the block taking place. So as far as I was concerned the discussion was done and I had moved on.

You can try and use my irritation about being denied a chance to discuss here as a means to justify the block but to me thats flawed reasoning. The flow of discussion would have been wholy different if I wasn't hit with an absurd and illegitimate block prior to it taking place. Thanks. Esuka (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The topic creators incivility

The blocking admin also refused to warn or block Jack Sebastian after he made abusive statements about me on Edjohnstons page, see [75]. Instead he argued that because I had accused him of something, he was upset and things were said. And because he was apparently "sorry" for his actions no such action was needed. Why such selective reasoning? He was allowed ample time to "repent" for his disgusting remarks about me and escaped sanctions. But as someone who has no history of blocks or warnings unlike the topic creator I get hit with two sanctions and denied the chance to explain myself like Jack Sebastian was? Heck he had many maaaaaany hours. Me? 13 minutes. Well if I wasn't asleep maybe I could have posted here. Is this normal admin behavior? Esuka (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

1. There was no two sanctions. There was one block, which I explain in detail here. Once the (single) block was issued, it was not altered further.
2. Esuka was also upset and said things, like writing: blocking me does nothing more than stroke your own ego[76] Their block was not extended for that remark, nor for them repeating the accusation against the OP even after they were blocked, writing: Just because I couldn't straight up prove he's socked doesn't mean he isn't guilty either.[77]
3. Unlike Esuka, the OP struckthrough their offending comments that he made while he was upset.[78] I also removed the personal attack from EdJohnston's talk page.[79] The OP also apologized [80], an apology which Esuka did not seem to have accepted.[81]
4. Finally, Esuka could have challenged the block, which I encouraged them to do. But they refused on the basis that an unblock request would achieve nothing as I'm sure in your time here you have made many friends among the admin who would back up even the most poorest judgements you have made. I would never have a fair hearing.[82] A view which I repeatedly tried to inform them was without basis.[83] El_C 02:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Esuka should drop the stick. Let me put it clearly, maybe the block itself was controverisial, but your behaviour after the block was placed is exactly why nothing more will come of this. If you had filed an unblock request stating that you made a mistake and recanted your statements, I'm 100% sure you would be unblocked. I'm not even a believer in "ends justify the means", but your ensuing discussion proves that you would not back down your aspersions, although being irritated by the block is fairly understandable. I don't see what more is to be done here. Best, qedk (t 桜 c) 14:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

G5 nominations of Biografer's articles

Can a few people check a bunch of {{db-g5}} nominations by ThatMontrealIP? I have declined Harry Shamoon and Moni Simeonov because multiple people (IPs count) have edited the article, and Angela Slavova because I'm sure somebody in WP:WikiProject Women in Red will take care of it. I'm concerned about throwing the baby out with the bathwater; my understanding of WP:G5 was to get rid of blatantly rubbish articles started by banned editors that didn't quite fit any other CSD criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I had a look through them, and, with the possible exception of Emily Pogorelc, they all look valid to me. Adam9007 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Richie333: I first asked Mer-C about nominating these and they said nominate them all if they are without significant contribs, as there were copyright issues with Biografer's contribs. I check the history first and nominate if the contribs are not something substantial that would stick. In the case of Harry Shamoun, the IP's contribs are all unsourced. For Angela Slavova there are no siginificant contribs beyond Biografer's. Emily Pogorelc has some IP contribs that Biografer reverted, and some category work. I also find it a bit sad that these have to go, but understand the reasoning I received from MER-C. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Pinging David Eppstein who has been involved in (attempting to prevent) such G5s. @ThatMontrealIP: Whatever anyone else says, the only things that have to go is copyvios, attack pages and anything else we are not. If these articles improve the encyclopedia, then we should keep them. ——SN54129 17:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

OK well different admins have told me different things now, so I will stop altogether and let you folks have a discussion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should have an AfD for them? If we're to discuss the deletion of these pages, AfD is the proper venue. Adam9007 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, ha, that literally never happens every time. Sorry about that. Guy (help!) 19:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, "multiple people" is one IP per article, though. In the case of Moni Simeonov it's an IP from the school where he teaches. And the IP on Harry Shamoom geolocates to his area as well. It's not an outrageous G5. Guy (help!) 19:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I made substantive edits yesterday to articles Nancy Combs, Angela Slavova, Caroline Forell, Lucija Čok, Amy Schmitz, Sonia Aissa, Sandra Irving, Kathryn Albers, Tanja Schultz, Emily Agree, and (earlier) Barbara Aldave, most of which have now been deleted (and in one case only partially restored). I am dismayed to see MER-C, JJMC89, and now ThatMontrealIP so blatantly ignore the requirement of G5 that it only apply to articles to which no substantive edits have been made by others. The articles should be restored and the admins admonished for making out-of-policy speedy deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein:, I G5'd a few very low notability articles, and I did not delete any of them as I do not have that ability. I then wondered if I was going to far and sought an admin's advice on criteria for G5, and them simply followed that advice. Trying to do the right thing here... if I made any mistakes, my apologies. From what I am seeing here, the admin opinion on what is a good G5 varies.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Some editors think that all of a banned/blocked editors' page creations should be G5'd, so as to deter people from creating pages in violation of their bans/blocks. After all, if I can create a sock account, create a bunch of pages, and have the sock account blocked but the pages stay... why wouldn't I just keep creating sock accounts and making pages? I mean, what's the point of a page creator using just one account at all? On the other hand, other editors think we shouldn't delete pages just because they were created by a banned/blocked user. What does it matter who created the content? We're here to build an encyclopedia; it makes little sense to delete perfectly good pages, regardless of who wrote them or why. This ought to be resolved with an RfC. With regard to this particular editor, I've gone through many of their creations and have CSD'd a bunch. There are so many errors, including straight factual errors, not per source, copyvios, and totally non-notable people, that I loathe the notion of going through all 600 just in case some might be worth saving. I'm of the "nuke it all" camp–if it's good content, someone will come along and recreate it–someone whose work we can trust. And, I want to de-incentivize the editor from making more pages with other sock accounts. The editor should know that all of their work will be tossed if they create pages in violation of their bans. Simply put: I don't trust Biografer's work, and I think in this case we should G5 it all. – Levivich 18:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Our primary goal at Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. ALL OTHER THINGS WE DO, including discouraging blocked/banned editors from returning, is secondary to that. Insofar as either 1) the work has been checked and verified by other editors or 2) substantially edited by further editors with significant verifiable and free content or 3) both, then we don't need to delete anything via G5. Insofar as we catch someone, and delete their work before it becomes entrenched at the encyclopedia, then G5 is appropriate. Insofar as other editors have substantially done work on those articles, including verifying existing content and adding additional, substantive, verifiable content, then no, we should NOT be deleting it. Discouraging banned users, as noble a cause at that is, is ALWAYS secondary towards creating an encyclopedia. --Jayron32 18:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, that's one view. Another is that "banned means banned" and allowing people to get away with ban evasion as long as it goes undetected for long enough is unwise, especially when the ban was in part due to copyright violation. Guy (help!) 19:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, it depends on whether enforcing a punishment is or is not more important than building an encyclopedia. WE MUST PUNISH AT ALL COSTS is a bit of a "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" reaction. --Jayron32 19:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

"Building an encyclopedia" is just a catchphrase, though. It's like saying "good for the Earth". The whole question is what, exactly, "building an encyclopedia" means. (1) If someone creates 100 copyvio articles, and we go through and rewrite them all to fix the copyvio, are we "building an encyclopedia"? (2) If we delete them all, are we "building an encyclopedia"? (3) If we ignore it and do nothing, are we "building an encyclopedia"? Sure, everyone will agree #1 is "building an encyclopedia" and #3 is not. But while we go do #1, #3 is actually what's going on. Mishae's newest created 600+ articles. Are you or I going to go through them to rewrite any copyvio that may exist? To fix factual errors? How long will that take? In the meantime, #3 is what's actually going on, right now, today. Every undeleted, unchecked article is just sitting there, with an unknown number of factual errors, copyvio, or other problems. So I say, that's not building an encyclopedia. We should do #2–to stop harm–and then proceed with #1, rather than doing #3 while we do #1. That's how I see this G5 divide... it's about whether you do #2 or #3 while you work on #1. – Levivich 19:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, it's not that frigging complicated. If someone has already done #1, don't delete the article. If someone hasn't, delete the article. Why is that so hard for you to understand? --Jayron32 15:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If someone has already done #1 ... meaning, if someone creates 100 copyvio articles, don't delete them all? Yes, that's hard for me to understand. – Levivich 19:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

But blocks are also part of writing an encyclopedia - when we block people, we do it (ideally, every single time it happens) because their activities were making it hard for us to make an encyclopedia. Therefore, enforcing a block is also a vital part of Wikipedia's mission. That said, WP:BLOCKEVADE has a reasonable suggestion for this - that a blocked-evading user's edits can be removed by anyone with no further explanation, but can also be restored by anyone who chooses to endorse them, at which point the usual conflict-resolution stuff applies and an actual explanation has to be given to delete them again. Obviously a deletion cannot be trivially reversed by a non-admin, so the closest thing we have for this is probably WP:PRODding; this would suggest that what we ought to do is have a rule that a block-evading user's created articles can be prodded with no further reason (even en mass or via an automated tool), but they're not automatically CSDed. That gives other users a chance to endorse the edit, serving both our purpose of making sure blocks actually function and preventing noteworthy, worthwhile content from being deleted. I would even extend this to edits that have edits from other users (provided the overall content and structure of the article still comes from the blocked user), on the grounds that prodding is a lightweight action that doesn't require much justification anyway and those other contributors can object if they want. --Aquillion (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "G5 PROD". – Levivich 16:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the content is untrustworthy, but G5 is for content that is solely by the banned/blocked editor, with only gnomery by others. If you want to delete it, it's the wrong process. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the issue here was that Biografer has some borderline copyvio issues (close paraphrasing), as mentioned at the COIN discussion. Also, a lot of their articles were of very, very thin notability. Anyway. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Those are both reasons for deletion, but not reasons for G5 deletion. As for Lev's "other editors think we shouldn't delete pages": this is a strawman. I have seen nobody arguing that all of Mishae's articles should be kept. In this case, there are good reasons for deleting the pages that other editors have not vetted, by G5. But the shoot-first-ask-questions-later side of this debate wants to delete them all, disregarding and disrespecting the work of other editors who have done some vetting of some of these articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Most of them have now been deleted under G5. Are you saying they should be restored and sent to AfD? Adam9007 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Certainly the ones I explicitly listed above, to which I had made substantive contributions, should be restored. I have no idea what fraction of the others have similar issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein, if you've done work on them, and are satisfied that they are free of copyvio then I'd support their restoration. If people want to argue the toss about notability then they can trot over to afd GirthSummit _(blether) 19:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Just a thought - it seems pretty obvious that TMIP was acting in good faith here, trying to do the right thing by cleaning out these articles, discussing it with an admin first, and voluntarily stopping now that doubts have been raised. I'm sure it wasn't your intention to suggest otherwise, but nobody wants to be the subject of a thread at ANI - perhaps it would be a nice gesture if you were to acknowledge that there is no suggestion of a conduct issue here, and that we are simply discussing how best to handle these articles going forward? (Perhaps this thread should be renamed 'Dealing with Biografer' articles', for the same reason?) GirthSummit _(blether) 18:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries here. I like and respect the work the admins do, and also have a reasonably thick skin.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to say, Ritchie333, is that it's always sad to see an ANI notice on someone's talk page with no prior thread discussing the issue. Maybe I don't have the whole picture but the contribs suggest you declined 3 CSDs placed by TMIP and then two minutes later posted this ANI thread. I think if you had asked TMIP about it on their talk page, you would have learned of the conversation on MER-C's talk page, and your view of this issue would have been different–along with the way you titled and drafted this report. If the only issue is, "remember not to G5 when an IP or other editor has made substantive edits", I'd think a talk page reminder would have been all that was required. If the issue is a broader issue about when and how G5 is used, then maybe this report should be re-titled and re-phrased, as GS suggests above, to make clear it's a policy issue and not a problem with a particular editor's conduct.

