Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CactusJack (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 1 July 2020 (→Retaliatory AFD nominations: fmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    User causing repeated edit wars and misrepresenting articles

    User:VenusFeuerFalle is repeatedly attempting to misrepresent very fringe opinions with regards to the Islamic view of Angels as being one that is or was widely held. This user explicitly states on their page: "I don't like edit-wars. However, if I am certain that something is wrong, I will feel the need to clarify something." I've been primarily trying to resolve this issue with regards to the page Harut and Marut and have failed to come to some sort of compromise. Looking at User talk:VenusFeuerFalle this seems to be a pattern of repeated behaviour and I was in fact notified by another user that he's attempting to make similar claims on the Iblis page, see: Talk:Iblis#Muhammad_Mahmoud_as_source. This user also repeatedly violates WP:GOODFAITH, accusing people of sockpuppeting: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harut_and_Marut&diff=964108752&oldid=964104092 and asserting that others are editing based on 'agenda': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harut_and_Marut#Edit_war_about_the_story FAISSALOO(talk) 21:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Faissaloo. Even I tried to reason with VenusFeuerFalle, and others whom he got into a dispute or contact with, here and there, but he persisted with nearly edit-warring against me here and there, accusing me and FAISSALOO of being sock-puppets, and he incorrectly said that a particular passage of a primary source (the Qur'an (18:50)) does not say that Iblis is a Jinn to another user, for which I had to refute him using a passage of the primary source that says that Iblis was a Jinn (since Venus was talking about this primary source e Qur'an), but Venus continued to pretend that the Verse didn't say that Iblis was a Jinn, and after I warned him to stop this WP:Bias, Venus then decides to report me for WP:Vandalism (when he himself is guilty of that ([1] [2], despite repeated warnings from me ([3] [4]) that he can't just go round deleting reliable sources to support his POV, not to mention that he is nearly edit-warring with me), and without a prior notification on my talk-page. Leo1pard (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC); edited 08:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not accused you of sockpuppin. If I do this, I will report you both here: WP:SPI. The issue here is, that pretent to reason with me on the talkpage but ignore all my responses. I repeatedly told you, that the sources state. nevertheless you ignore the sources in the Harut and Marut and Iblis article. In both cases it is the common denial of fallen angels within Islamic beliefs. Since Islam scholars currently insist that there are no sinning angels and that the devil is a jinn, while simultaneously Iblis as angel (not a jinn) and Harut and Marut as sinning angels was a common motif within Islam, I suspect religious bias among both Users. These facts are all well supported within the corresponding articles. Although the users use reliable sources, their edits do not reflect the content they are citing. Instead, their edits reflect their opinnion on religious texts (here: Quran) about a certain vers.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a matter of debate, almost no one holds this view and I'm genuinely baffled as to why you seem so intent on pushing this narrative. None of your sources justify the idea that this has ever been a widely held view. This is blatant WP:FRINGE. FAISSALOO(talk) 16:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Faissaloo, they're at WP:ANEW, over an edit war that start with their revert of your edit. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Much appreciated FAISSALOO(talk) 16:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rwbest

    Rwbest is a sporadically-active editor with a narrow editing focus, notably advancing the views of Mark Z. Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has edit-warred there numerous times, see previous warning for example, and WP:OWNs the article Worldwide energy supply (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([5]), which is related. Jacobson is best known to a lay audience for suing people who wrote a paper critical of his ideas, which was gleefully seized on by climate change deniers. That suit was dismissed and Jacobson has just been ordered to pay dmaages and costs related to it. Quick as a flash up pops Rwbest to make sure it's sympathetically on the article on Jacobson, as noted by The Banner on WP:RFPP just now. As a WP:SPA with a history of edit-warring and civil POV-pushing, I think Rwbest should be banned from that article. Guy (help!) 13:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It is really interesting to see that the blocked user:Mark Z. Jacobson is now asking for a block for me. In fact with the same arguments that Rwbest is using: "defamatory comments" and "Motions for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs". Note that the "frivolous lawsuit" is a quote from the given source. It looks like Rwbest needed auxiliary troops to shift the blame to me. The Banner talk 17:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And the source given is not about the actual case, but separate motions about who has to pay the costs and fees of the original case. ([6]), invoking Strategic lawsuit against public participation. The Banner talk 18:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Jacobson is now also asking for a block of JzG. The Banner talk 18:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted the personal attacks and the rant there and revoked their talk page access. That's a textbook example of what NOT to do when you are blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RickinBaltimore, thank you - I am normally keen for BLP subjects to be able to edit their talk pages, but Jacobson does a striking impression of Captain Grievance. Guy (help!) 22:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The present kerfuffle seems to be about a single sentence that's currently at the end of the lead and another sentence that says the same thing in the body. These sentences have been the focus of a total of 14 edits, 6 of which were made by Rwbest. The scale of this dispute is, by Wikipedia standards, tiny and any disruptive editing hasn't yet risen to the level of a topic ban for anyone, in my opinion. I can't see why this can't be dealt with by normal editing processes. I do think we have some serious BLP sourcing problems here - the sentences in question have cite two sources, one of which is a Forbes Contributor source and therefore completely unsuitable for a BLP, and the other of which appears to be a database of primary sources. I'll follow up with edits to the article and talk page, and I'm optimistic we can come to consensus on the content. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If this was the first time, you would have a point. But it is not. Just see Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson. The Banner talk 10:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rwbest/Archive from 2018, where the same type of editing was at stake. And as I stated there: The most positive options seems to be that Rwbest is working for or working on behalf of Mark Z. Jacobson, having an undeclared COI (...). The Banner talk 18:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Clayoquot, no, it's about Rwbest's stunningly accurate impression of being Jacobson's PR. Guy (help!) 11:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RickinBaltimore I actually found user:Mark Z. Jacobson's talk page comments useful in flagging BLP issues with the content in his biography. I'd suggest his talk page access be restored with a warning to comment on content not contributors. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not comfortable doing that myself, however if another admin wishes to do so, they certainly can. As a blocked user however, he should be trying to request an unblock, not continue a dispute with other editors. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark Z. Jacobson's talk page comments were clearly inappropriate. He's using his talk page to harass and abuse other editors, and if you look through the page history, it's mostly just a place for him to post angry rants and his very skewed views on what should and should not be in his article. Re-enabling his talk page wouldn't do anyone any good, least of all him. No opinion on Rwbest, since I'm unfamiliar with the larger history. All I can say is that neither he nor The Banner come out of their recent exchange looking good. They edit-warred over recently added material on the article for several days. Neither of them posted on the talk page until I brought up the issue [7]. Rwbest has not commented, and The Banner posted only to say that he's not going to talk about article content until this report is resolved [8]. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: I suggested to wait with the content discussion until this case was closed. I have enough experience with Rwbest to know that these two discussion will be mixed up. See also this as example of his whitewashing. The Banner talk 16:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why a content discussion should wait for an ANI discussion. The content of the article is what's important, and it doesn't need to wait for the result of this discussion. Obviously you don't have to participate, but I think it's strange that you would edit-war on the article and then choose not to say anything in a discussion of the content you were editing. And are you sure that's the link you intended to put there? That's just a dif of Rwbest removing material from his own talk page. With very few exceptions, every editor has the right to remove anything from their talk page at any time. That's not "whitewashing". Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Romary

    User Travelerone1 and also 75.110.96.60 seem to be the same person / account or related persons in the same area. Neither has a talk page to notify them on.

    Peter Romary is currently the Defendant in a lawsuit and the above user(s) have refused to go to Talk Page and discuss - they appear to be a person who is known to law enforcement and is being looked into for obstruction of justice for things being done here and on other social media sites (Facebook). I won't name and I don't wish to make any threats as I am simply a person who has tried to request balance to this page.

    A UK lawyer came on and clarified the position of Judge John Romary. Also it seems that a lot of personal attacks, innuendo, inflammatory language and allegations with no supporting documentation is being posted. I do not intend to back and forth with people who seem bent on attacking someone and undoing changes supported by evidence and articles. But would ask to see if the above are engaged in sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry and whether they can be blocked and someone can go on and make this an encyclopedic article rather than some type of attack forum.

    While looking I also found, that someone posted on Facebook, this page which seems to be nothing more than a free range violation of Wikipedia policies from start to finish and a full on personal attack using a Wikipedia userpage as a forum with nothing but the unsupported writings of someone who claims they were once hired (and then employment discontinued) by Romary. It also seems that the page owner transferred the top part of the page onto his Talk page when the author tried to take it down, telling said author "do not delete things" (even those that violate Wikipedia policies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dreddhk

    The whole thing seems a mess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.69.209 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Christ, all that stuff by User:Travelerone1 was pure BLPVIO (which they've bring doing since November 2019): I've removed the unsourced ad blog- etc sourced crap. For a hit job, Al Neri couldn't have done better. Admin, might wanna scrub some of it. ——Serial # 16:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. [T]ied to several devious acts — really? El_C 16:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that's soiled your nice clean mop El_C  :) cheers. Yeah, the devious dastardly devilishness of the guy, old chap! What an article. ——Serial # 16:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, gotta rinse it out well. Indeed, it's quite unbelievable. El_C 16:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's see if the warnings and DS alert will make a meaningful difference. But I agree that this is block-worthy territory, for sure. El_C 17:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    • An interesting thought that perhaps, in the mind of the author of the talk page, s/he was fired from designing web pages because s/he either a) photo-shopped pictures of naked men dancing with fans or b) s/he liked to mock up videos of people dancing with fans while developers from the SAS Institute [[9]] 'coincidentally' based in NC, kept track of how many people watched. Sort of like the SNL sketch where Patrick Stewart was a cake maker who only made cakes of women going to the bathroom? Right or wrong, that has got to be worth a Barnstar?

    I know a lot of people hate lawyers, but it seems some of these folks have taken things to the extreme - that talk page has been up for years (someone got hand-bitten for taking down what they put up) and it's Twilight Zone. Seems whenever people took stuff down (Judge) Dreddhk would put it back up, and then claim s/he was victim of bullying. Maybe some BDSM with those fans? Police in the UK may be different from here, but in the experience of "friends" in my condo complex, one of who told me about all this, police don't bring people in for questioning a couple of times, nor can people just "send them around" without evidence and a good reason. But apparently the author is saying s/he was talking to the elderly folks who were sicking the police on him. (Could have been spelling police as his spelling "paraniod" "quiet some time" also, where is the nation of "apathy" where the web site died? And this was the person the UK police were supposed to be asking for a psychological analysis?). This stuff is weird, but can I get a Barnstar for effort? ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption by MWise12 and Netoholic at Boogaloo movement

    I thought about opening a report at ANEW because much of this issue revolves around edit warring, but it's a bit less cut-and-dried than issues I usually bring to ANEW.