FWIW, my opinion is that Moni Simeonov had substantive edits by an IP and thus was not a G5 candidate (doesn't matter where the IP geolocates to, as there's no COI exception to the "substantive edits" prohibition for a G5). Harry Shamoon also not a G5 candidate because of IP edits, and reverting the IP's edits for being unsourced doesn't change the fact that it had substantive edits by another editor. For Angela Slavova, I think this is a substantive edit by David; not a G5. Caroline Forell and Lucija Čok weren't tagged G5 by TMIP or anyone else AFAICS; and I can't see the history of the rest. But in terms of TMIP and G5ing, other than "counting" those edits as "substantive" and not G5ing articles like Simeonov, Shamoon, and Slavova, I don't really see any ANI-level problem, and I think TMIP can continue tagging articles if they want to (with thanks). – Levivich 19:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this thread is mistitled (it's really about what to do with the Mishae/Biografer articles, not ThatMontrealIP's behavior), but that because it involves the behavior of multiple administrators this is the right place to hold the discussion rather than some individual talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I have renamed the thread as requested, and David has the right idea of what I intended. I was not planning to tar and feather ThatMontrealIP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I nominated about 70 for g5, and the vast majority (66, 67?) have now been deleted by five different admins. I thought I was just doing some gnomish cleanup. But I have stopped and will leave this until the concensus is clearer on G5.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's all right, ThatMontrealIP, it's really just a difference in operating philosophies. I think it was Iridescent (pinging in case I miscite them) who noted that the whole "banned means banned" mantra became policy after a discussion-and-therefore-consensus between about two or three editors. ——SN54129 12:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think at this point the discussion can be closed. I still think a few of the G5s were beyond the scope of what CSD allows, but the vast majority of them were ok, a small number that were not have been undeleted and cleaned up, and the content issues were so severe that for any remaining borderline cases it's probably better to leave deleted and if desired rewrite from scratch than to leave in place any unexamined text from Mishae. If any systematic effort to examine all of Mishae/Biografer's article creations has been interrupted by this discussion, it should resume. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow violation of topic ban?

note: I started this as a new section after the two comments immediate below were made, as the subject has changed since closing the above discussion. --Jayron32 17:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't Nocturnalnow still topic-banned from American Politics after 1932? 92.19.29.51 (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That should be discussed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that the George W. Bush administration occurred in the United States and after 1932, and that Nocturnalnow did try to add material to an article about that topic. --Jayron32 17:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, what's the proper protocol for handling the transgression like this? I am an administrator, but I do not administrate within post 1932 US politics due to my own personal biases, save for cases of obvious vandalism, restricting myself to it serving as an editor in that area. And, as you can see from the edit summary, I objected based on policy. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My protocol is to first assess if the person in question intends to abide by their editing restrictions or not. People do sometimes forget that they have editing restrictions or may be unaware of the exact nature of them, especially after 5 years, which is about how long this one is. My usual protocol is if the person in question immediately agrees to desist and recognizes that they were in error, we take it as a "no harm/no foul" event, and we all go on with our lives. If the person in question refuses to disengage and/or continues to protest that they aren't bound by their topic ban, some additional help in remembering the nature of that ban may be useful. --Jayron32 18:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not realize the info about Wesley Clark's conversations with a military general at the Pentagon amounts to post 1932 politics? Please explain if you don't mind. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Raw mixed nuts, somehow a propos-- Deepfriedokra

Oops, I see I myself made a political connection with my subtitle. You're right, I'm wrong. Apologies to all. I immediately agree to desist and this transgression was in error. Best wishes. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow, I'm not sure how "Clark claimed Bush planned to take out seven countries" (paraphrase of the edit) is not post 1932 politics. I didn't know about your editing restriction when I responded to you on the article talk page, and my comment there suggested that it made more sense in a article on Bush foreign policy. Schazjmd (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow Could you speak about your recent edits to: Christopher Steele, Bruce Ohr, Stefan Halper, Hunter Biden, et al. You've made many edits to these pages and they seem all very related to post 1932 politics.   // Timothy::talk  22:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I have the same opinion as many in the intelligence community which is that Steele is about national security and not politics, Ohr is about the FBI, not politics, Halper is about the FBI and national security and not politics and Hunter is about normal business activities and not politics.

Now the conspiracy theorists with the tin foil hats try to link all these stories to some sort of "deep state" manipulating political events, but I don't think you are siding with those conspiracy nuts, are you? Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the need to defeat someone's presidential bid is only about national security and politics doesn't come into play in any way. Edit: Looking at the history of your topic ban, and rereading your comment, I wonder if you're trying to make some lame point. Except you've missed the fact that most of us are able to appreciate the interplay of politics with other stuff. For example, it's perfectly possible for someone's motivations to have been solely about 'national security', while what they're trying to do definitely involves US politics. Hence also why someone like me with strongly negative views of Trump and fairly negative views of Bush can still safely say both of those edits clearly related to post 1932 US politics. Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nocturnalnow's edits are clear-cut violations of their topic ban, and their argument that they're talking about intelligence rather than politics in a topic that is radioactive with political manipulation is disingenuous. I also note this edit [84], in which Nocturnalnow removed Deepfriedokra's warning on their talkpage as a "personal attack," which is nonsense, but indicative of somebody who isn't prepared to think objectively about their conduct. I recommend a block, this has gone beyond a one-off topic ban violation. I'm not going to do it, because I don't have the time today for the inevitable follow-up discussions, but this is a textbook example of boundary-pushing that has gotten way out of hand. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

So Nocturnalnow is Tbanned from US politics; makes a bunch of edits to US security articles; says security is nothing to do with politics; implicitly calls those who disagree conspiracy theorists with the tin foil hats; wants to appeal the tban anyway; and does so by calling it an obviously wrongful ban in the first place, as well as stupid and idiotic.

Gotta love respect for community norms. ——SN54129 13:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Can almost everything be linked to American politics?

I'd also like to appeal my topic ban, which I accepted simply out of respect for the system. It was an obviously wrongful ban in the first place. Perhaps someone can tell me on my talk page how to appeal such a stupid ban with such an idiotic and Kafkaesque spirit and non-definition. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Jayron32, isn't this pretty much a textbook example of what you discussed above? John from Idegon (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  I have no intention of either blocking Nocturnalnow nor raising any objection should anyone else block them. --Jayron32 04:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Nocturnalnow: It is always a poor idea to object to the topic ban right after you have violated it. I would recommend that you must move far away from this thread as well as this particular topic and instead work on subjects such as Reality Italy, Moses, Diadema, etc. for next 6 months before appealing the topic ban because right now you are only getting closer to an indef block. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 06:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Welp. Mostly it's those matters related to political strife made right here in the good ol' USA. And therefore to government agencies, politicians, and others engaged in said strife.-- Deepfriedokra 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oh, and those who have been weaponized in said strife. I think that covers everyone named above.-- Deepfriedokra   07:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Each one of the articles listed above mentions connections of one sort or another with the Trump administration in the lead. You can say that they are primarily about something else, but to argue that they aren't about US politics at all seems futile. We have a load of articles that don't mention Trump, or US politics, at all. Those are the ones you should be editing until you get your Tban overturned. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• I wouldn't recommend you appeal your topic ban if you've just violated it by getting involved in something which mentioned the purported foreign policy plans of a US president [85]. And you violated again by making another edit which explicitly mentioned the current US president [86] and in a very weird way. And in fact didn't even only mention Trump but mentioned the need to "defeat" him, and I think we can be confident this referring to the need to defeat him in the game of tiddly winks. I mean heck, it's easy to see without needing to visit the source that the NYT themselves considered it a part of politics. I don't know why you were even topic banned, but the fact you don't seem to appreciate these related to post 1932 US politics is enough to make me think your editing in the area must be terrible. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• What Nil Einne said. I'm for closing this if you understand that this was a violation and undertake not to do it again, but otherwise I think you're likely to end up blocked. Guy (help!) 16:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, this message from User:Deepfriedokra, while containing a kinda/sorta weird section title but not a single offensive letter in the paragraph below, was removed by User:Nocturnalnow as, if you can believe it, a "personal attack." This sort of editor is why they wrote WP:NOTHERE. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:B956:C2F2:1E1A:AA37 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Well, that's interestingly ironic. as I voiced my concerns of user's incivility and personal attacks, and I rather think it proves my concerns are justified..-- Deepfriedokra 18:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Which of their edits was not a violation of the topic ban?

Looking at the 100 most recent contributions by Nocturnalnow to articles or article talk pages, we have:

• 7 edits to Wesley Clark and its talk page, about "Outing Bush Administrations "taking down 7 countries" plan"
• 3 edits to Christopher Steele, with an edit summary like "Inspector General: "Steele had a “passionate” belief in the need to defeat Mr. Trump.""
• 17 edits to Bruce Ohr and its talk page, with lengthy posts[87] about Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation), the investigation of the Trump election and Russian interference
• 2 edits to Abu Zubaydah, which are more distant from the topic ban (though not really unrelated either, a Guantanamo bay detainee)
• 9 edits to Stefan Halper and its talkpage: edit summary "The New York Times reported that for Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign, Halper was the "person in charge" of running a "highly secretive" operation to get inside information of the Carter Administration's foreign policy and pass it to the Reagan campaign" says it all
• dozens of edits to Hunter Biden and its talk page, rather clearly part of the topic ban: also three edits to closely related article BHR Partners
• 1 edit to Yanni, seems wholly unrelated to the topic ban
• 2 edits to John Solomon (political commentator), e.g. to the section "Pro-Donald Trump opinion pieces"
• 1 edit to Saugus High School (California), not part of the topic ban
• Loads of edits to Greta Thunberg and its talk page, most rather dubious and partisan, but not part of the topic ban.

Basically, from their last 50+ edits, i.e. from the last 2 months, 95% are violations of his topic ban. Instead of lifting it, perhaps it should be enforced? Fram (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Uhh, that appears to be mostly US politics related. Eostrix (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Nocturnalnow even received a discretionary sanctions alert for post 1932 US politics, I think after a 1RR violation at Hunter Biden [88]. But they just posted those 2 comments then later removed the alert [89]. They are obviously entitled to remove it, but if they had a known topic ban it would make sense to seek clarification on why they were given an alert, since they were clearly not editing anything to do with post 1932 US politics. Or at least mention their topic ban meant the alert was pointless since they would never edit the area..... Their editing profile suggests either someone who has absolutely zero respect for their topic ban, or someone who simply forgot about it. Since it's fairly old, and they seem to have been fairly inactive for long stretches (only really editing Jimbo Wales's talk page), normally I'd suggest they simply forgot about it. And if that's the case, although it's an editor's responsibility to remember their restrictions, it'll be fine with letting them off with a warning. But their above comments seem to suggest they're willfully ignoring the topic ban. Or maybe someone who's understanding of it is so poor they lack the WP:competence to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It should be obvious that I have avoided and tried to avoid all of the many direct politicle articles like Clinton or Trump or OAC or Democrat Party, Republican Party, Bernie Sanders etc.etc. In terms of why I first was topic banned it happened in a similar pile-on back when I dared to inject some due but negative info about Huma Abedin (btw, would she still be considered politics??? i.e. could I edit her now?) and a ban re: Abedin was being considered here yet an Admin. decided instead to give me the Kafkaesque like ( really hard to know exactly what the limitations are ) post 1932 US politics ban...btw, have any of you really done a thought experiment about the appropriateness of such a ban in our project? A full blown time limited block would have been much more just.

I have tried to stay completely away from USA politics which is why I limited myself to Jimbo's talk page but then some brand new editor complained about my edits there, even there, being against this ban. But I digress, even after coming back to regular articles I try to see where I can make, imo, obvious improvements and this case with Wesley Clark is an example wherein a featured article makes no reference...zero..to a matter the Subject put a lot of attention into bringing to the public's attention. This particular Blp is the one which, imo, needs the most improvement because to the millions of people/readers who are aware of Clark's assertions that within a month of 9/11 the Pentagon/Rumsfeld was planning to "take out 7 countries beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and ending with Iran", the complete and baffling omission of Clark's lectures/whistleblowing even? about that plan would cause Readers to doubt the credibility and neutrality not only of Clark's Blp but of the encyclopedia as a whole. And the fact its a Featured article makes the omission even more bizarre. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You spend your time here pushing conspiracy theories and Qanon nuttery. I don't know why people have put up with it for so long. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Fram, the idea that Bruce Ohr might plausibly be unrelated to US politics is... creative. Guy (help!) 16:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: See above. The bulk of the text you have added to Wikipedia articles have been about American political topics. It doesn't matter in which articles you add such text, you're not allowed to have anything to do with the subject of American politics. It stretches the bounds of credibility that you assert that edits where you directly name and discuss American political figures, such as past and current American presidents, are not related to American politics, but on the off chance that you, in good faith, genuinely believed such edits to be outside the range of your topic ban, every one of the many people who have commented on this situation have now informed you that these indeed are part of your topic ban. You may assert that before this discussion you hadn't realized. You can now longer credibly assert that you still don't understand this. You have been adequately informed, and the expectation is that you either acknowledge that you have been told this information and agree to abide by your topic ban, and do so quickly and unambiguously, or it is quite likely you will be blocked. --Jayron32 16:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32:, ok, thanks for laying it out so clearly. Before this discussion I did believe that those topics I edited were outside the ban, but now, after this discussion, I do agree to abide by the ban unambiguously. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. --Jayron32 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Options:

1. Nocturnalnow is reminded that topic bans are broadly construed and that testing the limits of such bans is likely to lead to escalating blocks.
2. Nocturnalnow is counselled to seek guidance before editing any article where there is doubt as to whether it may fall in scope of the topic ban or not.
3. Nocturnalnow may appeal the topic ban in not less than three months.
4. Nocturnalnow is blocked for one week for violation of the topic ban.

Opinions

• 1, 2, 3 above. Guy (help!) 16:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, 3 per my comments in the previous sections, neutral on 4 pending Nocturnalnow's forthcoming response. --Jayron32 16:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  Amend to oppose 4. A block is not necessary, he expresses understanding, and agrees to abide by the terms of his ban. --Jayron32 20:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• 1, 2, 3 above. They haven't edited any articles since this point was raised here, so there's no immediate disruption - provided that remains the case, I'd be happy for us to hold off on 4, but if they edit again on this subject after this reminder an immediate block would be warranted. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• 1,3,4 User should also be required to relate WP:NPA to own edits, while relating how civilly presented concerns over personal attacks are not, in fact, personal attacks.-- Deepfriedokra 18:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, 3. Per his statement above he understands the terms of his ban, so (for now) 4 isn't needed. - DoubleCross (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, 3 and oppose 4 Although I have some difficulty reconciling Nocturnalnow's statement that he believed the topics were outside his ban because he did not directly edit political articles; with his earlier statements where he appeared to be claiming that making an edit which directly mentioned one US president's alleged foreign policy goals, or an edit relating to the desire of someone to prevent another US president becoming president in the first place were somehow unrelated to politics; now that he's said he understands and will abide by the topic ban I'm not sure a short block will serve much purpose. And frankly I'd suggest a minimum of 6 months before an appeal. But I'm also fine just dropping this. Hopefully Nocturnalnow has gotten the message, if now, well it's their funeral. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  Nil Einne, yes, nicely summed up. I'd be more blunt: time to stop taking the piss. But the outcome is the same :-) Guy (help!) 01:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Zen page

• Zen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nosebagbear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a02:a210:2901:c300:15c6:16b3:691c:b8e7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Moved from AN)

The current editor of the zen page is biased in his writing. He does not keep an objective point of view. I've been wanting to add some material to the wiki, but the editor in question is not open to views that conflict with his own opinion, so I refrained from posting anything.

You can view the conversation about it on the zen talk page, here, where I try to address some of the issues with the article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zen#Do_the_moderators_of_this_page_even_study_zen%3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, assuming that you're talking about Joshua Jonathan, then you should let them know you want AN (or AN-incidents) to consider something involving them. I've done so for you. @Girth Summit: tried to offer some advice at the beginning, so pinging for awareness Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I put a notifications on his talk page as the instructions above said. Is it not enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• New notifications go at the bottom of the page, not the top. That's why Nosebagbear didn't see it. Reyk _YO! 12:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Thanks for clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Mm. I did some initial tidying up, and left a couple of general comments, but I haven't been following that discussion. IP editor, this noticeboard is for conduct issues, rather than content disputes. Reading through that discussion, (JJ's comments about 'wild fox slobber' and 'flat earther' notwithstanding), the closest thing to a conduct issue I see is you repeatedly making assertions to the effect that another editor is biased, incompetent to edit the page, ought to be banned from the page, etc. I might add that you are filling that page with huge walls of text, with quotes from various books, making it very difficult for anyone to follow. I'd advise you to be polite, be explicit about what you want to add/change, and (where possible) provide URL links to your sources (if it's a book, provide a link to Google books). Also, please consider creating an account - you seem to be hopping about on various different IPs, which makes communication and collaboration more difficult. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The editor in question however is not engaging with the provided material. The six zen patriarchs who shaped the tradition and their teachings are being left out. If a editor is biased in his works, isn't that misconduct? He's also pushing me for tertiary source, calling the primary ones unusable. I have provided tertiary sources though and the editor in question is using primary sources in the article that is already up. Seems very hypocritical to me. The supposed insults are all based on this. I don't find someone who omits the founding teachings of a tradition capable of being an objective editor. I don't think it's insulting to say that. 2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(IP, I refactored your statement slightly.) There you go again - biased, hypocritical, incapable of being objective - you're on thin ice, tread carefully. We all have our own perspectives and biases, and sometimes it's difficult for us to see through that - you think JJ is biased, perhaps he thinks you're biased - that's why you should focus on the content, and try to avoid mentioning what you think about your interlocutor. Any try to do it concisely, being very clear about what you want to change - as I said, that discussion is very difficult to wade through. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you find someone to be capable of writing about christianity if he leaves out all accounts and teachings of jesus? The page is called zen, but does not include the six patriarchs of zen's teachings. That seems biased to me. I can hardly imagine an objective observer overlooking the founders of a tradition they are writing about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't accuse them of being incapable of writing. If they were leaving out any mention of Jesus, I'd argue on the talk page that we should include some background information about Jesus and his teachings in the article, since it's obviously relevant, and I'd suggest a few good sources (not the Bible obviously, some scholarly works about the religion). If I did that, I expect I'd gain consensus pretty quickly. Now knock this off and go and make your case politely. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Facts should not have to rely on politeness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:2901:c300:ad47:b3d:4079:7b4c (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. WP:5P4 O3000 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Facts do not rely on politeness. YOUR ability to be the one who gets to add those facts to Wikipedia articles does however. If you think it is important to add a fact to an article, you are required to be polite, or else you won't get to add that fact. If you are concerned that, without your unique contributions, such facts may never get added to an article, then you have a strong responsibility to abide by Wikipedia's civility rules. --Jayron32 19:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

So you're enforcing politeness but not neutrality?

Does this also mean that if I'm polite, I can basically add as much misinformation as I want? Because that's what it sounds like.

2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No, wrong again. It is quite possible to do TWO things wrong, and each of them will be assessed independently. If you violate Wikipedia's policy on civil behavior you can be blocked. If you violate Wikipedia's policy on adding only verifiably correct information you can also be blocked. The fact that you haven't violated one policy doesn't mean that you can't violate others. --Jayron32 13:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If you intentionally add misinformation, we call that vandalism and you will be quickly blocked. If, on the other hand, you add information that you genuienly believe to be correct, but which other people think is wrong, you will not be reprimanded - but other editors will likely remove it. At that point, you are then expected to have a civil discussion about it on the article's talk page, and if you can't come to an agreement, you ask for other opinions. That's how it works. What we don't do is say 'I disagree with this person, so they must be biased, they should be blocked from editing the page' - that approach is what will likely get you blocked if you persist with it. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about a dispute in the facts; this is about a dispute about conduct. Unless the conduct issue gets fixed, that dispute about the facts cannot get fixed. Teishin (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

So is neutrality.

"No, I wouldn't accuse them of being incapable of writing. If they were leaving out any mention of Jesus, I'd argue on the talk page that we should include some background information about Jesus and his teachings in the article, since it's obviously relevant, and I'd suggest a few good sources (not the Bible obviously, some scholarly works about the religion)."

The editor in question claims to have studied zen for 30 years though. I don't think anyone who has been a christian for over 30 years would forget about Jesus.

2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's entirely beside the point - this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, whether they have been studying a subject for 30 years, or just picked up a book about it today. You have presented no evidence of any conduct issues by other editors that are actionable here, but if you persist in casting aspersions and making accusations your IP address be very well end up being blocked from editing. Again - knock this off and go make your case politely, clearly and concisely on the article talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Stuff from Joshua Jonathan about why he feels the article is currently correct

The Zen-article gives a concise, balanced overview of Zen-practices and teachings. See Zen#Practice and Zen#Doctrine. I have the impression that the IP is promoting an obsolete, romantic view on Zen, namely Tang Dynasty Chan as the "golden age" of Zen, with iconoclastic Zen masters, and shock techniques to provoke sudden awakeking. See Zen#Zen narratives: The Chán of the Tang Dynasty, especially that of Mazu and Linji with its emphasis on "shock techniques", in retrospect was seen as a golden age of Chán. This picture has gained great popularity in the West in the 20th century, especially due to the influence of D.T. Suzuki, and further popularized by Hakuun Yasutani and the Sanbo Kyodan. This picture has been challenged, and complemented, since the 1970s by modern scientific research on Zen. References The IP is merely referring to primary sources, mostly from the socalled yulu genre, the 'recorded sayings' of ancient masters, which he seems to interpret in a specfic way. These texts cannot be taken on face-value, as they are doing; they were religious and institutional texts, created (long) after the lifes of their antagonists, and far from 'objective' representations of their lifes or teachings. See John McRae, Seeing Through Zen; or Mario Poceski, Mazu yulu and the Creation of the Chan Records of Sayings, in Steven Heine, Dale S. Wright, The Zen Canon: Understanding the Classic Texts. Poceski, p.62 & 67-68: [p.62] ...the popular image of Mazu conveyed in numerous Zen books is that of an iconoclast, a radical figure who embodies a classical Chan tradition that to a large extent was created by him. [p.67-68] The iconoclastic image that we find in his dialogues, on the other hand, reflects later semi-mythologized portrayals of Mazu The IP seems to be lured by this popular image of the iconoclastic Zen-master, yet lacking in acquaintance with the relevant scholarly literature. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Ouch, User:Joshua Jonathan - that ref ordering hurts my eyes! Mind if I go over and move them around? GirthSummit (blether) 19:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Not anyone, which is kind of my issue to begin with.

I'm sure that that was the idea, but I don't think the zen page would allow for edits without the editors reverting them. Esp. if done by an IP.

I'm saying this because it happened on the dutch zen page too. A friend of mine has tried to add content to the english zen page before, which also got immediately reverted. (Can't say for sure when this was). So no, not anyone can just add content.

"I disagree with this person, so they must be biased, they should be blocked from editing the page"

This is not how I see it. There are zen masters that dispute what is being called zen on the wiki page. This has nothing to do with me.

Quotes by Zen masters from the IP editor

If carl bielefeldt say that: "Dogen explicitly links his zazen with the tradition that every act of the Ch'an masterwhether holding up a finger or beating a studentrepresents the enlightened behavior of a Buddha, free from discrimination and beyond understanding. The irony, of course, is that, while the basic shift from inward quest to outward expression may have remained constant, what was in the classical style intended precisely to celebrate Ch'an's freedom from traditional forms (especially contemplative forms) of Buddhist cultivation has here become frozen in the ritual reappropriation of the tradition of cross-legged sitting. In any case we have here gone well beyond the classical theoretical discourse on Buddha nature and sudden practice to a treatment of meditation that is less concerned with cognitive stales than with religious action, less concerned with the Buddha as symbol of pure consciousness than as example of liberated agent. If the model for Zen practice here is still the enactment of enlightenment, it is no longer simply the psychological accord of the practitioner's consciousness with the eternally enlightened mind; it is now the physical reenactment by the practitioner of the deeds of the historical exemplars of enlightened behavior." Also: "Yet there remains a sense in which we have not fully come to grips with the historical character and the religious problematic of the meditation tradition in which they occur. We are often told, for example, that Zen Buddhism takes its name from the Sanskrit dhyana... and that the school has specialised in the practice[of meditation], but we are rarely told just how this specialization is related to the many striking disclaimers, found throughout the writings of Chan and Zen... to the effect that the religion has nothing to do with [meditation] Then that has nothing to do with my personal opinion. Also, why zen does not equal dhyana, contrary to what the wiki article says: R.H. Blyth; "For the practical study of Zen, you must pass the barriers set up by the masters of Zen." In the phrase, "the practical study of Zen", sanszen, the word san is said to have three meanings: 1. to distinguish (truth from error.) 2. to have an audience with a Zen Master. 3. to reach the ground of one's being. There is no explaining, philosophizing, idealizing, eccentricity. The character [zen], used to transliterate[1] Dhyana, originally meant "to sacrifice to hills and fountains." p.32, *Zen and Zen Classics, Vol. 4) These are just some of the points.