    There has been continued disruption both from MWise12 and Netoholic over at the page about the Boogaloo movement. Both editors appear to be determined to whitewash the article away from describing the movement as "far right", and are continuously reverting without joining discussions on the talk page, or without gaining new consensus for contentious changes that have already been discussed at length on the talk page.

    MWise12 background

    MWise12 first appeared on the page to first soften the wording identifying the movement as "far right". I reverted, asking them to discuss on the talk page. At this point there had already been discussions about the descriptor on the talk page, largely from bad-faith SPAs but some in good faith; here is a snapshot of the page at the time MWise first made a change. I assumed at that point they hadn't seen the talk page discussions. However, MWise, instead of discussing, edited the page once more to remove the descriptor completely.

    They then tried to introduce WP:OR interpretation into the page regarding the 2020 boogaloo killings, by insisting on including a Facebook post by the alleged perpetrator, and there was a brief edit war:

    • MWise12 introduces the change: [10]
    • GW revert: reverted, summary This has nothing to do with the boogaloo movement. Details about this person/the incident could go at 2020 boogaloo killings, maybe, though I fail to see why the specific memes he posted on Facebook are encyclopedia material
    • MW revert: [11], summary It gives us insight into motive - this was not a "far right" attack.
    • GW revert: [12], summary feel free to draw your own personal conclusions from his memes, but that's absolutely not appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:OR

    MWise12 then went over to the 2020 boogaloo killings page to try to insert the change there: [13]. I was growing uncomfortable with the edit warring and did not wish to step over the line, so I started a talk page discussion at Talk:2020 boogaloo killings#Meme, though another editor also found the addition inappropriate and reverted it as I was starting the discussion. In the conversation MWise12 did not appear to see any problem with his WP:OR analysis of the Facebook post.

    Netoholic background

    Netoholic first edited the page on 17 June, in what quickly also became an edit war in which they tried to remove the photograph at the top of the page.

    I will note for full disclosure that Netoholic posted on my talk page (User talk:GorillaWarfare#reverts) to write How many reverts are you up to today at Boogaloo movement?. I hadn't realized, but I had accidentally breached WP:3RR—I had not realized that reverts from the previous day had been within the 24-hour time span. Since then I have been more careful to check if I have reverted too much, and also more hesitant to revert in general

    I will note that Netoholic was rude and WP:ABF in the discussion, writing its sad an arbitrator is so disinterested in doing the right thing here (and is also pinging for backup) when I had suggested a potential compromise, and pinged the others involved in that very same discussion to see if they were okay with the suggestion. Throughout the conversation (see Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive 1#Removal of image), Netoholic moved the goalposts around what would assuage their concerns, making my attempts to come up with a suitable compromise completely impossible. However, my attempts to do so turned out to be unnecessary, as the discussion resulted in a pretty clear consensus to keep the original image in the article. I thought this was the end of it, until Beyond My Ken posted in that discussion: having failed to achieve consensus on this talk page to remove the image from the article, is attempting to subvert the Commons' deletion process to get what he wants, even though there is no policy-based reason for removal of the image there. Sure enough, Netoholic had opened a deletion request on Commons to try to subvert enwiki consensus. Though the discussion appears to be still open, aside from Netoholic it is unanimous that the image is appropriate and should be kept.

    Netoholic hasn't edited the article much besides this image issue and the June 26 issue I'm about to describe, though they have participated here and there in talk page discussions. In a conversation about how the article had received an enormous number of pageviews, Netoholic felt the need to insert the comment: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex. [14] I was surprised to see such a claim made by an experienced editor, who has apparently decided that the sourcing in the page is (at least in part) "fake news". It was also surprising to see this term apparently used in the same way as by Trump, to refer to news with which one disagrees. I suggested that if Netoholic was serious about such a change to the sourcing Wikipedia accepts, they should take it to either RSN or VPP, but it appears the comment was meant more as a snipe at the editors and less as a constructive suggestion of change. Full discussion is partway down the section at Talk:Boogaloo_movement/Archive_2#Inclusion of a tweet by the DHS.

    June 26 disruption

    In an attempt to keep this from getting even longer than it already is, I will not go into similar detail about the intermediate editing of the page. However I will note that both editors actively participated in talk page discussions throughout this time, and so were aware not only that there had been substantial discussion about the inclusion of "far-right" in the lead but also that those discussions had not resulted in consensus shifting away from using the term.

    Fast forward to yesterday, when MWise12 showed up again to undo a whole slew of work by myself and other editors: (edits between 2:09 and 2:48, 26 June 2020‎). This included, once again, removing the "far-right" descriptor from the lead. They did not initiate a talk page discussion before making this change once more. Another edit war ensued, this time with Netoholic showing up almost immediately after my revert to join in the edit war:

    • MWise12 removal, 02:48, 26 June 2020, summary Changed in light of new information
    • After making the change, MWise12 created a talk page discussion, 03:25, 26 June 2020. Discussion here continued while the edit war went on, see Talk:Boogaloo movement#Department of Homeland Security's statements
    • GorillaWarfare revert, 04:01, 26 June 2020‎, summary not without consensus
    • Netoholic revert, 04:17, 26 June 2020‎, summary far-right is disputed. WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion
    • GorillaWarfare revert, 04:22, 26 June 2020, summary per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.". As I stated, there have been multiple conversations about this which have resulted in the descriptor remaining. If you wish to gather new consensus, feel free to join the discussion on the talk page. WP:STATUSQUO
    • Netoholic revert, 04:48, 26 June 2020, summary a lot of sources have come out in the last 10 days. There is no consensus, perhaps an RfC?
    • Britishfinance revert‎, 09:20, 26 June 2020, summary m, per Talk Page discussion, there is as yet no consensus to use this (given that most other sources conflict). thanks. BF
    • Netoholic revert, 12:16, 26 June 2020, summary per current talk discussion and a surprisingly large number of edit requests viewable in Talk:Boogaloo movement/Archive 1, there is clearly controversy around this term. Please open an RfC rather than edit warring.
    • Britishfinance revert, 14:15, 26 June 2020, summary rv per Talk page discussion; there is no consensus for this edit (and evidence it is not appropriate). RfC not needed, just please don't edit war but get consensus on Talk Page. thanks. ~~~~
    • MWise12 revert, 16:14, 26 June 2020, summary Evidence is very appropriate; you have no consensus to keep this out
    • NorthBySouthBaranof revert, 16:20, 26 June 2020, summary return to prior consensus

    Now, I fully accept that it's possible the sourcing may have shifted away from describing the movement as "far-right", and posted earlier today to write that I intend to do a full audit of the sourcing in the page as well as a search through more recently-published coverage to determine if the weight has shifted away from describing the movement as far right. I also believe it is probably time to get formal consensus about the inclusion of the descriptor, though I want to do my audit first to determine if I still support it being used.