2A02:A210:2901:C300:AD47:B3D:4079:7B4C (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That is the sort of stuff you should be discussing on the talk page - we do not adjudicate on content disputes here. Anyone can edit, anyone can revert - then you discuss. Then, if you can't agree, you get other opinions. That's how it works. If you don't like that, you have lots of options available - edit a different online encyclopedia, start a blog, write a book. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Ouch - go ahead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I am discussing it there. Why does my content get flagged unrelated? They are a direct response to joshua's included material, which apparantly is not unrelated to this page?

2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss it. This is a forum for conduct issues. Your point about JJ's material is probably fair though - I've hatted that too, because we're not talking about content, we're talking about conduct. Go back to the article talk page if you want to talk about the page's content. By the way, as I said before, you should think about including some links to the books you are suggesting we mention - you put a lot on there, other editors are unlikely to want to search for them each individually. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I could add the ISBN but actually refrained from it on purpose. There are sometimes multiple translations for each work and some of the material is available free online.

Do you think I should add the ISBN's anyway?

2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

For Pete's sake! ANI is not the place to be asking for editing advice. See WP:TEAHOUSE. If you are citing specific information on a specific page, yes you should add the ISBN, as page numbers sometimes change between printings, and each edition has a unique ISBN. John from Idegon (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:2901:C300:15C6:16B3:691C:B8E7 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing articles where the ISBN gets completely skipped over, the material is still used though. Why am I being held to stricter standards than others?

2A02:A210:2901:C300:3C4B:2C15:3276:753A (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The editor refuses repeated requests to engage in the basic tasks of being an Wikipedia editor. I've requested several times for the user to set up an account and adopt a username. The user refuses. I recommend that the IP address be blocked. Teishin (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Whereas this fella appears be be new and confused, no-one is ever required to register an account and there is nothing disruptive about that. If you indicated to them that they for any reason needed to register an account, then it is you, Teishin, that is being disruptive. That's just plain wrong. John from Idegon (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

That an editor might be in error on a point of fact is not grounds for accusing them of being disruptive.Teishin (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Need help with constant reverts of article, over 3RR

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sm8900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Moxy is continually reverting a Wikipedia article, and removing the current version, which includes edits made by multiple editors, which includes both myself and other editors. here is the latest one; link to recent article revert. I am trying to restore the article to its current version, but he keeps reverting it to past versions. there has been abundant discussion of these edits, with acceptance in some form of most of them. no one else is requesting a revert to past versions. can you please assist. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

So you've both violated 3RR and you are now reporting yourself...? El_C 17:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:Boomerang...Sm8900...Pls adhere to the advice-giving to you by multiple editors on the talk page multiple times.--Moxy 🍁 17:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR. I simply was trying to restore the current version, of the article, which included edits made by other editors as well as myself.

as you know there is a highly quick and easy way for any such edit war to be averted; all that is needed for just one more additional editor, just one, to come in and make the revert as well. IF they did that, I would have no further recourse. However, since no other editor stepped in to uphold these highly-visible reverts, even though anyone could have done so at any time, that is what gave me the basis for persisting. that is how this process has always worked, in situations of this type, in my experience. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you're both past 3RR. Can either of you point to one of the exceptions at WP:3RRNO that would apply here? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

If we are both past 3RR, then I will gladly accept your guidance and will discontinue doing so at once, as long as the other party discontinues as well.

with that said, let me also say that the other party does have some valid views on this article; any comments that the other party makes on the talk page are highly welcome. I have benefited from this editor's valid points, and have gone out of my way to respond fully and positively, on the talk page.

I think this editor brings a lot of valid ideas to the table. however, going over 3RR is not the way to pursue any such ideas for this article. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900 3RR violation: one, two, three, four.

Moxy 3RR violation: one, two, three, four.

My guidance is for you to self-revert and subscribe to the bold, revert, discuss cycle. El_C 17:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) this response came before I saw the above Just to clarify, just so there is no confusion, 3RR does NOT express a preference for any version of an article. You are bound to not edit war even if the version of the article you keep restoring is older. Unless the text violates Wikipedia policies such as WP:VANDALISM or WP:BLP, you don't get to claim the right to keep edit warring even if the version you are restoring was older than the other version. That's not how this works. You don't get to edit war. Full stop. This is true even if someone else is edit warring. If you edit war as well, you can be blocked as well. Post-edit-conflict response to above Thank you for desisting. I have a slight pause where you say "as long as the other party discontinues as well." Please be aware that there are no conditions on this. To stop edit warring, you stop edit warring. If the other party continues, we'll deal with that later. There is no tit-for-tat allowed here. We can't solve the content issue until after we solve the behavior issue; if you both agree to use the article talk page and seek to reach consensus, no one has to be blocked. If you return to revert again, and I can't stress this enough even if they do too, you can be blocked. --Jayron32 17:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have no reason for my three reverts except frustration (I do acknowledge I've been in the wrong with 3 reverts in actions did not notice it was so many). Sm8900 review the edits by others...that simply removed your edits again. I simply restored the decade-old stable version before your 150 plus edits to a project page that you have never been involved with before.--Moxy 🍁 17:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

please don't move my comment... I'm concerned that Sm8900 is a coordinator of a Wiki project at this point... as Sm8900 seems to not be paying attention to people suggestions... edit warning... didn't notify me of this discussion...etc.--Moxy 🍁 18:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Who made the bold change? That person should respect WP:BRD, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: This is why I am concerned....as they are not hearing others... to quote @WhatamIdoing: "There have been about 150 edits made to this group's page in about 26 hours. That is more edits to that page than were made in the entire previous decade. There is absolutely nothing "stable" about the undiscussed and mostly unwanted edits you've been making. An editor with even your experience level should be embarrassed to make such a claim."--Moxy 🍁 18:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The WikiProject should be restored to its version, before sudden changes. A consensus should be gained for said changes on that WikiProject's talkpage. No ifs ands or buts about it. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Section break 1

As I clearly outline above, you made four, not three, reverts. El_C 18:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Moxy (talk · contribs), I appreciate your helpful and forthright comment above. for my part, I absolutely will be glad to utilize the talk page to discuss your valid and thoughtful points on this article. I apologize if I gave any impression other than that. I do appreciate your input and insights that you have expressed in discussions regarding this article; I mean that in all seriousness. I appreciate your help and insights. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Section break 2

Jayron32, thanks for your valuable points above. I absolutely agree to use the talk page to address this henceforth. I will be glad to discontinue further reverts to that article,, and will absolutely discontinue now. this is totally acceptable, as long as the other party discontinues. as you rightly note, we are both over 3RR. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, please self-revert while you still can. El_C 17:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

more reverts? I can't. the current version now includes edits by several other editors, not just myself. so any reverts that I make would be a violation of 3RR, as I wouldn't be just reverting myself, but other active editors as well, no matter which version I reverted to. I do appreciate your note on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sm8900 blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. They were given the opportunity to self-revert, but refused to do so. Their reasons do not make sense. El_C 18:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that may have been excessive. It is clear they did not intend to edit the article further, it is also clear they were confused about the concept of a "self revert" as they thought that would place them more in violation rather than less. I would have preferred to leave them unblocked, as they expressed both a clear understanding of the problem and a desire to abide by the rules going forward. It seems a bit petty to block them at this point. --Jayron32 18:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to grant their unblock appeal, then. I have no immediate objection. Maybe they were confused, but it seemed to me that they'd rather retain their preferred version even after being given the opportunity to undo it. El_C 18:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course they did not intend to edit the article further — their preferred version is currently up. El_C 18:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, somebody's version gets left up. We're not supposed to decide whose. Demanding that one or the other (rather than just the current) could feel like favoritism. Doing nothing should always be the preferred way for an admin to handle content when responding to an ongoing edit war. --Jayron32 18:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Moxy also volunteered to self-revert, but I informed them it was no longer possible. The version that gets self-reverted is, ultimately, random. But then we have at least one editor that can avoid being in violation of 3RR. El_C 18:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, it's not that I am in any sort of a rush to block —a user who, incidentally, I awarded a barnstar only a few weeks ago— I really felt I had little choice once the request to self-revert was declined by them. El_C 18:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We could also have avoided blocking both if both editors agree to desist and use the talk page which is what we had here. --Jayron32 19:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Moxy could not self-revert, so they were given a warning. Sm8900 could self-revert, was asked to so, but declined. That is why they were blocked. El_C 19:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Look, we're going back and forth here restating the same things. Let's get input from other editors. I've made my case for not blocking, you've made your case for blocking. Lets see what other think. Continuing to repeat ourselves is not a useful thing to do. --Jayron32 19:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, I declined the unblock appeal because the user didn't seem to understand why going over 3RR was wrong. They seem to have accepted that they were out of line too now - EL C, I'd support an unblock at this point, it seems unlikely they'll carry on with the edit warring. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I am close to granting it. El_C 19:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Unblocked. El_C 19:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. Jayron32, Girth_Summit, El_C, thanks so much. Just adding another comment, to thank you all for your thoughtful and patient help on this. I am glad we were able to have a constructive and positive dialogue, and come to some mutual understanding on this. rest assured, I have printed out the guidelines that you helpfully pointed me to. I an finding them very informative. thanks for your help in providing those. I appreciate all your help here. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Anthonyg3281

I have had a persistent issue with Anthonyg3281 where they have added unsourced or unreliably-sourced material to List of programs broadcast by Nicktoons. I am bringing it here because of their most recent edit to the page, which cites Twitter as a source, which is discouraged by Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Twitter.

As this does not seem to be an isolated incident ([90], [91], [92], [93], [94]), I am concerned about whether or not WP:CIR may apply here. User has been warned multiple times not to add unsourced material, yet has continued to make edits with no inline citations to support his edits (he cites sources in the edit summary, but that is not what we are looking for). Thoughts? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been following the Nicktoons schedule for a while now and I always check Zap2It frequently. They only have the option to view the previous day's schedule and there is no option to view a previous schedule from a previous day. The only places I can find the previous schedules is the Nicktoons discussion fourm on Anime Superhero, in which that community has been keeping track of the Nicktoons schedule since 2014, and they use sources such as Zap2It and Futon Critic as sources for the schedules they post in the forum. If that forum is using sources for the schedules that they post, then it should be a reliable source. (Send a message) (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC))

@The Grand Delusion: I checked the talk page of the article in question. You're going to have to help me out, because I can't find 1) where you have expressed your concerns on the article talk page 2) engaged in conversation with Anthonyg3281 back and forth to each try to understand each other 3) Where if the discussion did not reach a reasonable conclusion, you attempted to use WP:DR-dispute resolution processes. Can you point me to where you did those three things? --Jayron32 12:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Regrettably, I have not done any of those things. But the user has been warned multiple times in the past about adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.
Also, Anthonyg3281, Anime Superhero is NOT a reliable source. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32:I don't know how else to do it because it's hard to find official sources for the last air dates for some shows because there is no official possible way to see a previous TV schedule on Zap2It or any TV listings website like I said, and I've kept trying to tell him that it's not easy because of that. There used to be a website called TV Schedule Archive that had every Nicktoons schedule, but the website no longer exists. (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)) (Send a message)

Since we're all here discussing anyway: Here's the deal, Anthonyg3281: If something cannot be found in a reliable source outside of Wikipedia, we just don't include the information. If, for example, there are not reliable sources for listing the specific airdates of a show, then we need to leave that information out. Just don't put it in. Wikipedia has higher standards of evidence than your standard blog or forum, and if we can't get good sources, we just can't put that information in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 16:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion: @Jayron32: I'm sorry, I was just trying to keep the page up to date because the schedule changes frequently and sometimes it was hard for me to keep up with the frequent schedule changes due to being busy in real life and because it's hard to find official sources for previous TV schedules besides Internet Archive. I hope someday in the future that there will be an official website that has previous TV schedules from over the years. (Anthonyg3281 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)) (Send a message)