    However, I wanted to start this discussion around the behavior of MWise12 and Netoholic first, because the edit warring and disruption from the two of them is really getting in the way of constructive collaboration on the page. The refusal to discuss before making controversial edits, and the continuation of edit wars while discussion is occurring, is getting extremely disruptive. I will also note to any reviewing admins that the page is covered by the American politics discretionary sanctions, if that is useful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    In regards to the editing vs discussing, I apologize for being too quick to edit before discussing and will make sure to fix that in the future. However, I will point out that I didn't even come close to breaking the 3RR. I also disagree that we ever reached a valid consensus to keep "far right" in the lead. Just because I was too busy to continue debating for a few days does not mean I accepted your position. MWise12 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your description of your behavior regarding Carrillo's Facebook post appears to continue to misunderstand WP:OR, a policy which begins by stating (emphasis mine) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Including this content to try to make claims about Carrillo's political affiliations, when the sources made no such statements, is OR.
      As I stated on the talk page, it's fine if you're too busy to continue a conversation. But the conversation was not just between you and I, there were other editors involved. Furthermore, if you believed consensus had not been achieved, you could have re-opened the discussion at any point rather than edit-warring your preferred version of the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reject the characterization of any of these edits as "disruption" - GorillaWarfare is simply using language priming to poison the well. GorillaWarfare has above admitted to violations of 3RR and cannot possibly characterize only one side of this as "edit warring" while trying to escape the same label. In fact, when content is disputed, the WP:ONUS is clearly on those seeking inclusion, and so any reverts seeking removal of disputed content are implicitly -less- "disruptive" than the reverts pushing the material back into the article. WP:BOOMERANG should be deployed and GorillaWarfare given a ban from the Boogaloo topic area for her disruption, edit warring, and misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I honestly could not have asked for a better example of the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that Netoholic has been exhibiting, which makes collaborating them extremely difficult. In this short paragraph they manage to:
      • completely sidestep any discussion of their own behavior
      • call for an unwarranted boomerang ban against me from the page
      • characterize my use of the extremely commonly-used term in dispute resolution, "disruption", as "using language priming to poison the well"
      • inaccurately state that I've admitted to multiple violations of 3RR — I did acknowledge a singular breach of 3RR that was not only accidental but only a violation in the strictest interpretation of the policy: nearly 24 hours had elapsed and it was a completely different day, and the reverts were on completely different edits to the page
      • incomprehensibly accuse me of "trying to escape" the label of edit warring—I listed my own edits in the groups of edits I described as an "edit war"
      • once again misuse WP:ONUS; I've already pointed out to them that that consensus was achieved, and now they've shown up ten days later to unilaterally state that there was no consensus. They could have reopened the conversation or started a formal consensus-gathering discussion, but instead they chose to edit war while also handwaving at "lots of sources" and claiming that somehow ten days elapsing rendered the previous consensus stale ([15])
      • falsely claim that repeatedly removing the content is somehow less disruptive, in contravention of WP:STATUSQUO ("During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo")
      • baselessly accuse me of "misuse of AN/I to try to get an upper hand in a content dispute which she could easily solve by opening an RfC" — I was already quite clear on the talk page that I intended to fully review the sources and then, assuming the weight of the sourcing still supports the "far-right" label, start an RfC. I started this ANI discussion because MWise12 and Netoholic were continuing the edit war (which I will note I stepped out of yesterday) while I was trying to urge everyone to discuss the issue like we're supposed to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, that was Netoholic, fighting over that caption a while ago? I remember seeing that. And now they're edit warring over "far-right" and that DHS statement? The evidence for "far-right" is so overwhelming (I mean, in Military Times?) that these edits are simply ridiculous. The argument for that Facebook post is ridiculous as well, and suggests CIR. I think both should be topic-banned from the AP2 topic area, and I'd do it myself if I hadn't just scolded Netoholic for some disruption pertaining to the Dixie Chicks. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies: Understood. I do not have the time these days to gather diffs, but many of those who watch this page will remember the histories of his many previous sanctions and dramatics. The first one I knew was when he tried to edit an absurd definition of "philosopher" into our article Philosopher so that, among other POV nonsense, he could call far-right blogger Stefan Molyneux a philosopher in the first sentence. Fortunatey he got a TBAN and the article now says "Molyneux ...is a far-right, white nationalist podcaster and YouTuber who is known for his promotion of scientific racism and white supremacist views." I mean, if anyone is inclined to post the evidence here, there would be no doubt what to do. Sorry, I will drop out now. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies - "weird POV edits"? C'mon, that's so baseless its barely even an WP:ASPERSION. In the specific case of the article being discussed here, its clear from the current talk page discussion that the situation is not so cut-and-dry, and that there are valid points on either side. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shit, SPECIFICO, you're right, and I remember that Molyneux nonsense. And I looked through the history (where I didn't find myself, not in that dispute), and that's like a time sink of 1500 edits. For the record, I closed a tiny discussion, see Talk page, Archive 8, not involving Netoholic. Yeah, I support an AP2 ban, at the very least. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Netoholic challenged the label "right-wing" on boogaloos and the photo of Hawaiian shirts with military garb and guns. Both of these are very well documented. Back in 2014, the diff SPECIFICO was looking for was this one where Netoholic gives a right-wing racist his own platform to define himself in a friendly manner as a philosopher. These sorts of edits make me conclude that Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence. How low must he go before we ban him? I think we're there already. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No idea why you pulled a random single edit diff out to make your point when you should have linked to the full RfC on use of "philosopher" which, by the way was -not- a landslide, but resulted in not using it - a decision I disagreed with and yet have upheld as consensus to this day. That is the -same- as I did for the issue about the Boogaloo image, and what I would do for the use of "far-right" in that article if an RfC later shows that consensus. My god, get some perspective - not everyone who is skeptical of strong terms being stated in WP:VOICE is "defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence". Holy cow - is this what political rhetoric has become? No quarter given, everyone is the worst extreme? This is not acceptable behavior, Binks - its BATTLEGROUND and I reject it. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, no, that's not the same as you did with the boogaloo image at all. When that discussion turned out in favor of the image being kept, you went to Commons to circumvent the outcome by trying to get it deleted there. This is the permalink to the discussion at the time when you started the Commons deletion discussion; it shows that you only initiated the discussion after the discussion here on enwiki had ended with agreement that the image should be retained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I have had a few interactions with this editor that have been unnecessarily uncivil and ended with both parties edit warring. I think a history of combative, acerbic and uncivil editing is evident when looking at Netoholic's history. They rarely discuss issues at talk pages and when they do it's rarely civil. I feel like they are disruptive and unwilling to change, at least in regards to subjects relating to right wing politics. They are uncivil, frequently accuse other editors of acting in bad faith and regularly involved in edit wars.Bacondrum (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah here they all come. Since Bacondrum is casting ASPERSIONS without links, I'll have to contradict him. The ONLY article we've closely interacted was recently at Virtue signalling after he'd first nuked the content then submitted a ridiculous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtue signalling which SNOW-failed. Things didn't go his way - that's the only reason he's piling on here. -- Netoholic @ 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And right on cue for the vitriol. Case in point - doesn't listen, doesn't want to change, not interested in being civil. A disruptive editor. Have a short look through their edit history, the combative and uncivil nature of this editors interactions with other users becomes clear very quickly. It's not Netoholic's fault they are being "piled on", it has nothing to do with their own behavior, it's everyone else's fault that they are constantly engaged in edit wars and other argy-bargy.Bacondrum (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just look at some of the bad faith accusations directed at GorillaWarfare above. Anyone who has interacted with GorillaWarfare knows those are unreasonable and unfounded accusations. Bacondrum (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah here they all come. I think that this outlook basically shows the problem. Yes, of course the AP2 topic area is contentious, but it's precisely because of that that we have to try and maintain at least some degree of civility and WP:AGF-attude towards each other, even when we strenuously disagree on matters of sourcing, weight, interpretation, and how to summarize these things; sometimes people with differing outlooks on the world can legitimately disagree on even the entirely-encyclopedic way to handle a contentious topic. You have consistently refused to extend that faith towards the people you disagree with on political topics. See eg. here, here, here + here, and here, just for some recent ones. --Aquillion (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The diff-less accusations against me in this thread are what is uncivil and wildly-lacking of AGF (did you see "Netoholic is defending far-right racism and race-baiting violence" above?), yet you don't comment on them. You had to go back a month to find 4 diffs in my history (of which none are uncivil and, in fact, one is openly compassionate), some others are trying to go back 6 years. Is it possible that this thread, like happens too often elsewhere in AP2, piling-on and double standards are being used in order to just attempt to take a chess piece off the board? -- Netoholic @ 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm I've seen a whole bunch of diffs by now, and I don't think the chess analogy is very helpful here. You're badgering every single person here--there are better metaphors to use. You're not so much a chess piece as a big concrete block in the middle of a busy sidewalk. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I were silent, you'd say I had no defense or take it as a tacit admission of guilt; and the impartial readers would not know the context of why people might be piling on. I have the right to respond. Whats disappointing is that your analogy characterizes me as an immovable object which is simple 'in the way' - is that really fair? Is that how you AGF and treat me civilly? -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The very fact that we are here, and I am giving reasons for why I think you should be banned from this topic area, means I have given up your good faith. Isn't that obvious? I believe you have a right-wing POV, at the very least, that renders you incapable of editing our articles neutrally, of following our policies, of participating in a collaborative project which aims to write quality encyclopedic articles. I don't know what's uncivil about that, by the way. I haven't called you names, although maybe you can guess what I think about people who abuse Wikipedia in order to whitewash articles on right-wing, far-right, white supremacist topics. So yes, I think you are in the way. In hindsight, the Molyneux business six years ago should have led to a (topic) ban. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Drmies: Just for discussion, is there anyone in this thread that you believe has a left-wing POV? And BTW, I am not right-wing - I simply think that strong POV language (sometimes anti-right, sometimes anti-left) in our articles should be tempered from extremes where evidence is not there to support it in our WP:VOICE. Even in regards to the original purpose of this ANI report, GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" - not even a majority - so our objections to its inclusion are at least reasonably valid (we'll see how the RfC turns out). I do nothing here on WP based dogmatically on my personal POV - hell, my interests are wildly esoteric and I don't even focus on political topics... unlike some editors in this thread that seem to dedicate themselves to that area daily. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could always acknowledge that you have been uncivil and disruptive and try to do better in the future. Refusing to see the problem isn't helping. Civility and collaboration are cornerstones of Wikipedia, they are not optional. You make it really unpleasant for everyone else when you make acerbic comments and edit war, and it's not necessary. Bacondrum (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely getting this many other editors noses out of joint should make you question how you are conducting yourself here? Bacondrum (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remember butting heads with Neto last year over the Women-in-Red AFD thing, the NPROF thing, the WikiProject Men thing, and the Chairman/Chairperson move, among others. Neto was blocked in July 2019 for edit warring and after that, the account's activity was significantly reduced until March 2020. Plenty of good edits in March and April, but once they come into conflict, forget-about-it, back to the same old. Edit warring at Magdalene Visaggio and bludgeoning Talk:Magdalene Visaggio#Birth name; at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Edit war; at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television, and see various threads on that talk page; improper use of SYNTH tag and edit warring over it at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery (1 2 3); plus, the edit warring described above in the OP.
      Neto's first block for edit warring was 15 years ago. Admittedly, their block log isn't actually as bad as it looks at first (I guess we didn't have rules about wheel warring before 2006), but it seems whenever they actively edit, they actively edit war. Three edit warring blocks in the roughly one year between June 2018 and July 2019, and since their return to full editing in March 2020, it's quickly become a repeat of the same edit warring behavior. And it doesn't seem limited to AP2. I think a sitewide 1RR restriction would help reduce disruption. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to or in place of an AP2 topic ban? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to, I guess. My concern is if it's just an AP2 tban, Neto will change their topic area but not their underlying approach. For example, the stuff last May through Nov was gender stuff, not AP2, e.g. [16], [17] (discussing [18]), [19], [20] (suggesting, for lead image of Woman, [21] and [22]), [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Now it's AP2. What'll be next? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those links are just discussions. Do you think my particular viewpoint on those discussions is what makes me deserve a sanction? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you really not see how your general approach is uncivil and combative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs)
    @Netoholic: No, I don't. Do you see any problem with your edits that are listed in the OP? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A while back, I too had experiences like this with respect to pages dealing with the political views of college professors, and in particular, with the POV that US academia has been taken over by leftists. (Or maybe taken over by Drmies and me.) It's worth looking at Talk:Political views of American academics, and particularly Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC about HERI survey and Talk:Political views of American academics#RfC on inclusion of HERI data chart, where Netoholic tried to push such a POV, and his position was soundly rejected by the RfC respondents. There are similar discussions at Talk:Passing on the Right, about a book that takes a minority view among secondary sources, and at Talk:Neil Gross, a BLP about a respected scholar of academic politics, where I had concerns about BLP violations intended to discredit the page subject. Assuming that WP:ACDS#Awareness has been satisfied, it seems to me that an uninvolved admin should consider using DS under AmPol here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno, all those links just show me participating in discussions and expressing various viewpoints that at best turned out to be non-majority in the RfCs, but hardly radical. "US academia has been taken over by leftists" is YOUR words, not mine - I've never said anything like that. I have to ask - do you disagree with the ample literature that shows that the population of left-wing academics far outnumbers right-wing? The scholarly data that shows that its a widely-held, majority view. But since you have identified yourself and Drmies as being left-wing academics, I have to ask, are you seeking sanction on me just to WP:USTHEM? -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said anything of the sort about either Drmies or myself in that parenthetical joke. And I never called you radical. My concern has always been your failure to adhere to NPOV (whether you profess to see it, or not). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Netoholic Look, I think all most of us want from you is to tone down the bad faith accusations and stop leaving acerbic edit summaries, basically tone it down, be civil - we can disagree without the nastiness. And don't edit war, if you disagree, take it to talk and have a civil discussion. If you can agree to tone down the combativeness I think everyone would accept that in good faith and move on without further action needed. Believe me as someone who can also get carried away (as we both did recently), it's better to try and keep things friendly. We are not piling on, we are asking you to reign in the combativeness. Bacondrum (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have as an individual Arbitration Enforcement action placed Boogaloo movement under indefinite 1RR. I have also topic banned Netoholic from the topic for 3 months and placed them on indefinite 1RR in that topic area. The community can, of course, choose to impose other sanctions. I have no comments at this time on Mwise or Gorilla Warfare. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but having been away, am only seeing this now. I have edited on this article with GW, and concur with the evidence posted by GW above. Both editors demonstrated a sustained desire to whitewash this article regardless of any factbase (or even consensus), put forward, including:

    • The forum-shopping regarding the attempt to delete photograph showed an extreme determination, which even the Wikicommons community objected to here.
    • Bad faith statements noted by GW above that: Wikipedia playing its part in the fake news industrial complex, despite the good referencing in the article.
    • Repeated attempts to re-insert a controversial DHS tweet into the lede, despite having no consensus for it, that it conflicted with a large number of references from WP:RS/P sources, and despite referenced concerns put forward them it was politically movitived (As Trump warns of leftist violence, a dangerous threat emerges from the right-wing boogaloo movement).
    • The statement above GorillaWarfare has only found 22 of 59 sources that use "far-right" (i.e. as if every source has to call the movement far-right for it to be valid) is another example of an extreme determination to dismiss all evidence in favour of their own agenda (bordering on sealioning behaviour).

    I cannot see how such conduct is appropriate in the already difficut areas of AP2 editing. WP works when a discussion is had over references with a good faith desire to chronicle what they say – take away that good faith, and it collapses. GW is a strong editor, and has gone to extraordinary lengths to prove the obvious to these editors; I am not sure other editors (myself included), would have done that, particularly given the significant amount of IPs/SPAs that this article attracted all trying to whitewash it (eight most viewed page on the entire project) Britishfinance (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Britishfinance, wow. "fake news industrial complex" is way out there into WP:CIR territory - it's a complete repudiation of WP:RS. Guy (help!) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Britishfinance, thank you for that note. Your comment on "22 out of 59" supports something bigger than the narrow topic ban just instituted by Barkeep49 (though I appreciate it, Barkeep--it's a good start). Yes, that's one of those things where you can't decided if it's incompetence or POV-pushing, but I disagree with JzG--that's not just CIR territory, it's irredeemable POV pushing. I just ran into another example of this, small but telling: the proposal (which is getting overwhelming support) to move "Dixie Chicks", which Netoholic calls "a fanatic rush". No, we need a larger topic ban here, per AP2, on all the political and cultural material. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that the "22 of 59" thing is bizarre—Netoholic has repeated it in several places now, despite me having pointed out that, like many articles, this article includes sources that are somewhat tangential and don't describe the movement directly. In this case that includes sources that describe: the meme but not the movement, the phrasal pattern "____ 2: Electric Boogaloo", and the 2020 boogaloo killings (which were originally not known to have any boogaloo connection). Additionally, NorthBySouthBaranof pointed out that I took a conservative view to counting the sources. A deeper dive into this is perhaps more appropriate for the RfC than here (link to the RfC, where I've addressed it in more detail), but it does seem to be a bad-faith attempt to portray extremely solid sourcing as a minority view based on numbers alone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh ... Netoholic continually exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed that after Netoholic failed to achieve consensus on enwiki to remove the lead image at Boogaloo movement (discussion), and after they failed to gain consensus on Commons to have the file deleted (discussion), two days ago they then cropped the already-cropped image on Commons to a point where it barely illustrates the subject: commons:File:Virginia_2nd_Amendment_Rally_(2020_Jan)_-_49416109936_(cropped).jpg (see the file history section). I'll note that they edited the image directly rather than creating a new file, presumably so the image change would not be noticed on enwiki. This seems to be a clear example of tendentious editing, especially given users had already expressed to Netoholic their disapproval that Netoholic had tried to circumvent the enwiki decision. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, I think Netoholic feigning innocence and claiming he is simply being piled on is gas-lighting. This editor has never acknowledged their frequent incivility or edit warring. Now there are apparant efforts to game the system being brought to light, at this point I think they are here simply to battle and push a right-wing agenda calling Wikipedia "part in the fake news industrial complex". After reading that comment and looking at the editors attempts to get around guidelines regarding images, I believe they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Bacondrum (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks GW. I had not seen that. An(other) extreme action to take after being turned down at two fora. Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare, that's outrageous. Guy (help!) 16:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Just slap a WP:NOTHERE block on Netoholic and just get it over with. MiasmaEternalTALK 00:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • One last comment re claims by Netoholic that GorillaWarfare should be sanctioned for edit warring. I believe GW's history on Wikipedia speaks for itself, a diligent and high quality editor. If they have been edit warring it is for the same reason many people end up in edit wars with Netoholic - they've been goaded by a disruptive and uncivil editor who appears to be gaming the system. Bacondrum (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair to Netoholic, I actually believe the case in which I exceeded 3RR was primarily due to reverts of MWise12, not Netoholic. I did not pay close enough attention to how many reverts I was making in the time period, which was a failure on my part, and the responsibility for it is mine and not the other parties in the edit war.
      I understand Netoholic wishes to see me sanctioned for it (see their talk page), and I suppose that is a decision for reviewing admins to make. It does seem retaliatory on Netoholic's part, given they have only seen fit to pursue a sanction ten days after the incident now that they themselves have been sanctioned, and not closer to the incident when they could at least have argued such a sanction would be preventative. I've already said that I have been much more careful since that incident to watch 3RR and more hesitant to revert in general. I think this is evident in the June 26 edit war, where I stepped away after two reverts despite it leaving the page in a state that did not reflect the established consensus for several hours, and instead discussed the issue on the talk page for quite some time, eventually culminating in my doing an enormous review of the sourcing and starting an RfC to re-establish the consensus on the wording of the lead. If a reviewing admin wishes to discuss the incident more I'm happy to, otherwise I'll leave it at that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barkeep's tban of Netoholic is good but insufficient. Netoholic isn't here to write an encyclopaedia; his agenda is to make the fringe seem mainstream. Tolerance of his behaviour is disrespectful to the people who're here to inform and educate the public in a NPOV way. Permablock please.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Users making conspiracy theories about me.

    I think this is going out of hand in some certain Islam-related articles. Leo1pard (talk · contribs) makes conlusions about me and accuses me of biased edits, although they are all in accordance with the sources and I am always open for debate, if a source is challanged to determine the accuracity of sources. He concludes due to my interest in gnosticism and sufism, and because I defend vandalism against the Iblis article (the part where he is not seen as a jinn but as an angel is often disputed by Muslims today), he accuses me of siding with the devil. I think this is going to a direction worth to be reported. He also disputes about me with other Users and telling them his conspiracy theories about me.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend you provide diffs so people don't have to spend time going searching. Canterbury Tail talk 21:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So User:Canterbury Tail's comment was really useful. If you had been more specific, I wouldn't have looked for evidence, coming across this edit. (Hint, if someone says "it's ungrammatical", maybe you should figure out what the problem is.) The edits and edit summaries in that article don't reflect well on you. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And they just did it again. BTW, VFF, the source you cite doesn't mention the story as "canonical", which discusses how a popular myth got connected to a Qur'anic verse. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The source says, that such stories became "canonized" due to their popularity. It is quiet common in islam that teachings became canon via non-canonical scripture, just like the name Azrael for the angel of death. So what is wrong about it?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Never posted a diff-link before. Does this one help?: [[28]]. What Drmies talks about is something entirely else. Rather unexplained reverts and give out unjustified warnings. But this is not the matter here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look up WP:BOOMERANG. You're still edit warring and making POINTy edits. I am going to report you for edit warring, since this is really irritating. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Canterbury Tail I can provide you with differences, but this is a long story:

    Firstly, VenusFeuerFalle had made this edit to List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran, saying "demons are not a sub group of jgenies (at least not more than angels are). Also fixing the header for "Supernatural" it was messed up."
    I then decided to use the word Shayāṭīn, which applies to "evil Jinn" (Islamic POV) like Iblis (who is also regarded as a fallen angel), with the references being listed in Talk:Iblis.
    Before I put in those references, Venus insisted "they (Shayāṭīn and Jinn are stil distinct. and no, Surah 18:50 is not a good source (one of the reasons why we avoid OR on wikipedia)."
    After some other edits by Venus, I then corrected some peculiar glitches with 2 references (Webster's references had an improper part in the location: "|location=Woodbury, he will blow the trumpet when the day comes to the end Minn" and I corrected "|work=Encyclopaedia |publisher=Britannica" in the 2nd reference to "|encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia Britannica"), and I put in all these WP:RS to say "Don't you know that the Devil (Iblis) is regarded as both a Jinn and a Shaytan?"
    Venus then removes all these the reliable sources that I put in, besides reversing my corrections to these 2 references (like putting ", he will blow the trumpet when the day comes to the end Minn" back into the section of "location" in the first reference), saying "shayatin is a seperate type of creature (children of Iblis). Iblis is regarded as an angel, a jinn or somethign entirely else, depending on source and Quran-interpretation, but always becomes a shaitan. As long as we assign Iblis to the shayatin everything should be correct. But shayatin are not simply "evil jinn". They are only "jinn" in the sense of invisiblity, twhich also applies to angels." as if his WP:POV is important enough to remove a whole bunch of reliable sources!
    I then undid his revert, protesting against his removal of reliable sources, saying "Not according to the WP:RS that I posted!" besides correcting these 2 references, but then Venus removed the references and messed up these 2 references again, saying "your sources do not cover up your claim at all. Some deal with Iblis affiliation and also tell the same as I told above. So I recommand you to read the sources you use completely. Second they do not categorize the spiritual creatures. For what I would recommand you Amira El Zein (Intelligent world of the jinn), there the several creatures are explained in their attributes and different categories."
    Then I tried to reason with him, and others whom he got into a dispute or contact with, here and there, but he persisted with nearly edit-warring against me here and there, and he incorrectly said that a primary source did not say that Iblis is a Jinn to the IP address, for which I had to refute him using the Verse to say that according to the Qur'an, Iblis was a Jinn (since Venus was talking about the Qur'an), but Venus continued to pretend that the Verse didn't say that Iblis was a Jinn, and after I warned him to stop this WP:Bias, Venus then decided to report me for WP:Vandalism (when he himself is guilty of that ([29] [30], despite repeated warnings from me ([31] [32]) that he can't just go round deleting reliable sources to support his POV, not to mention that he was nearly edit-warring with me). Surprised at his stance, I decided to investigate why he would go against something that is commonly believed by Muslims (that Iblis was a Jinn and Shaytan (Devil) who was an enemy of God), and here are some things that I saw:
    1) He states that he is a Sufi, among other things.
    2) From earlier sections in this talk-page about Iblis (On the origin of Iblis and Is Iblis Allah's enemy?), VenusFeuerFalle took a somewhat pro-Iblis view, or a view about Iblis that ran contrary to the views of mainstream Muslims:
    A) In Is Iblis Allah's enemy?, Venus said "One of the synonyms given to Iblis is "enemy of Allah", probably rooted in folklore to avoid pronouncing his name, since, according to some folklore, if someone speaks his name, he is present. The idea of Iblis as enemy of God probably rooted in Zorastrian influences, such as Shanameh, but Islamic theology (including several interpretations) does not depict him as the enemy of God but of Gods way for humanity."
    B) In On the origin of Iblis, Venus got into an argument with another user.
    C) After an IP address made the section Iblis as an Angel to say ""And [mention] when We said to the angels, "Prostrate to Adam," and they prostrated, except for Iblees. He was of the jinn and departed from the command of his Lord." This is coming straight from the Qur'an (18:50), which is the highest source of authority in Islam." Venus got into an argument with this user also, saying "What is your point? I mean, the verse is explained in great detail, including the exegesis on the verse. Literally, the Quran does not even say "jinn" in Arabic" but "jinni", while the creature created from "smokeless fire", that is actually either "marijin min nar" or "nar as samum", that is more appropriately translated as "mixture of fire" and "poisonous fire" (s-m-m from the Semitic root for "poison" or "venom") is "Jann" not even "jinn". Therefore, there is no reason to use the verse to exclude Iblis from being an angel based on the source. And many Muslims are aware of it, and the disucssion also entered the works of the mufassirs (exegetes). When you argue, the Quran determines that Islam is, when we should use the Quran Arabic language and not a translation done later, especialy not, when the transaltions are restricted to a narrow range of interpretations and traditions. And when we encoutner that scholars have a deviant or even contrary reading of the Quran than we have today, we should wonder, there the change was made. For Wikipedia, there our own research is discouraged, and we only gather the work already done by scholars, going into detail is unnecessary."
    Thus I remarked: "Putting these (the evidences, including this reply of Venus) together, it seems that VenusFeuerFalle is one of those Sufis who take a positive view of Iblis," not that he definitely is, and Venus did something which surprised me. When replying to me and another user here, he said "And no "shayatin" are not "simply evil jinn". Evil jinn as called "Shayatin", but there are also "Shayatin" as a seperate group. If you would actually read Robbert lebling you would know this. He states on page 22: Evil jinn are of three kinds: 1. fallen angels (shayatin) (this are by the way the actual "shayatin") ..." In other words, he is now saying that fallen angels can be regarded as being among the kinds of evil Jinn. This is in contrast to his earlier stance that the views on whether Iblis was a fallen angel or jinn were irreconcilable, when I was trying to say that they were reconcilable all along! Leo1pard (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by 1292simon

    I'm starting this discussion again as no action was taken against 1292simon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in the previous discussion. This user edits BMW articles in a series and adds his preferential changes while deleting content for no reason. Especially at the Espcially at the BMW 5 Series (F10), BMW 5 Series (G30), BMW 3 Series (E36) and BMW 3 Series (E46) articles. As seen on Talk:BMW 5 Series (F10), this user is trying to force his preferred changes to these articles without even attempting to obtain consensus and constantly using WP:BABY in his defense. He was previously warned to stop this edit pattern but instead of avoiding to do that, he continues with the same edit pattern. I request the administration to take appropriate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U1Quattro (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello ANI folks. It is unclear exactly what happened in the 11 hours since the previous thread that warrants another ANI report? Or is U1Quattro trying some double jeopardy thing here? Anyways, here are my article edits during the timeframe in question, I'm happy to discuss if anyone has questions/concerns: Toyota HiAce, Manual transmission, Manual transmission. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please compile the relevant diffs. El_C 02:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unexplained content removal, deletion of infobox field and summarising for no reason, same summarising with the infobox, removal of production dates for no reason, removal of infobox fields for no reason, removal of infobox fields and properly sourced content for being unsourced, removal of production dates. These are a few of the diffs of the edit pattern of this user.U1 quattro TALK 02:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Man, these mobile diffs are a drag to read or convert to normal diffs. El_C 02:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on mobile right now, not on a PC. So there's that.U1 quattro TALK 03:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I gathered. Oh well. El_C 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1292simon it is about your edits pattern which you continue to follow even after being warned in a previous ANI discussion to obtain a consensus about what you're doing. You continue to trim out details from the infobox and remove properly sourced content from BMW articles for no clear reason.U1 quattro TALK 06:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a diff for the previous ANI discussion? I searched the archives and couldn't find one. Mysticdan (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the warning Mysticdan.U1 quattro TALK 08:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was kind of forgetful about the notice board. It was actually a report at WP:AN3.U1 quattro TALK 08:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There was also a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#Disruptive edits by 1292simon, to which there were no responses. —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those diffs are any newer than 8 days ago. I don't see a pressing need for administrative action as a result. —C.Fred (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with C.Fred. I would also add, U1Quattro, that looking at the talk page Talk:BMW 5 Series (F10), it seems that 1292simon went right to the talk page after you reverted him, and you immediately went to casting aspersions. I understand you might get frustrated, but all the threats of administration action aren't helpful (or likely true) since admin don't get involved with content, only behavior. Simon is probably getting a bit too bold, but so are you. You both need to take it to a talk page and either have an RFC for the type of changes Simon wants to put in, or hammer it out some how, but this seems to be a good old fashioned content dispute, so there isn't anything for admin to do at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but at BMW 3 Series (E36) and at BMW 5 Series (G30), content was removed without reason. I was just restoring the article to the way it was before. On the other hand, this user is pressing on with the changes and is introducing them in a series in BMW articles without any reason or explanation Dennis Brown. Edit summaries like "Infobox" are not good enough reason for such drastic changes to the infobox. At BMW 5 Series (F10), another user also disagreed with the changes 1292simon was making but he still resorted to edit warring.U1 quattro TALK 14:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking specifically at the F10 article, I do not see edits by 1292simon that rise to the level of edit warring. Or, if they do, then U1Quattro is even more guilty of edit warring with their greater number of reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that at the G30 article, U1Quattro added a large chunk of unsourced material, 1292simon reverted it pointing out why, and U1 re-inserted it, claiming that removing it was "disruptive editing" [33]. That doesn't look great, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1292simon here. Regarding the other article where the accusation is "content was removed without reason", I made a dummy edit straight after the one in question, in order to add an Edit Summary (fat finger error... IIRC I accidentally pressed the Enter key instead of Shift key when at the start of typing in an Edit Summary). It's pretty obvious what happened, so U1Quattro probably knows this and is just trying to score a point here. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite the material was properly sourced and sources were present in the article, infact at the end of the section. Three sources were present. You're taking assumptions without even reading the sources.U1 quattro TALK 02:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1292simon and you're trying to be innocent by making statements like that I knew that you were making dummy edits. No I don't and don't have the time to see the dummy edits and neither what keys you're pressing. I check the edits in main space and you removed content without reason which is what the main space indicates. You are in the wrong here, accept that. The diff you posted is not even a dummy edit either.U1 quattro TALK 02:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The diff was a whitespace change inside the infobox template. I'd say that counts as a H:DUMMY Mysticdan (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mysdictan it was redirecting me to the diff where I reverted Simon's edits. Later on, he changed the link. I don't know what he's trying to achieve here in the first place. Because he sure is not innocent as he is presenting himself to be.U1 quattro TALK 08:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Right ok, I see that he edited the link. I'd suggest a bit of AGF and get back to discussing this content disagreement on the relevant talk pages. Mysticdan (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    After this ANI thread. Now he is actually discussing issues on the talk page rather than restoring his preferred version and then discussing the issues.U1 quattro TALK 10:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Help regarding edits by User:Febb011

    BLOCKED
    Febb011 blocked due to sock-puppetry along with other socks by NinjaRobotPirate (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:TheTruthExplorerZZ is disappointed by deletion of RPT Inc. (Bokaro) (a PR piece that failed WP:CORP) and supposed WP:SOCK User:Febb011 has started ranting about it at my talk page. See Special:Contributions/Febb011 has started arguing/harassing at User_talk:Amkgp#Is_RPT_Inc._(Bokaro)_now_improved?. Please help. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not disappointed by any deletion. I just is naturally asking why did ~ Amkgp considered my article for deletion. He is purposely and forcefully calling my discussions as 'Harassing'. You can see there's nothing such as harassing.
    Thank You.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruthExplorerZZ (talk • contribs)

     Confirmed to each other:
    One of them temporarily had a COI userbox but removed it. Seems a bit fishy to me. I'll block them all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Revert of LTA needed on Wiki News

    Iggy the Swan - We take or have no control on other wikis just like they have no control here, If future issues arise on a wiki then you'd need contact an admin on that wiki, Anyway a WikiNews admin has revdelled the content and the account's been globally blocked so no further admin intervention is further needed. NAC. –Davey2010Talk 17:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please can someone revert the trolling made from My Royal Young on Wiki News (i.e. revert these contributions). I can't do that myself because I have been blocked by the abuse filter (here) and these images should not really be there. Thank you, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 11:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nor can we Iggy the Swan, it's a separate wiki. You'll need one of the admins there to do it. Cabayi (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Pi zero has took into the action to revert all. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cabayi, we know it's a different project. User:Davey2010, sometimes these things take a long time, even if we report it to a steward. Until you become one of the targets you don't really appreciate the fact that the unified login is a disaster. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:Drmies, Fair point, I didn't look at the contribs so given the circumstance I would actually agree Iggy was correct in coming here, My apologies Iggy for reading you the riot act here - Like I said had I bothered to check the contribs I would've been more understanding so sorry about that, I've struck that part of the closure, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Davey2010, no apology necessary. It's just that one doesn't always know where to turn for the quickest solution. What's usually needed is a global block, revoking of talk page and email access, and oversight/suppression, and before all those things have happened usually some time has passed. I have a shortcut for the Steward requests here, and while I'm no spring chicken even that took me a while to find... So that Iggy the Swan would come here seeking someone with more global powers, that's not surprising. Iggy: this is the one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette by User:Beyond_My_Ken

    This incident began with an editor boldly inserting a line into the QAnon conspiracy theory page. I had concerns about the relevance of the line on the page, and a possible violation of WP:SYNTH, so I reverted it. Instead of discussing the issue per BRD guidelines, user Beyond_My_Ken started an edit war with me. He then, ironically, posted an edit warring template warning on my talk page. In response I posted the same template on his talk page (I'm not sure if this is the correct procedure - please correct me if it's not, I am new to editing regularly) and ultimately ended up making a section on the talk page for the article as user Beyond_My_Ken should have done in the first place.