Wikipedia does not list everything, only stuff that reliable sources have found to be important, or WP:notable, to put it in Wikipedia jargon. Thus, perhaps these schedules are simply not fit for use in Wikipedia. Thanks for considering this. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(←) WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Miniapolis 23:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks over greenhouse gas article

RE: GenSQuantum (talk · contribs):
Personal attacks:

• 00:34, 14 January 2020 [95]
• 02:10, 16 January 2020 [96]

Warning:

• 02:16, 16 January 2020 [97]

Personal attack:

• 05:17, 16 January 2020 [98]

Warning:

• 05:20, 16 January 2020 [99]

Personal attacks:

• 05:25, 16 January 2020 [100]
• 05:44, 16 January 2020 [101] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Another personal attack [102] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm shocked, shocked, to see a climate science denier hurling abuse around all over the place. I'm also going to make a surprised Pikachu face at my discovery that this user is pushing anti-science propaganda with dishonest edit summaries. WP:NOTHERE. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• I have edited the word used to describe me as (a climate denier) -GenSQuantum — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenSQuantum (talk • contribs) 13:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, and since that's totally inappropriate, I have changed it back. --JBL (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• The user now has a DS alert. I think there'd be a low bar to a TBAN if this resumes today. Guy (help!) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• JzG, I think a block would be better here as the user has gotton more then one final warning, But lets see if this continues.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • LakesideMiners, only 51 edits. Might be WP:NOTHERE, might just be someone who hasn't learned how it works yet. Guy (help!) 16:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally pointless TE

Can someone uninvolved please have a look at this, this and this (or indeed the rest of that recent talk history) and kindly suggest an attitude adjustment? There appears to be a pattern of pointless antagonism here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Also this. If someone could apply a quick cluebat to stop this nonsense that'd be great. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Whew -- pointless antagonism is right. --JBL (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a competence issue also, as the edits cited left paragraphs with ungrammatical mixed tense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, even the first sentence ("Fulling ... was a step ... which involves ....") was broken. --JBL (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, words like "plonker" and "silly" clearly constitute a WP:PERSONAL attack. Even that aside, the user's editing pattern has been generally disruptive across other articles. What I have noticed with Roxy is that he (or she?) consistently engages in edit wars, (often with the help of his friend Guy Macon), refuses to discuss the issue (or any relevant issues, for that matter) when questioned, and instead insults the users with whom he disagrees. I have dealt with this user on more than a couple of occasions, and I must say that his editing significantly hindered real progress being made. If he doesn't show any signs of improvement, I suggest we do something about it - whether it be a 1RR restriction, a block (next time a similar issue inevitably arises), or anything else. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 03:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not reasonable for you to notice my comment at Roxy's talk then pile on here without mentioning that you have been indefinitely topic banned from creationism after many disputes with Roxy and other opponents of WP:FRINGE ideas (ANI permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is that not reasonable? I have had many problems with the user, which is why I want to do something about it. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Also, should I mention my topic ban in every comment that I make? Should I make it part of my signature? I don't really see how it's relevant here, given that the disputes that I had with Roxy that contributed to my topic ban were probably one of more minor disputes that I had with him, and they definitely weren't the first ones that I had with him. By the way, I am a WP:FRINGE opponent (including creationism opponent) as well, as you can see on my user page, so, once again, I don't really see how WP: FRINGE is relevant to the discussion. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 13:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Why did I only receive a notification about this discussion two days after it started? Why didn't the OP notify me? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

WHEN YOU POSTTO AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-shave --EEng 08:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC) (and Levivich and creffett)

Note for future readers: the above originally read "WHEN YOU POST / TO AN/I / YOU HAVE TO TELL / THE OTHER GUY," thus the "guy" discussion below. creffett (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (Banner)

This banner should be adopted to replace the current banner. It's eye wrenching catching and has high nostalgic value.-- Deepfriedokra 10:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC).*AS proposer.-- Deepfriedokra 10:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Humurous alternative (or default) templates would be a fantastic development; apart from UPEs, none of use are getting paid, so lets enjoy more. Britishfinance (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - more likely to be noticed, read, followed, and remembered. – Levivich 14:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - what if the person is not a "guy"? sadly, English stress patterns make this complicated, e.g. when you post an incident / you have to tell / the defendant. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 14:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In many dialects of English spoken in the northeast United States, "guy" is gender-neutral. But I have seen at least one or two AN/I incidents in which someone took offense as a result of that usage. --JBL (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That would be someone like me. It always seems to be men who try to explain to me why it's okay for them to use "guys" to refer to me, somebody who is not a man. We have better terminology, although I admit the rhyme is catchy. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I have zero issues being referred to as part of the collective "guys". Support silly banner. Natureium (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't support new version. Not as funny. Natureium (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Once your case is AN/Ied \ be haste to tell \ the other side. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  SashiRolls, Alfie, thanks to you both for pointing that out to me, I was going for the rhyme but hadn't considered that I was gendering the message (and I do come from areas where "guy" is colloquially used as a gender-neutral plural). I'll change it to the gender-neutral version I suggested below. creffett (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment WHEN YOU POST / TO AN/I / DON'T FORGET / TO NOTIFY ? Unfortunately loses the part about _who_ you have to notify... creffett (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• No, it's perfect. Truly, you are the poet laureate of Wikipedia. With luck we will reduce all policies and guidelines to Burma-Shave ads, limericks, haikus or (in the case of MOS and Arbcom cases, respectively) sonnets and epic poems. EEng 18:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  frivolous report

  content disputes and vandals

  admin noticeboard

  creffett (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  when arguments do turn to heated strife

  harsh words 'tween editors and tempers flare,

  tell not the oth'r one to "get a life"

  soft! hostilities will go nowhere

  creffett (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you make the words flash and maybe add animated gifs of flames on each side?   // Timothy :: talk  22:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support IF "guy" is changed to "person". Or "human", "lifeform", or "earthling" if you want to be quirky. (ETA) I just realized you're trying to rhyme. It didn't click because my brain pronounces "AN/I" as "annie".Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Place a post on AN/I

Place a post for free

Place a post on AN/I

And (^andand) you gotta post to notify me _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I should not have been taking a drink while reading that. (wiping off screen) (and now that song's earworming me)Schazjmd (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is all my fault [103]. I've crated a Frankenstein. EEng 01:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• As Tennnyson would have said it: Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to notify. --T*U (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Scope creep Revenge and disruptive editing

After I listed 7 pages created by User:Scope creep at AFD, User:Scope creep posted on my Talk Page here: User talk:Mztourist#Articles to Afd promising WP:REVENGE. Since then and despite having supposedly retired on 14 January: [104] User:Scope creephas now listed 3 pages I created for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelin Rubber Plantation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho Bo Woods and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S&T Motiv. In addition User:Scope creep appears to have targetted 2 pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac-Talla (band) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Newton (academic) created by User:Buidhe who contributed to the deletion discussions on the pages I nominated see for exmple : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferdinand Feichtner and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Paschke. Despite claiming to have taken part in over 2000 AFDs: [105], User:Scope creep has not acted in good faith or observed any of Help:My article got nominated for deletion! and instead has pursued revenge and disruptive editing Mztourist (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the links for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Personally I do not object to the nominations of my articles for deletion. Although it may be the case that scope creep is scouring my contributions for non-notable articles, these were created early in my editing career when I didn't understand notability and actually ought to be deleted. buidhe 13:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: This isn't the place, but while it's here i'd say you might have a chanec with WP:NACADEMIC #2, depending on how notable the award from St Andy's is. Just a thought, worth a punt. ——SN54129 15:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sure we all have a few old pages like that, its acting in bad faith on a clearly stated desire for revenge that is unacceptable.Mztourist (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• I don't believe in it and truly think that revenge is terrible, it is bitter and hateful, both which I don't believe it. I did it originally to try and scare the editor into withdrawing the nominations which you didn't do, but is only fair and equitable that I now audit your article. scope_creep^Talk 13:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Scope creep: half a mo: ca you clarify what I did it originally to try and scare the editor into withdrawing the nominations which you didn't do, but is only fair and equitable that I now audit your article means? It sseems to copperfasten the OP's allegation, perhaps you could clarify? Apologies if I'm misreading you. ——SN54129 15:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  It is worth pointing out in the initial discussion that the editor stated I would note from looking at your Talk Page that several pages that you have worked on have been declined for lack of notability Comments about Afc Rejection I believe that the editor explicitly targetted me because he believed that I was relative newbie and created a whole bunch of article that had been rejected, thereby believing that I didn't understand what constitutes notability. The editor never discussed the posting of the articles to AFD queue, nor made any attempt to improve the articles, nor made attempts to talk to somebody else about the articles, nor spoke to me about it. It was merely a targetted attack which I consider disruptive and vexatious. He is relatively inexperienced at Afd, only completing 57, whereas I have done more 2000. If he had spent more than 5 minutes discussing any of them with me, he could have posted the whole lot to Afd, we could discussed it and perhaps found a better understanding of what constitutes notability. Instead he targetted me specifically believing I didn't know what I was doing. The Afc messages on my talk page, are NPP articles that were rejected, that were posted into Afc and then queued for a second opinion. The whole lot is disruptive and entirely shabby on his part. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  I'm with SN. I'm not aware of a requirement that AfD nominators discuss articles with their creators prior to nominating the article for AfD. Also, these statements are eyebrow-raising: "I think it will need to have a look through your articles." [106] "I'm a really strong believer in revenge. It comes naturally in my family." [107] "If you had left a message and discussed like the rational human being instead of the ratbag that you are, then it would have been fair enough." [108] That last one really should be struck. In this thread, you admit "I did it originally to try and scare the editor into withdrawing the nominations which you didn't do, but is only fair and equitable that I now audit your article", and conclude that "The whole lot is disruptive and entirely shabby on his part." On his part? Are you sure? – Levivich 15:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  This revenge talk is disturbing. Eostrix (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  Agree. Frankly, at this stage, I'm not particularly interested in scope_creep's concerns about other editors. They seem to pale in comparison to scope_creep's talk of revenge. And then in this very ANI, they now say they think revenge is terrible. While that's obviously a reassuring thing to hear, very next they appear to acknowledge nominating in bad faith, in an attempt to scare another editor. Frankly I'm leaning to supporting a topic ban of scope_creep from nominating articles or even all the way up to a cban. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  scope_creep has been indeffed by User:Girth Summit for harassment which is good enough for me. I'd say we're done here Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've got no opinion at present on the seven nominations that the OP made of User:Scope creep's articles - it does sound a bit odd to nominate so many of one user's articles in quick succession, but perhaps there was a reason for that. What is massively concerning is the obvious (and downright creepy) attempts to intimidate the OP, the undisguised personal attacks, the nonchalant admission that they were trying to scare the editor into withdrawing the nominations, and the apparent opinion that the appropriate response to having one's article's nominated to AfD is to scour through the nominator's contributions in an attempt to gain retribution. I've indefinitely blocked Scope creep's account to prevent further disruption. Mztourist - could you explain the circumstances that led you to nominate seven articles by a particular user in quick succession? No accusation of any wrongdoing, I'd just like to understand that situation better. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure, I stumbled on Ferdinand Feichtner last week, read through it and followed various links to other German intelligence agencies and people involved. I identified several bios of German cryptanalysts/signals intelligence people that didn't seem notable and tried to find sources for them but didn't. I then raised the notability issue at: Talk:Ferdinand Feichtner#GNG/Soldier, I wasn't satisfied with the response from scope_creep and decided that the easiest thing was to put that page and 6 others I had identified as lacking notability up for AFD to see what other users' views were.Mztourist (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Frankly, I believe revenge is a dish best served with pinto beans and muffins!. I'm shocked that an long-established user would do such things. CBANning for AfD would not address the root cause, much as I ache to try out the new buttons.-- Deepfriedokra 16:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Wow. I did some work on Mac-Talla (band) today, without any knowledge of this discussion. While the article did need cleanup, it was a very poor nomination, for an unambiguously notable subject. can an uninvolved admin review these nominations, and see which can be (speedily) closed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Fully endorse the decision to block. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I went and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho Bo Woods, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S&T Motiv, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelin Rubber Plantation as speedy keeps because they were clearly out-of-process disruptive nominations. I did these as non-admin closes under WP:SKCRIT criterion #2a ("obviously frivoulous or vexatious nominations"). Please let me know if there are any objections to these actions. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, endorse NAC - I agree with your assessment of them as disruptive noms. The articles could use some work, but given the context of the nominations I think SK2a is appropriate here. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Me too, it belatedly occurred to me this should happen so was planning to do the exact same thing if someone hadn't gotten to it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have encountered three of the seven articles nominated for deletion at AfD and then saw scope creep was blocked and found my way here. The three articles I saw were not clear Deletes? In fact, there is an important WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER to Wikipedia's mission. At least two have BLPs in German WP (which is a much higher bar for BLPs than En-WP). It is unusual for 7 different BLPs to get AfD'ed in one go, and therefore, as a content creator, I can understand the material stress that scope creep felt under. Scope creep's actions post the noms was wrong, however, it is clear that they put a lot of work and effort into these BLPs. If these were junk-articles, I could understand the simultaneous nom, but they seem fine – not hugely notable charachters, however, not clear deletes either? What was the strong connection between these articles that led to their simultaneous nominations? (otherwise, it would look very unfair to Scope creep). Britishfinance (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• This fourth AfD is concerning, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinz Bonatz. Very short nom rationale for what is a sold Keep for an important historical figure in his area (head of B-Dienst and chronicled on de-WP, and many other databases)? I am a little concerned about what is going on here; perhaps it is all good faith but these are not your typical BLPs with bio entries in the NYT etc. But to editors who understand the sector (and who may not all be arond at AfD), feel like Keeps. I could see how that could have put Scope creep under mental strain. Britishfinance (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW Britishfinance, I agree with you about the mental strain. Having seven articles rapidly nominated for deletion by a single editor would have been exceedingly unpleasant, and SC probably felt that they were being victimised themselves. I for one would have advocated a fair degree of leeway towards a heat-of-the-moment, 'what the fuck are you doing you asshole' sort of response - I've said before that I don't think an isolated breach of civility under stressful situations should necessarily lead to a block. Unfortunately, this reaction went way beyond that - this was a clear and intentional attempt to intimidate another user, with threatening undertones (I'm a really strong believer in revenge. It comes naturally in my family. - that's pretty sinister) - we can't sweep that under the carpet. I'd be open to an unblock if SC accepted that their actions were seriously out of line and agreed not to interact with the OP any further. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the block is entirely appropriate. At the same time I hope Scope Creep only retires for a little while, contemplating their ways in terms of the above, and comes back to request unblock with profuse apologies and a promise not to do this again. Wikipedia does not need to be so stressful; as in life, settling time, apologies an behaviour changes go a long way towards having people get along.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Britishfinance I explained the background to my AFD nominations above. You say that none of those pages that you have seen are clear deletes while Heinz Bonatz is a solid keep. We are all entitled to our opinions, obviously I disagree with yours and as you will have seen, different users have expressed differing views whether to keep or delete. Various interesting arguments as to notability have been raised in relation to a number of those pages including whether or not deWP has higher standards than enWP as all of the pages are bios of German cryptologists, in the case of Herbert von Denffer deWP has 3 references, one of which is an English blog, so I'm not sure I agree. In the case of Otfried Deubner his archeological publications which are only mentioned in passing on the page seem to be regarded as the only basis for notability. In the case of Heinz Bonatz his role as head of the 250 man B Dienst and its role in the Battle of the Atlantic is held up as establishing notability. In the case of Ferdinand Feichtner you assert that "many historical figures in WP for whom the only GNG we have are what they wrote about themselves, but we chronicle them as WP:PRESERVE" while I believe that an unverified personal account doesn't satisfy GNG. Surely having these type of discussions is what the AFD process is intended to achieve? More eyes, more thoughts etc. Mztourist (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I agree with your block; Scope creep snaped and their response was too extreme. I sigh when I see two experienced and valuable editors, who have done good work in WP, doing this to each other. I would delete any FA article (or more) to keep Scope creep and Mztourist active and happy in Wikipedia. Mztourist should have taken a bit more care in their AfDs, there was no urgency here, and they should reflect about simultaneourly putting seven different niche AfDs (which always require more expert input at AfD, and where a google search is not sufficient), that were created by a single established editor, when there was no SPAM/PROMO/UPE/COI angle. Most, from what I have seen (and as reflected by the current |votes, and existance of de-WP BLPs), are not clear Deletes.