    This would have been the end of it, but on the talk page for the QAnon article, user Beyond_My_Ken then proceeded to disparage me and my motivations for editing, implying that I was purposefully "stripping" the article of "information that I don't wish to be seen by the reader of the article." This is pretty clearly an assumption of bad faith, and a nasty accusation to boot. I am on this site because I am interested in building a good encyclopedia, and I shouldn't have to defend these motivations against brazen and incorrect accusations. I don't want to get into the content dispute here since (afaik) this is not the purpose of ANI, but I do want to state categorically that my only goal was to improve the quality of the page and make it more consistent with other similar pages and with Wikipedia's guidelines. It's worth stating that the consensus on the talk page, it would seem, is that I was correct.

    I invited him to reword his unnecessarily insulting statement in a more civil way, or to strike it out, and waited several days. He has not done this. In the future I'd like to not be disparaged in this way, or have my motivations impugned without good reason. Thank you.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • The top of this page - "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." All of the edit-warring happened five days ago, and there was a small discussion on the talk page which hasn't been posted to for three days. I don't see an issue that needs urgent admin attention? Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I was trying to be charitable by giving him a few days to fix his error by apologizing and/or striking through the offending text, since the article on Civility suggested this as a solution. That same article suggested I go here if that didn't work. What's the proper procedure for something like this? Is there a board for less "urgent" incidents? Sorry if I did something incorrectly - I just don't like that there's borderline slander against me sitting around on a talk page with no apology or retraction, and thought this was the correct procedure.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You sure know a lot of wikibuzz words and buttons for someone with only 45 edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I'm not actually sure what you mean by "buttons," but regarding "buzzwords" I have done a lot of reading on policy, since I'm trying to do things correctly. Were you by any chance implying something here?CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dennis Brown, asking loaded questions of this editor with their odd editing pattern, and their immediate escalation to ANI trying to get old BMK censured and even adopting some of BMK's editing habits? Dear me! Drmies (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • My escalation to ANI wasn't immediate - I asked for a retraction or apology on the talk page where the discussion was happening, then I waited three days for a response which did not come. He participated in that discussion with other editors during that time, having ample opportunity to see the request. If I did something wrong, please tell me what the actual process is so I can follow it next time. Is ANI an over-escalation in this case? What should I have do instead if I honestly believe someone is behaving uncivilly and insultingly towards me? For reference, I was doing my best to follow the list laid out in "Dealing with incivility" section of [34], which I took the time to read after this incident occurred. Should I have sought "dispute resolution" per step 7? My reading of the line seemed to indicate that I should go straight to step 8, ANI, since there was a very unpleasant accusation still sitting on the talk page. I want to be a good editor here, please tell me if I overstepped my bounds and, if so, what I should do next time.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            This was a #7/walk-away, not a #8/emergency situation. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember, it takes two to tango. If someone is edit warring with you, you are both edit warring. But here, nobody broke the WP:3RR, and it was peacefully talked out. I don't see BMK's comment as particularly uncivil. Could he have assumed more good faith? Probably. But considering that you are a new editor in a super contentious area, please understand that people have some suspicions. Instead of reverting BMK, you should have immediately taken it to the talk page, which would have gotten a much more positive response. All in all, I see this as a general learning experience, and see no likely sanctions. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • RE: two to tango - you're right. I suppose I was taking the stuff in the BRD page as more of a mandate than a guideline. In the future I'll do my best to seek consensus on the talk page first. Thank you. Regarding suspicions, it's certainly understandable, but I do feel like people ought to keep this sort of thing to themselves if they don't want to unnecessarily drive newer users away. From my perspective, I was just trying to improve the article (and consensus agreed it was an improvement) and in return I was insulted.CelebrateMotivation (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMary_Tyler_Moore&type=revision&diff=965390062&oldid=965389259 which was just posted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wide-spread issues of vandalism by multiple anonymous editors here

    I recently put in a request for page protection of this article. The request details persistent vandalism by several anonymous editors. Each and every one of these editors have been arbitrarily changing the episode air dates on the article in question. Despite numerous invitations for them to do so, none of them are taking the opportunity to cite any sources verifying the informattion they are providing, nor are they taking the matter to the talk page, which they have also been repeatedly invited to do. This is a wide-spread, multi-user effort to disrupt the content of that page, and it's obvious the offending editors have no intention of genuinely contributing to the content and accuracy of the information on that page. Because this is such a wide-spread effort coming from multiple IPs, I am not able to individually warn them against continuing that conduct. I am therefore requesting immediate administrative action against all who have played a part in this issue, which has been a wide-spread problem for weeks and months, with no end in sight. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like you had to revert these IPs three or four times in the past three weeks, and a few times before that. All you really need to solve the problem is temporary page protection, and you've asked for that fifteen minutes before this post.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over the last week, it has been less than one per day. You can surely find the time to template one person a day. The IPs are from all over the US, but I'm not convinced it is a concerted effort, for if it is, they aren't very active. I suggest templating the one making mistakes with the right template, which is not the vandalism template, but the "without sources" template. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am weighing in here again. Firstly, the comments here relating to my report are both technically correct and also technically incorrect. The technical correctness is in the fact that over the last week, there has not been too significant a degree of problems in relation to the issue I described. So if we were talking about the page on the basis of these problematic edits solely within that time, it is correct that I can handle dealing with isolated instances myself. However, the latest string of unverified changes that are not being discussed have been added to the history of the same type of problem that has been occurring on the page off-and-on with varying degrees of misbeahavior for the last half-decade or so at least.
    For the truth of that part of this issue, I present as evidence of the ongoing problems the specific numbered threads as found on the article talk page. The coversations that deal directly with the long-standing issue are found under the topics numbered 8, 9, 23, and 24, just to name the ones most prominently relevant to this long-standing problem that continues to this day. Those conversations demonstrate that these arbitrary date changes have been a problem since 2014 off-and-on, with that being further verified by the number of times in the last 2-4 years that the nature of that vandalism has necessitated a page protection request. Additionally, I recognize that with no one else verifying what I am reporting here, my report may not be taken as accurate. As a second witness, LightandDark2000 has been involved in many prior discussions relating to these unilateral, frequent, wide-spread changes being repeatedly made by anonymous editors who do not cite sources to verify the validity of those edits, and who have thus far refused to discuss the changes, and in fact have repeatedly violated the general consensus that supports reliable sourcing as the basis for such changes.
    If ws were talking about an issue occurring over a limited period of time (such as a week), or a situation where page protection had not been requested repeatedly because of this issue, or a situation that had not continued for more than a half-decade, it would be something I could easily handle myself, and, in fact, requesting intervention here for this issue would then truly be at the height of laziness on my part. But this has been a consistent, wide-spread problem, and the page history of both the main article and its' associated talk page, along with the additional corroboration of the facts by at least one other user hopefully serves as verification that this is something that no one editor or group of editors can handle on our own. I have been an editor here on Wikipedia for almost a full 1.5 decades, and if this was something I could handle on my own, I wouldn't have even broached this subject on this page. I recognize that Wikipedia administrators are busy with issues that would be far more significant than this one if the problem in this case were just a matter of a few isolated instances. But I hope the additional context I have provided by this latest comment proves helpful in enabling all who read it to understand that these are far from isolated instances, and that the matter of the continuing problem needs more attention than I as just a normal editor of the page am able to provide on my own. If nothing that I have additionally laid out here changes the situation, then all I can do is apologize for having wasted your time by mentioning it here. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jgstokes: when you say "wide-spread", do you actually mean "long term"?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jgstokes: The article has now been protected for a week. If problems persist after that, please notify me directly and I'll handle it because I am sympathetic concerning the hassle of dealing with long-term disruption. I haven't checked whether that is the case at the moment, but I would when you contact me, if necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Afer Ephraimite

    Afer Ephraimite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    A new single-purpose account who is misrepresenting the sources he's using, pushing a WP:POV and adding fringe/outdated material to the article against mainstream consensus on the matter. Judging from the fact that their second edit after creating their account (in the same day!) shows high mastery of reference usage, he's clearly not a new user! And he knows how to indent (even experienced editor are struggling with this.) After I reverted his edits he wrote in his edit summary "undid berberist edits". I don't think calling someone a Berberist (a.k.a nationalist) is civil. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and I'm suspecting sockpuppetery. Again he said in a discussion that I'm removing reliable sources to push a "berberist agenda". He also show signs of I just don't like it when confronted with authoritative sources (the Encyclopedia Of Islam). I reported him on 16 June but no discussions have occured. He reverted again today ([35]) and again ([36]). Can someone take a look at this case?-TheseusHeLl (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Walrasiad made a report about this user at AN3 (report). -TheseusHeLl (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IPV6 editor copying and pasting copyrighted material into mathematics articles