WP:NPP lost one of its most important and long-term productive editors last week because suddenly it became important to batch AfD tiny US GEO locations, without any proper Project/RfC discussion on the basis of USGA sites; and because of this, NPP will probably fail, and the SPAM/PROMO/UPE/COI will rise materially. It is like we are "eating ourselves", and we will all be the long-term losers from it. If someone is a crap editor and/or a SPAM/PROMO/UPE/COI editor, then calmly escort them (and their articles) to the door; however, my impression of Scope creep (and of Mztourist), is that they do not fit this category (quite the opposite in fact, and by a long margin). Britishfinance (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Apology from Scope creep SC has posted the following on their talk page. I apologise to everybody involved in this. I have really wasted everybody's time, including my own. Looking back, the stress put me into overload and I reacted in a way that I would never react to in normal manner. I would never react like that in manner at work or amongst friends or colleagues and wouldn't expect anybody else to react in that manner towards me. Its entirely outside my normal experience. It's only been a few days and feels like it was last year. I don't think I can come back in the short term certainly. It has completely switched me off and would be unable to start editing. If I did come back, I wouldn't be working in kind of non-mainstream article, particularly of the type that was sent to Afd. I never planned to work on any more of types of those articles anyway except b-dienst which needs some work, but for the most part, what could be discovered was already in and already completed. I was planning to create a couple of templates in the first three months of this year to pull all the articles together. I'm certainly much less attached to the question of deletion than I was before. When you go through this sort of experience, you look back and say, you've done it and you know about and know how approach it without causing any hassle. I don't ever plan to create the kind of article that requires thinking out of what box on constitutes notability. For those articles I took the approach that as Wikipedia was the universal encyclopedic it should have at least some kind of entry on every subject, even if it was obscure, secret or byzantine. That has certainly not worked. They will be mainstream articles and if they put up for nomination, then I don't plan to defend then. I think it's clear that they regret their actions, but they aren't currently asking for an unblock. For the record, I'd be happy for any admin to unblock if SC was to accept a one-way IBAN with the OP. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support unblock condition stated by Girth Summit above. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• SC's comments were, as others said, beyond the pale, and a block was likely the right call. However, I do want to also underscore something about XfD norms. If you're unsure what to do with a particular type of article, I would submit this is often not going to be the best approach: the easiest thing was to put that page and 6 others I had identified as lacking notability up for AFD to see what other users' views were. Not only were they all by the same person, but you didn't so much as let that person know on their talk page that you had nominated a bunch of their articles for deletion. That would bother anyone. IMO best thing would be to nominate one if you're unsure, and if it's deleted, nominate others (and notify the page creator! -- the only reason proposals to make that a necessary step have failed is because of outlier cases like when the creator just made a redirect or the creator is banned). None of this is to let SC off the hook, of course; I just don't want this to get lost. My only comment on the resolution is that a one-way iban may be problematic if one's articles are being nominated for deletion (or if you're prohibited from talking to someone asking questions about the article on its talk page), so perhaps some sort of exception is in order? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, I agree with everything you've said. I'd be comfortable with the iban being tailored in such a way as to allow SC to engage in any discussions about content they've written, including AfDs or talk pages for those articles, even if (perhaps especially if) the OP is involved in those discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have to question the sincerity of that apology, coming as it did only 1 day after this: [109], which included: "All that doesn't excuse my behaviour, but MZTourist didn't even make an attempt to find that out. I did try and scare him into withdrawing them, mainly by channelling my family. I certainly do not believe in revenge, it is hateful and imagine it makes you very bitter, which is itself destructive. I must admit I did want MZTourist to feel some the pain that I was feeling, but I felt as though I was being targetted from his comments. He is not exactly the most sanguine character, having had complaints from several editors in the last couple of year." Mztourist (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Mztourist, I can understand you feeling that way, given that you are the target of some negative statements in that first post. However, as an outside observer, I see it differently. The first post was made shortly after SC was blocked - this is a long-term contributor, with a previously clean block log, and they were probably still smarting over the whole affair and continuing to blow off steam. A day is long enough to sleep on it, take time to absorb and accommodate the feedback that uninvolved people have given you, and reassess. As declarations of contrition go, the statement above is pretty impressive - they apologise, accept that the behaviour was unacceptable, and they reflect on what led to it and how they might avoid repeating the mistakes in future. I don't see any reason not to take it as sincere. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The promotion of irredentism on very sensible lists

Dear administrators!

I am talking about the list: List of active separatist movements in Europe. The topic itself is very sensible, this was always the case. But now out of sudden some users started to abuse this list for promoting irredentism and their own point of view. (WP:NPOV) Even the talk page, which was always used many months ago - is no longer in use. I even worry that we are even having troubles with some sockpuppets, as soon someone questions an user, that really messes around on this list, to be a sockpuppet - the user instantly becomes inactive and out of sudden and a new once comes up - doing the same. Good examples are Users "Yobeemolt" and "Tyronqe7". It is finally the time to intervene. Some individuals are trying to make it look like, entire countries are about to collapse. Most of the time their edits do not even habe summaries or sources - and if they add sources, they are mostly not reliable. (WP:RS) This list had many problematic sections, I know, but it was still under control - until now. At the begin it was also only the List of active separatist movements in Europe, but now the same is also going on the pages: Dissolution of Russia, List of active separatist movements in Asia (...) Over the last months, I have spent so much time looking up those sources... and wonder what I found: [110], [111], [112] - mostly forum posts, blogspot.com-pages, fake news... etc. etc. etc.

I kindly ask the administrators to intervene. Maybe a protection of this page would work for the begin, so we let this cool down a bit, look up the sources and finally fix this very problematic list. Also something needs to be done about unconstructive and propagandist edits. --Koreanovsky (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koreanovsky: You are required to notify any users you mention here. At this point, you do not have to notify Yobeemolt (talk · contribs · count) as I have blocked them as a LTA. At a minimum, you must notify Tyronqe7 on their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Ушкуйник

A participant with a pronounced pro Russian position. Which makes vandal edits replacing and deleting any mention of Ukraine in the preambles of Ukrainian persons making them Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.154.30.80 (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the latest edit: [113], changing Kiev from Ukraine to Russian Empire for 1862-1912 is more than reasonable as the Russian Empire was the relevant entity at the time. Ушкуйник even described the subject as "Russian-Ukrainian". Other edits I looked at were similar. 88.154.30.80's assertion does not appear grounded in facts. Eostrix (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Pronounced pro-Russian position, unpronounceable name. EEng 21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: Unless the joke is about being unable to read Cyrillic, I'm not quite sure how the name is unpronounceable... Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 02:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That St. Cyril has a lot to answer for. EEng 02:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

GT has it "Ushkuynik"-- Deepfriedokra 10:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

See this dramatic reenactment featuring EEng (left) and DFO (right). EEng 22:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Fiddling IP

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

---

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

I brought this here rather than the vandalism board as this IP editor is doing what I would characterise as wikifiddling. At a first glance their contributions appear to be constructive but they're adding incorrect information or changing articles to mislead. Example [114] at British Indian Ocean Territory changing the national anthem from God save the Queen to I vow to thee my country. As noted on their talk page, all of their edits are of this nature. WCM_email 08:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist. :) --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Anonumus 7

Hello! A block for Anonumus 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user overdue. Their Talk page is full warnings for their disruptive editing and they are still not getting it. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that they are editing in good faith.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly so. Nonetheless, their editing is disruptive. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, this ANI filing didn't stop them. They have no contributions outside article space. I.e., refuse to discuss, or are incapable of discussing, the plentiful warnings about updating stats and not as-of dates. (Classic example of why we shouldn't be trying to replicate stats anyway) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I blocked them pending their response. Any admin can unblock at any time once they have responded to the concerns and acknowledged they will fix their issues. The refusal to communicate is a major problem, and the block is solely for the refusal to communicate. They can be unblocked as soon as they do so. --Jayron32 12:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

89.200.15.69 / Eurocave

Original heading: "User: 89.200.15.69" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• 89.200.15.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Personal attacks [[115]], removing closed discussion template at Talk:NikkieTutorials and continued disregard for MOS:GENDERID after recently receiving last warning. cave (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eurocave, thanks for opening an ANI report; I will now move the other user's complaint from WP:AIV here too. Please have a look at your user talk page and reconsider one part of your complaint.(done) Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC) (updated ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC))

Thank you. cave (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

User is referring to a perceived 'personal attack' that only lasted for about one and a half minute before I removed it. There is no evidence that the user read it while it was still on my talkpage. No other edits where made during this one and a half minute.