    Over on WP:AIV, I reported

    as adding large quantities of material that is relevant but copied from internet and copyrighted sources to these articles; I also revdelled the edits and left an unheeded warning on one of the addresses. Obviously the shifting addresses make single-address blocks ineffective; for the same reason, although I will leave ANI discussion notices on the three talk pages above, I doubt they'll be seen. Anyway I asked on AIV whether it would be possible to search this range of IPs for more similar bad edits, in case there were some I missed (likely), and whether the range of culprit addresses would narrow enough for a rangeblock to be effective. However, instead of getting action or a useful reply, I was referred to this board as a more appropriate place for this sort of urgent-but-not-immediate action, and my report was then immediately archived. So: are there more incidences that I missed? Would a rangeblock work? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No, the range (2601:640::/29) is way too large, you can't even see the contributions [37]. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's too bad. In the meantime I spotted another (some of whose edits I'd already reverted but failed to connect to this pattern):
    this led me to
    with a very similar pattern of edits (basically copying in what looks like the subject's cv directly)
    —David Eppstein (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ToddGrande

    BLOCKED
    ToddGrande blocked per WP:NOTHERE by Doug Weller

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


    I noticed ToddGrande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) making changes to a controversial page (the edits were reverted) and going through the user talk page history, it appears ToddGrande might not be listening. I count over 15 warnings that have been blanked on his talk page (including NPA & BLP violations) and it doesn't seem they're doing any good. ("Peasant please...You will learn soon, very soon, Bye" in response to an admin message and "Peasant please, I can get you banned of the internet if I want to do so. #wear a mask #stay safe" in response to Pizzagate edits) I'm not sure why this user is adamant on adding unrelated links (especially ones related to populism and class conflict), but I and probably quite a few other people would appreciate if someone could speak with ToddGrande about how Wikipedia works before this gets further out of hand. APK whisper in my ear 07:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd support a block, his behavior from the start has been problematic and inherently incompatible with editing Wikipedia. Praxidicae (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. ab initio as it were. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a lot of bizarre edits, a handful of non-bizarre ones. The editor has also engaged on a handful of Talk pages, but mostly just plain weird. Adding "Doctor" in front of Josef Mengele and then immediately Anthony Fauci is just odd. There were problematic additions of categories See [38] for discussion) too. I don't think this is an evil editor but I think it's one on some kind of mission with some pretty serious communication challenges. Guy (help!) 08:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG Yes, I'd say his reverting every editor that tries to talk to him with Don't post misinformation here, thanks 12345678 is quite the "communication challenge" if we're being nice about it...Praxidicae (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Praxidicae: Touché! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request lift of TBAN

    I am requesting a lifting of my August 30, 2019 TBAN on dogs. In the decision was written "They may reapply here after a period of 3 months for the community to reconsider the same."

    After having taken a several months hiatus from Wikipedia, I came back tentatively in December 2019, then strongly this March, and have been editing heavily since then. I haven't been accused of PAs or tendentious editing or advocacy or any of the other things that I was accused of in the ANI last year. Though I was told I could reapply after 3 months, I have allowed myself 10 months to pass before deciding to request it, both to be confident in my ability to work well with other editors (or walk away from hot spots) and to show others through my edit history (now 2,000 edits later) that I am here to build an encyclopedia and do so collaboratively. I have done a lot of observation and learning during this time, and can recognize what is acceptable and unacceptable within Wikipedia.

    In the meantime, I have worked on cat articles, tiger articles, snake articles, state forests, parks, enhanced several articles on various topics that were PRODed or AfD'd, voted on AfDs, cleaned up articles after translations from French, joined some WikiProjects, worked on a bunch of list articles (I love lists), a bunch of history articles, articles on NRHP places, added my first images in Wikimedia, learned all about roses, historic African-Americans, and am currently working on a set of list articles related to the George Floyd protests and the taking down of Confederate monuments.

    Please consider lifting my TBAN on dog topics. I am not particularly interested in working on dog breed articles, but occasionally I'm working on something that I'm editing across all articles (like the day I was hotlinking to an author using the author-link parameter, went through all of the cat articles but had to stop short because I couldn't do likewise for the dog articles he was cited in). Dogs are ubiquitous and very much a part of human life. I would also like to be able to just edit without worrying about whether or not someone is going to call me out on it because dogs might be involved, like the day I was editing animal sanctuary articles (tigers). I would like the freedom to be a Wikipedia editor without restrictions. I feel like whatever behaviors were present or were manifesting last year are not currently present, and my edit history will prove that I have the ability to edit in Wikipedia without getting caught up in similar problems.

    — Normal Op (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Normal Op: You sound unsure of what behaviors needed to change/have changed. Can you be more specific about what you did before and what you will do different now? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deepfriedokra: For what happened, please see last year's ANI. It was messy and I couldn't even begin to summarize it except to say "butting heads". What I have learned since then is a lot of how to deal with people online that you don't know, cannot see, and cannot directly interact with. With regards to Wikipedia, that would include recognizing that few things need fixing right now, not directly engaging those who hold strongly opposing viewpoints as yours, that I can let things slide and don't have to fix everything, don't take it all too seriously, and that arguing against the viewpoints of others won't win support from other editors but more likely will alienate observers from yourself. I have even learned some deescalation techniques, both for self and for online situations. If I sound unsure, it's because I don't like eating crow (who does) and wasn't even sure if this was the right venue to ask to lift a TBAN. My request above was framed more about my current contributions and less about my old dirty laundry. Normal Op (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm mostly OK with this as long as you steer clear of pitbulls. Guy (help!) 21:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      ... and of course be very careful not to engage in any hounding or bitey behavior. EEng 23:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Note: Recycled joke, so no charge.[reply]
    • EEng, I am responding while sitting on my sofa fully dressed, so I am also a joke recycler. Joking aside, I support lifting this topic ban, because the editor seems to understand how they went astray, and how to avoid that behavior. However, I must caution Normal Op that any disruptive editing in the area of dog bites or pit bulls or dog breeds or breed variants sometimes accused of being prone to bite will be met with a re-imposition of sanctions against you. You also need to be careful to use only the highest quality reliable sources. You were putting forward some exceptionally poor sources a year ago. Do not propose any sources unless you believe those sources to be reliable. It is disruptive to expect other editors to waste their time evaluating unreliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Normal Op must realise that there will be increased scrutiny of their editing in that topic editor, at least to begin with. It needs to be understood that the TB can be reimposed if necessary, and if reimposed will be much harder to get lifted again. That said, the appeal shows that the editor has matured and learnt from past mistakes, so let's give them a chance. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rude editor

    Boro people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One editor has reverted my edit with WP:BE tag. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/964873172 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:162C:3FF1:137B:5E68:7831:A1E6 (talk • contribs)

    And this rises to the level of ANI because..? Praxidicae (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Praxidicae, probably because we have at least two LTAs active in this area: Sairg and Qwertywander. Guy (help!) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This rises to level of ANI because nobody is allowed to add ( reliable sourced ) anything by that user. If somebody will try to add something then that user revert and involve in edit warring. All the new users have to permission to from him. Sorry, I'm weak in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4065:e87:3825:6c43:b55d:21b4:604b (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JzG Please ignore these LTAs. Either you're not aware about reality or you trust someone who easily cheat you. God bless you. 2409:4065:18A:9A32:C407:1819:CD38:A08 (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Shayantani Twisha big-time spammer

    BLOCKED INDEFINITELY
    For spam only account by Deepfriedokra (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    1. They hijacked the Mir Mohammed Helal Uddin and replaced it with Shayantani Twisha spam.
    2. They moved the Mir Mohammed Helal Uddin page to Shayantani Twisha.
    3. They then replaced the Shahan page with the Shayantani Twisha material.
    4. They then created a new Shayantani page.
    5. They also created Shayantanii Twisha.
    6. They created [Shayantanii Twisha]] (twice, in fact, as it was subsequently draftified and moved back into mainspace).
    7. They have also created the User:Shayantani Twisha user account previously.
    In fact, their entire contribution history—excluding the first eight—have been to insert spam regarding you-know-who into every project space they could access.
    The question for your consideration: Here...or not? ——Serial # 11:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have just reported them as a SOA at AIV. Ain't nobody got time for vanity crap. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    True dat  :) still, belt and braces. Of course, you should be able to deal with 'em yourself by now :p ;) ——Serial # 11:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Nuking their page creations will be a job for your relief :) ——Serial # 11:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BrownHairedGirl and incivility

    Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi all! I checked my watchlist this morning and noticed this section on User:BrownHairedGirl's talk page. Here are some of the sentences she wrote in that section:

    • please do try to actually read my reply. It's not that complicated.
    • Do you need help in seeing the naming problem?
    • …after all your years of editing you you apparently don't understand that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC refers to the topic, not the title.
    • if you had the basic courtesy to pay some attention to my replies, this dialogue would serve some purpose. However, you are clearly egaged in a hostile process of fault-finding rather than problem-solving.

    These are patently uncivil, and Justin's attempt to raise legitimate concerns with her AWB editing resulted in hostility and being driven off her talk page. As I was also requested not to post on her talk page, over half a year ago now in a series of uncivil contributions that resulted in BHG losing her mop, I will instead direct this to administrators rather than leaving a comment of my own. This sort of behavior is not conducive to a constructive environment and not permissible under local civility policies. Thank you for your time, Vermont (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Justin/Koavf, is currently on a 1-week forced vacation & so might not be able to respond to this report, here. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He is partially blocked from one page only so he is in fact able to respond.P-K3 (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, alright. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest big boomerang. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a conversation taking place on an editor's talkpage. There's been no disruptive editing on main space. If others involved there, don't like the responses? they need only walk away. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm able to discern, there is no consensus that incivility is okay in userspace. Vermont (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even bigger boomerang needed. those comments in green at the top of this petty and unjustified whingeing are the very opposite of uncivil. BHG is clearly restraning herself, though I cannot see why she bothers with you lot. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We absolutely need to do a better job of handling incivility. But in the universe of WP incivility, this is an anthill, and we're standing in the Himalayas. Jacona (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO (and from personal experience) when any editor has a past (blocks, ban or in this case administratorship removed), they end up with a target (i.e. heightened scrutiny) on them . Let's leave BHG alone. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that there has been about a 0.5% error rate in a series of about 2,000 edits which I did, adding missing eponymous categories. These errors related to a very few pages whose titles are ambiguous, and where the eponymous category relates to a broader topic.

    I would welcome help in identifying such exceptions, but User:Koavf/Justin's approach has been a hostile exercise in fault-finding and conflict-creation. This extended even to Justin reverting[39] my disambiguation of People from Ibiza to People from Ibiza (song) ... leaving me to open an RM discussion on a move which should be uncontroversial.