I was referring to the militant behavior and not the user themselves. I do not know what the verb is because English is not my native language. I removed it as soon as I realized that it I should not have made that edit. User forgot to link that edit. Anyway, my action does not change what user did. Neither does my action make the users actions less severe.

User was already in an edit war with someone else when we collided. User was already repeatedly reverting the contents of a project talkpage. Refusing to participate in any conversation even after several requests on the users own talkpage. 89.200.15.69 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There has been no disregard for MOS:GENDERID by me. When I made my first edit I was not aware of that guideline. User just reverted mine and other peoples edits repeatedly until in one of these reverts the user pointed out the guideline. Had the user used the talkpage (rather than reverting the entire section multiple times, which constitutes vandalism) we would not have been in this situation. 89.200.15.69 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

My reason for redacting Timmy's comment is that it deadnamed Nikkie. This information is sensitive and private and should not be published on Wikipedia, not even on a talk page. There was absolutely no point to including it, just like we shouldn't be including anybody else's poorly sourced medical histories. From the Talk page template: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page". This is what I was trying to do and you kept reverting it. cave (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Eurocave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Temporary cool down block requested. Eurocave keeps vandalising talk pages. Reverts an entire disucssion on Talk:NikkieTutorials ‎multiple times in a row and then puts it all inside a closed template, so it cannot be read or edited anymore. Eurocave disregards people who try to reach consensus because Eurocave is offended by the discussion. Also vandalises the talk page of this IP adres. Continues after I have requested them to stop on their talkpage multiple times. Judging by their history, Eurocave talks through reverting rather than using a talk page. 89.200.15.69 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Quote:" Restoring talk page notices, even if they should not be removed, is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule."89.200.15.69 (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Eurocave, can you explain why you keep removing discussions and/or closing them down at the talk page in question? I am unclear where MOS:GENDERID has text that says that you should do this, and yet you keep citing it. You're going to need to explain yourself, as it is unclear why you keep doing so. --Jayron32 18:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I was struggling with a couple of users on NikkieTutorials' talk page. User Timmie1606 was active on the Dutch wikipedia, and after he tried to misgender Nikkie there and got a rebuttal that "it's best to follow the English Wikipedia example", he apparently took that as a cue to make an English wikipedia account solely for the purpose of attempting to get us to deadname Nikkie de Jager here. Another (anonymous IP user who insulted me) joined in and I have already given him 3 warnings for personal attacks and continued disruptive edits, as cited above in my complaint about him. I tried closing the discussion because it was not productive. These users just posted Nikkies alleged Deadname on the talk page and kept misgendering her, and didn't suggest any proposals for change that were remotely within Wikipedia's guidelines. In the end oversight ended up closing the discussion, so it turns out it was the correct call to make, however the IP user kept reversing my closure. Now the IP user seems to be currently in the process of Forum shopping as well. Meanwhile all this sensitive information remains on Nikkie's talk page and I don't know what to do about it. From the Talk page template: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page". This is what I was doing by removing, and then later trying to hide a message that included Nikkie's alleged, poorly sourced birthname. I still maintain that it is in violation of Wikipedia's policy, as it is "contentious material about a living person", it shouldn't be there. cave (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Some of these topics are already under discretionary sanctions. If someone is disruptive on a BLP, warn them via {{subst:alert|blp}}. If they're being disruptive about gender-related issues, you can also warn them of Gamergate discretionary sanctions via {{subst:alert|gg}}. If the disruption continues, report them to arbitration enforcement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure why the IP wasn't blocked on the spot for this edit, or this subsequent one. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

User editing from a U.S. government office, with a long term disruptive agenda

• 155.19.91.37 (talk · contribs)

WP:NOTHERE, per [116]; [117]; [118]; [119]; [120]; [121]; [122]; [123]; [124]; [125]; [126]; [127] and associated edits to Nathan Phillips (activist). Primarily disruptive, trolling and using Wikipedia as a personal soapbox. Perhaps the Defense Department should know if this is the activity of one of its employees. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If we do block them, WP:SIP probably needs to be followed. The DOD is not specifically listed there, but I would be cautious and notify WMF as described there. --Jayron32 19:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As an aside, only the first two ranges listed for the U.S. House and the range for the U.S. Senate are tagged with class mw-tag-congressedits on contrib lists. The other ranges listed at WP:SIP have markup no different than any other IP address. Other than having a browser user script tag them (is there one?), where should I go to suggest expanding the tagging to these other ranges? I'd like to be able to style these so I notice them in histories/contribs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

White privilege

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

---

• White privilege (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Keith Johnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

White privilege is, needless to say, a contentious article. For more than two years now, Keith Johnston has been unsuccessfully pushing to reshape the article to portray white privilege as "just a theory", as it were, with assumptions of bad faith forum shopping, promotion of unreliable sources (also with forum shopping) and WP:CANVASSing (see the warning from Doug Weller on his talk page: [128]).

The article is subject to endless circular argument, and Keith Johnston is a significant contributor to that. He has 863 edits of which 270 are to the talk page of white privilege. He's raised it at NPOVN, RSN, DRN, and for the last year he's done basically nothing else on Wikipedia other than argue at that talk page.

Today he raised yet another semi-rhetorical question which turns out to be based on a complete misrepresentation of sources and accuses Wikipedia of being racist. Per WP:SPS and WP:TE I think he should be topic banned from that article, to allow some more recently arrived good faith editors to hash out some compromises without distraction. Guy (help!) 19:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Id like to take this opportunity to respond (forgive me if this is not in the right section):

• I do believe in good faith that the white privilege article violates NPOV - other editors agree - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_80
• I accept the warning with regard to canvassing and will commit to not repeating this error.
• I have not accused wikipedia of being racist and do not believe this to be the case.
• It concerns me that three of the admins listed here are INVOLVED as this may prejudice this discussion.
• My negative reaction to being placed under sanctions is in the context of that sanctioning editor being INVOLVED, which I initially thought was violation of policy.
• I only edit those pages where I feel I am subject matter competent. I edit the white privilege page because I have made myself subject matter competent by educating myself on the topic.
• I do not edit war, and I raise issues on the talk page in the first instance. Keith Johnston (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  Keith Johnston, nobody doubts that you believe in good faith that the article is biased. The issue is your relentless pursuit of attempts to change it despite numerous RfCs and other debates that go against you, combined with the lack of any other meaningful contributions to the project. Under 900 edits in 13 years, more than a third of them to this one article, with as close to zero consensus as makes no odds. You won't drop the stick so I guess we have to just take it away from you. Guy (help!) 01:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to have to support this. Guy's right, the talk page and archives are full of circular arguments. He posted huge walls of text in an earlier RfC- do take a look and we're going around again it seems. Ordinary editors (or busy ones who aren't focussed on just one article) just can't keep up with this approach. Doug Weller talk 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I support this and agree with Guy and Doug Weller. Its been a constant attempt to introduce WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, trying to create WP:FALSEBALANCE, and using sources that do no meet WP:RS. [129].   // Timothy::talk  20:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban from White privilege and related pages broadly construed. Too much bludgeoning for too long. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC).
• Yes, this editor has been beating the same dead horse for too long, wasting the community's time and energy. It's time to ban him from the topic of white privilege. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support a tban from White privilege, broadly construed. I looked through their comments on that talk page. This editor's behavior wouldn't be acceptable anywhere, but is especially bad given the fraught nature of the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support a tban from the subject of white privilege, including the article White privilege and its talk page, as well as discussions of the subject in other articles or other name spaces. It would be unfortunate if a tban from the article/talk page in question still allowed them to do their fringe POV pushing elsewhere. --bonadea contributions talk 22:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - 1 year tban, but I think indef is a bit much considering one block in 12 years of editing. (and yes I'm aware that indev ≠ forever). — Ched (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I'm WP:INVOLVED so I won't !vote, but I wish to second JgZ/Guy's comments. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite ban from the topic of white privilege, broadly construed. Too much argument over settled issues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Suppport an indefinite, broadly-construed TB from white privilege. A relatively-clean block log has little to do with POV-pushing. Miniapolis 23:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite, topic ban from anything to do with "white privilege" broadly construed. This type of disruptive behavior is exactly what topic bans were made for, and I would suggest enforcing this (at least on the page White privilege itself) with a partial block. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Did you really think you would change any minds editing that article? If you would have just read the intro you would know that critics are simply right-wing and misunderstand the concept. Posting content disputes at WP:DRN is forum shopping of course. Questioning the reliability of Hypatia promotes that horrid Wall Street Journal. Two years??! I have to say if you were trying to move the article toward neutrality you made absolutely zero headway.—eric 00:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - if everything that is/has been published about white privilege is true and accurate, and the comments in this thread are true to form, how can we eliminate the bias that is inherent at birth by those editors who are white since they are obviously born into a privileged status? Do we dismiss or discount their iVotes because they were born into the scorn of white privilege? Their iVotes cannot possibly be unbiased, right? Oh, and if we decide that only those editors of different racial backgrounds other than white are the only credible participants free of bias, have we truly eliminated "privilege" or are we inviting a different kind of privilege via our biases against whites? Hopefully, someone can explain this to me because I am thoroughly confused. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Atsme: I can't tell if you're being melodramatic (seems so), but surely you realize nothing about white privilege suggests we do not allow White folks to !vote on Wikipedia. I'm happy to talk about how the concept is discussed in sociology with folks asking in good faith, but how's this related to Keith? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

What... Is this? I’m assuming this is some sort of personal meta-commentary having to do with the concept of white privilege [in general], as no one anywhere on this project has ever seriously suggested this. Disruptive one-off editors aside. This is kind of a strange comment. I’m not quite sure what to make of this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I just happened to look at this dispute because I'm following another dispute listed on this page. Skimming through the controversy I see a conflict of paradigms. The problem is subtle, and it is a fundamental threat to Wikipedia. It's about what we consider to be "reliable sources". When the very division between what is "reliable" and other sources is the issue in question, then the distinction between "reliable" and "unreliable" breaks down. Ya, there's this argument about "false equivalence" but there's no firm basis for calling it "false." As various topics become increasingly politicized, Wikipedia must figure out how to deal with the problem. The solution proposed here about driving out heretics seems deficient. For the sake of Wikipedia, it seems that all of those folks chiming in to say "support" should instead be directing their attention to how to throw this editor a bone to reflect alternative points of view. By saying this I am not denying or affirming that the editor in question is not engaging in the behaviors in question. I am saying that Wikipedia is engaging in actions that are causing this behavior. Teishin (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban from White privilege and all closely related topics such as racism, race relations, whiteness, white people, race and intelligence, and anything else related. We do not need chronic axe grinders editing against consensus in this broad topic area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support I very much want to see conservative editors here, but when I see someone using this article as you did here, I don't see an editor operating in good faith. I see someone who is trying to force other editors to read only-tangentially-related texts in order to be able to refute them. This is not good faith. --valereee (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the comments above. The behaviour is clearly disruptive, and I'd go as far as Cullen's proposal as well. SportingFlyer T·C 05:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support proposal. There’s only so much time and good faith editors can expend on a problematic fellow editor. This has obviously become a time sink, and an IDHT issue. If the editor mends their ways, and can demonstrate an understanding and respect for consensus elsewhere, they can appeal. For now, I don’t see the benefit of a time-limited topic ban. So an indefinite tban seems like the proper remedy. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I am involved, so I will abstain from !voting. However, I implore experienced editors to step in on Talk:White privilege and help put this issue to rest. Fundamentally, we are dealing with a mix of individuals who either A) believe that social science isn't "real" science, and therefore scientific journals on this topic are no more important than blatantly biased political editorials; and B) individuals who want to downplay race issues in general to support their own racial beliefs. The latter we've seen on Wikipedia for years and can deal with, but the former are pushing a viewpoint that I am concerned will undermine all our articles on social science & psychology topics. This Talk page is a microcosm for how some folks in STEM fields treat every other topic as "lesser" and that can lead to degrading the quality of our articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from articles related to white privilege, broadly construed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment (Semi-involved) Looked out the window and it's snowing. Closing this would save some time. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

WP:TALKORDER

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

---

Forewarned, this is a silly dispute, but I am starting to go a little crazy. Timeshifter (talk · contribs) is reverting my edits organizing talk pages based on the informational page WP:TALKORDER, specifically placing {{Annual readership}} at the very top of the talk page, even above {{Talk header}}. See here and here, among others. Discussion occurred here and to some respect here. Timeshifter's primary reasoning comes across as "I like it at the top of the page" and WP:TALKORDER is just an info page, which for some reason they think doesn't mean there was consensus formed to support that specific order. Regarding WP:TALKORDER, it is important to note I added {{Annual readership}} to the list yesterday (diff) based on comments from the talk page and the natural grouping of template types on WP:TALKORDER. At this point, I just want some consensus formed so that neither of us fall prey to WP:3RR and we have a clear path forward. I don't really intend to go out hunting for talk pages to change, but I also don't want to be constantly reverted every time I fix a talk page per WP:TALKORDER, as I would consider that disruptive. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It might not be a good idea to fiddle with talk pages that you are not otherwise interested in. I guess imposing rules from an arbitrary information page (WP:Talk page layout) might be ok in general, but when resistance from the locals is encountered, pursuing the dream of complete uniformity is not helpful. I suggest moving on and ignoring pages like Talk:List of countries by wealth per adult. Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq, although I appreciate the advice about staying away from certain articles, what you're basically saying is that people who edit certain articles can own their associated talk pages, which is patently incorrect. I also think it is a mis-characterization of what is going on, as I am not going around looking for offending talk pages, I am only editing ones I come across. What I don't want is certain editors following my changes, which are based on consensus (WP:TALKORDER), and reverting me. It is disruptive and will ultimately lead to greater problems. I also don't appreciate the exaggeration of pursuing the dream of complete uniformity is not helpful, as I don't think it very accurate or helpful as I have only edited like three talk pages accordingly. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

This is less about Ownership and more about picking your battles. Sure, the changes you make are technically supported by consensus, but they also have little to no actual impact on the usibility or content of the talkpage. I would just stop making these edits unless you're also contributing to the discussion on the talk page, and even then I probably still wouldn't. This didn't need to come to ANI. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 16:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Awesome. I get bullied into having to accept my consensus-based edits getting reverted because I should just get over it. As always, ANI shines as a beacon of helpfulness. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Block review for Alichauhanrajput

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

---

I've indefinitely blocked Alichauhanrajput (talk · contribs) for NOTHERE behavior and vandalism past a level 4 warning, submitting it here for peer review. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Obvious blocks like this don't need peer review. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Resubmit after major revisions, (and don't forget publication fee). Peer review complete. Natureium (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block and I concur with NinjaRobotPirate. This is not a close call and no review is required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Reviewer 3 found no issues witht he block or its conclusions. Guy (help!) 01:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Self-disclosing contentious blocks is always good, but this is more of like a procedural rubber stamp block that nobody could ever possibly criticize. I don't know why you would think it needed to be reviewed. Don't doubt yourself so much. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block - Rosguill, don't let any of the above remarks bother you, since you are a new administrator. Thank you for serving. You deserve feedback on your early blocks, and you are doing fine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Rosguiull, sorry, I didn't realize you were a new admin. But I stand behind my advice. Don't doubt yourself. The community gave your blocking judgment a mandate. Don't waste our time with this sort of thing. Your judgment is enough when it comes to something like this. Yes, if you block an established editor with a reasonably clean block log, request oversight if you're unsure. But don't fuck around wasting your time with users like this. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I brought one of my first blocks here as well.-- Deepfriedokra 10:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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

The person, or persons, keen to edit Shamsheer Vayalil

I am one of several editors who'd never heard of the name Shamsheer Vayalil until begged to help in countering this or that claimed injustice in its editing. (For the plea I received, see User talk:Hoary#Help.) The article is the obsession of a person, with or without his brother, who uses Bharti Airtel IP addresses that geolocate to Patna, Bihar, and also of User:Ankitroy1997, who has implausibly presented himself as a different person. These pleas for assistance, accusations of unfairness, etc, have gone on for some time and have been very tiresome; but they have hardly been actionable. Recently, however, this person has become more agitated, and offensive (example).

Although I don't consider myself involved (other than as a bemused/despairing onlooker and occasional voice of what I think is reason), others may disagree. And so I turn this matter over to one or more other admins. Do look through Talk:Shamsheer Vayalil and User talk:AlanM1. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to Hoary for filing this. Note that the article's talk page has an archive, too, where they've been beating the same minutiae to death since June. The relevant IP addresses are primarily 223.230.128.0/18, though there is some involvement from 106.207.32.0/18. The 223 range has primarily only one other editor in it (contributing to Indian politics), so a block there might be reasonable. The 106 has a lot more. I'd also suggest a CU, given the overlap between Ankitroy1997 and the IP (careful examination of their edits makes it clear that they are probably either the same person or co-ordinate with each other off-wiki, pretending to be strangers here). Every time an editor gets tired of them, they move on to drag another into this time sink (as recently as today), conveniently not mentioning the wreckage left behind on the talk page in the hopes that the user won't look and they'll just get what they want. I even tried compromising on something that is a close call, and it didn't help. I've asked them to stay off my user and talk pages after today's attacks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Not interested in biased wikipedia. I have seen all the rules and regulations which are only for Shamsheer Vayalil article and not for others. I don't want to contribute anything here.

Before leaving I'll point out some of your statement: Eagleash: His one of the kind statement: Some of the articles are only perfect on wikipedia. Which are these "some"? Are they Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Jimmy Wales? AlanM1: His statement: Removing degrees from bio infobox is not correct because infobox without degrees is incorrect. For which article it's incorrect? Is that Jimmy Wales article or Mark Zuckerberg article? So, I don't want to contribute to that place where there is biased nature. Keep your wikipedia with you. Ankitroy1997 (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those are quotes or even correct interpretations of our comments, nor is there any rational reason we would have a bias against a respected, successful doctor and wealthy businessman or Indians in general (witness the amount of work I do fixing Indian subject articles while you're picking at nits). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 Please don't show baby tantrums. I have read your every explanation or reason which you gave after reverting my edits which shows that you show biased nature. Degrees should not be removed from Jimmy Wales article but it can be removed from Shamsheer Vayalil article. Carefully read your reason which you gave after reverting my edit in Jimmy Wales article. I'll definitely leave wikipedia because it's the place where anyone can learn how to become biased. Ankitroy1997 (talk) 07:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ankitroy1997: I did not remove degrees from the article. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to all editors who showed a lesson in WP:Civility. These are the 99 100 IP addresses I collected until now, after I was similarly contacted on my talk page. My match was with User:Royankitkumar, but I see that user is blocked too now. Thank you for the intervention. Wakari07 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm reporting myself ....

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

---

for a nominal WP:3RR nomination. All the reverts are of things that have no relevance to the article 21st century in fiction. But I can't say they are vandalism, because it seems possible that the person or persons have so little idea what Wikipedia is about that they believe their edits are accurate (as to facts) or helpful (in the fiction article). The reverts this year (all times PST = UTC-0800):

1. 18:59, January 17, 2020‎
2. 10:17, January 17, 2020
3. 01:20, January 17, 2020
4. 19:07, January 16, 2020‎
5. 20:41, January 15, 2020
6. 10:36, January 15, 2020
7. 17:52, January 14, 2020‎, by UserDude
8. 00:54, January 13, 2020, by Eostrix
9. 22:11, January 12, 2020
10. 18:08, January 9, 2020‎, by Serendipodous
11. 23:51, January 8, 2020‎
12. 23:32, January 8, 2020‎, by A-NEUN
13. 19:34, January 8, 2020
14. 01:10, January 8, 2020

Possible administrative actions:

• A declaration that nonsense, like vandalism, is an exception to WP:3RR.
• Semi-protecting the article. (But this is the fourth or fifth article which has been targeted.)
• Blocking IPs from the entire country of Egypt....

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• These edits are so incompetent that they should be considered exempt. I would suggest, though, adding warning templates on the IP talk pages. Also, if your dates here are correct, you broke 3R only once, maybe? on January 8? I'll be happy to retroactively warn you for edit warring, which you are guiltier of than 3R, if you're guilty of anything. Ah who cares; Ima semi this. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Page has been protected (some confusion there). IMO the editing was so obviously disruptive that AR's reversions are exempt from 3RR. Even if the strict letter of 3RR might be against them this would fall under IAR in that their actions were clearly in the best interest of the project. Moving on... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• I concur with Drmies and Ad Orientem. It's pretty clear to me that you were acting in the best interest of the project, so WP:IAR, even though clearly disruptive editing is an exception to 3RR. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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

2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:1D

Done by zzuuzz. (non-admin closure) --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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

---

Please remove tpa and revdel. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

79.33.121.131

Can an admin please redact the edit summary from the first edit made by IP 79.33.121.131 per WP:CRD#2. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, Pkbwcgs, but I really don't think it matters. Another admin may feel differently. Bishonen | talk 14:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC).

That's "ordinary" incivility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: and others, just for future reference, this is WP:LTA/SBT. They've been over-excited recently. Please have a read. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Lord Belburyisdead

Socks confirmed and blocked. (non-admin closure) --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

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

---

WP:ATTACKNAME directed at me.

• Lord Belburyisdead (talk · contribs)

From the East London article subjects, this is presumably a new sockpuppet of User:Hopeful2014, reacting to the report I filed yesterday at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hopeful2014. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• I would add this to the suspected sockpuppets on the SPI. Regardless, the name is highly inappropriate and should be reported to WP:UAA, if not already blocked by reporting this here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  I've endorsed a check, so we'll know if they are related, or else they can remain UPOL-blocked. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

An IP with RGW concerns

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

---

• 151.229.26.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:151.229.26.18#Your edits at several pages

This IP has been on a campaign to scrub the phrase "convicted pedophile" from Wikipedia this evening, instead opting for "child sex offender". Content issue aside, based on the section on their talk page, there seems to be objection to this and a desire for a wider consensus at the very least. Nevertheless, my attempt to roll these changes back has been met with continued reversion. Thus, I'm starting this to see if the IP will slow down, let the changes be undone, and wait for that consensus before continuing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree. I still say an IP talk page is not an appropriate place for an ongoing discussion, especially this type. Who knows who'll get this IP next. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly! Elizium23 (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Absurd. The complainant is determined to have Wikipedia swamped by the unequivocally incorrect terminology "convicted paedophile" (i.e. an individual convicted of a psychiatric disorder), rather than convicted "child sex offender", which is used by the British government.[130][131] This is an encyclopaedia, rather than a tabloid, right?

Other users have supported my cause in this issue,[132][133][134] but we now have a case of WP:WIN. Lowly IP must be wrong even though he's right, I guess. 151.229.26.18 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

151.x, please remove the chip from your shoulder and allow a consensus to develop. There is much to be said for your suggested change, but mass changes generally aren't a good way to go until most people agree with you. It is conceivable that there's a better way to approach the issue that either satisfies everybody, or is at least better than your proposed terminology. Or maybe not. Please be patient. Acroterion (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The US government uses 'my' terminology as well.[135] Are we seriously going to pretend that an encyclopaedia reporting convictions on the grounds of a psychiatric disorder, rather than on crime, isn't utterly, horrifically incorrect? 151.229.26.18 (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As I am involved in this discussion, I believe that the IP is right. But as Acroterion suggested, I believe mass changes shouldn't be made until nearly everyone is convinced. It needs to be a vast majority for these controversial changes, not just a majority. Wikipedia is not a vote anyway. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 04:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not the venue to discuss a content dispute. Might I suggest Talk:Child sexual abuse? Elizium23 (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23 or WP:DR? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 04:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I note without other comment that IP uses non-American, probably British, spelling. Narky Blert (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Elainasla

Hello, I think this is the appropriate place to post this, but I apologise if I'm mistaken. This user continually goes against several guidelines: they make many edits to articles in quick succession clogging up article histories, mark all their edits m when many clearly aren't, and extremely rarely provide edit summaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elainasla

An example of all three of these would be their 12 edits to Medical Police in the space of 15 minutes on 11 Jan.

They also rarely engage with people who have posted about such issues on their talk page, including me, as evidenced here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#January_2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#February_2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#February_2019_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#'Show_preview'_button

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elainasla#Edit_summaries

- 115.70.7.33 (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)