    I had a previous encounter with Vermont last year where they came to may talk page raise a concern, and I responded openly. They then proceeded to manipulatively take my words out of context, and use then agaisnt me ...and claimed that my closing of the discussion was evidence of misconduct. So I am sadly unsurprised to see Vermont trying to stoke a conflict here.

    Justin and I have disengaged over this issue, so this attempt to reopen it is pure timewasting. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Only as a comment (as I relatively recently had a debate with BHG on an issue), as I don't think there's anything actionable here, but the "my way or the highway" attitude - while nothing uncivil itself and generally that BHG seems to be usually right on policy matters in these areas - is what can set off these types of incidents because it immediately comes off standoff-ish, and encourages those replying to take the same tone. BHG can probably find other means to stand by their assertions that they are correct w.r.t. policy without coming off in an initially hostile tone, and those that have dealt with BHG before should be aware that this is their style and work within it to avoid the same tone. But in this incident, nothing else really to be done beyond the usual trouts. --Masem (t) 14:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Thank you for your civil reply. I would contest your description of our encounter last year, though arguing that is unlikely to lead to anything constructive, as we both know. With this issue, my concerns are not with the AWB problems Justin and others raised, but with the content of your replies. Though they are not as uncivil as what preceded the Arbitration Committee action, your comments nevertheless were aimed to degrade the motives and competency of Koavf rather than discussing their arguments, the definition of incivility. Incivility is not justifiable on the actions or stances of other editors. My intention in creating this section was by no means to create conflict, but rather to mitigate such incivility. As you and Koavf have disengaged, and other editors have joined in on your talk page and article talk pages to civilly discuss the issue (which I thank you for participating in the manner you did), there are no longer active issues for administrators to respond to. I ask you to remain civil in all your communications, not just most of them (a quick scroll of your talk page showed nearly everything else was unproblematic), and I have no objection to closing this. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If I reported every editor to ANI, who (rightly or wrongly) made me feel like dirt? I'd be making a report on a monthly basis. We gotta calm down, folks. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Every day, in my case. This report looks like trivial stuff to me. - Sitush (talk)

    This complaint is unrequited nonsense. Codswallop. Horse hockey. Apparently the only response that wikipedia editors will now accept as civil is "Forgive me! You are so right. I repent, being but dust and ash." There is nothing uncivil in the above, and it is all 100% fine and allowable especially on a user page. I agree with Masem's comment that BHG could be more civil, but only insofar as it applies to EVERY EDITOR at ALL TIMES. Wikipedia, both as a site and a community, still has a lot of growing up to do. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I second that. A bit of mild sarcasm in response to some passive-aggressive provocation is nothing to merit Admin intervention (especially a disagreement you're not personally involved in). I've seen far worse on the incivility scale that gets let off without any sanction. Move on, go and do some content editing. Cnbrb (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 - Couldn't agree more with this. –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 - if this is incivility we are in deep trouble. Anthill is an exaggeration. Oculi (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 - Vermont, I'd personally consider your post here considerably more uncivil than anything either BHG or Justin has said in that thread. Please, withdraw this. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you figure? PackMecEng (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Low-level snappiness of the kind both sides are engaging in in that thread may not be perfect conduct and it wouldn't happen in an ideal world, but it's a part of human nature and if we tried to enforce "nobody can be even slightly disrepectful ever", Wikipedia would have no editors within a week. Intentionally trying to re-ignite a dispute which has ended in the hope of getting someone against whom one has a long=term grudge into trouble, which is what is happening here, is discourteous on multiple levels. It's discourteous to BHG, obviously, to try to spin an incident which an editor of Vermont's experience knows is non-problematic; it's discourteous to Koavf (who is an editor with two million edits and is well aware of how to complain if he feels a complaint is worth making) to claim to speak on his behalf; it's discourteous to the multiple admins whose time is being wasted by reading this thread as opposed to genuine problems. If this were a good-faith report it wouldn't be such an issue, but I think I speak for every single admin on the project when I say that we're all becoming heartily sick of Vermont and BHG wasting our time by using our dispute resolution processes as the venues to act out their personal petty grudges. BHG has stopped doing this since the arb case and has dropped the stick; it appears that Vermont has not. ‑ Iridescent 16:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So then not a civility issue by filing this report. Now from what I can see I agree with you on most of these points, I was just curious how the report itself was a sign of incivility and from what I can see that does not appear to be the case. PackMecEng (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdrew this an hour and a half ago. BHG's reply to me was more than sufficient for me to believe no admin action was necessary, as the immediate issue had been resolved. I did not think it appropriate to close this thread myself as other discussion was still ongoing, and I stated I have no objection to it being closed in my reply above. Addressing another point of your comment, I agree that BHG's replies to other editors have significantly improved since the arb case. After a quick scroll of her talk page, I found nothing else remotely problematic, none even to the level of her dispute with Koavf. In terms of an accusation of a long-term grudge, I do not feel that towards her in the slightest. I evidently have a much lower bar for incivility than anyone else here, which applies to anyone I come across and not specifically BHG. As community consensus here is evidently that such minor incivility (or sarcasm, as some people construe it to be) is not something that requires addressing in any manner, I apologize for wasting the time of my fellow editors with this report, and my view of what is considered uncivil on this project has changed. Regards, Vermont (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This does not rise to the level of Admin intervention, but ... I have to say/ask, @BrownHairedGirl: why not simply dispense with the sarcasm? It never makes things better. Paul August ☎ 15:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarcasm always makes things better!! -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sure it does. Cnbrb (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Admit it, you feel better now. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 16:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cnbrb (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome replies. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been the most edifying moment in Wikipedia's history. Reyk YO! 16:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul August, sadly my experience with Justin is that a detailed explanation rarely makes things better. So when I was a bit stressed this morning, I dispensed with the long explanation in response to his fault-finding. After many years, I haven't yet found a way of engaging productively with Justin's style of communication, and am still feeling a bit fed up with his conduct at a recent discussion elsewhere (where he rejected numerous requests to withdraw a possibly-unintended personal attack), so I went straight to dismissal. In hindsight, I should probably have just said something even more minimalist like "go away". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note on chronology

    Vermont opened this discussion at 13:44.[40]

    But the issue had actually been resolved at 12:59, with my response [41] to Justin's post at 12:56.[42].

    So Vermont's later claim that they were withdrawing the complaint because the issue had been resolved looks disingenuous. It was resolved 45 minutes before Vermont opened this discussion.

    I also note that Vermont's only edits in the last 9 days[43] have been to make this ANI complaint.

    I don't want to re-open discussion, and I'm not seeking any action. But given Vermont's previous conduct towards me, I just wanted to add this note about chronology to the record, as evidence of what I described above as Vermont trying to stoke a conflict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruptive editing, unreliable sources, inaccurate additions

    Requesting a block on User:Editor.Eqbal for persistent disruptive editing, edit warring and breaching the three-revert rule (by introducing inadequately sourced, factually inaccurate content), and for ignoring warnings by various users. You may see the revision history of List of largest mosques, User talk:Editor.Eqbal and for my efforts at educating and discussing the issue with the user: User talk:Idell#June 2020. The user also continued to perform reverts while the discussion was on-going, without having reached consensus. Idell (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Idell: What User:Idell describes as "inadequately sourced, factually inaccurate content" is a piece of information for which I have mentioned totally appropriate reference as you can see in my revision. From his/her viewpoint, my reference is not fully reliable, while the reference he has replaced with that of mine, if not more, is at least equally disputable. It is truly disappointing that this user is trying to force his point and prevent others from contributing through threatening them. This aside, this user has removed the opening paragraph of the article without offering any explanation. Just because there was a mention of the largest mosque by area, he has removed that (but I restored it). This evidently shows that he is not pleased to see any mention of the Imam Reza Shrine, even if in a sentence a comparison among the mosques is made based on their area (not capacity). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor.Eqbal (talk • contribs)
    Editor.Eqba, you have not argued for the reliability of the source you keep using. You have not sought the talk page to discuss these things (that's where you should argue your website is an acceptable source). You keep accusing other editors of "destruction" and bias, and you continue to edit war. (And you don't even sign your posts.) I am going to revert your last edit, and cite it as disruptive. I will warn you on your talk page as well, for improper sourcing and for edit warring. And if you continue, I will block you from editing this article. So it's your choice: either discuss this, with arguments and without personal attacks, on the talk page and try to gain consensus, or don't edit the article anymore. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are EE's contribution history not shown? GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Editor.Eqbal (note the "l" at the end). 87.112.210.62 (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: I ask you a very clear question: You have accused me of making "disruptive" edits, but please tell me that why has the user on the other side of the dispute, namely User:Idell, has removed the opening paragraph of the List of largest mosques without mentioning any explanation. What was wrong with that paragraph? Why don't you see it as a destruction and vandalizing? That paragraph has nothing to do with our dispute over the capacity of the Imam Reza Shrine. So why has he removed that and why when I restore that paragraph, instead of thanking me you revert it without asking the initial remover to offer explanations?Editor.Eqbal (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor.Eqbal, I had edited the lead section of the article to make it less ambiguous. It also doesn’t need to explain what "mosque" and other terms mean, as any reader can look into their specific articles using the WikiLinks. Please take a look at how other lists’ lead sections are written: eg List of largest libraries. Idell (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor.Eqbal, because that edit was explained and look, prima facie, acceptable. You did not, in any of your edit summaries, explain that you had an issue with that edit, so pulling that out of your hat right now is a bit shady. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent changes patrolling by BeamAlexander25

    BeamAlexander25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved in Recent Changes patrolling, but is unfortunately making regular mistakes which are likely putting new/IP users off editing (two examples from today: [44] & [45]). They've been told by several users on their Talk page that they need to slow down and make sure edits they report as vandalism actually are disruptive to the project, rather than good faith edits which are perhaps just missing sourcing, but they continue to do this regardless (and have actively said today[46] that they'll continue to do so, which was the straw that broke the camel's back in terms of bringing the issue up here). I suspect they're young and/or have English as a second language, but at this point, where they've had lots of feedback about their disruptive patrolling behaviour and continue to do it, it's probably worth bringing up for discussion here for wider community review. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I happened to see the discussion on BA25's page, and told him I'll block him if he keeps reverting in the same manner. Not sure he understood, as he merely replied by asking why I have declined his rollback request. I'm afraid this is a complete CIR case, possibly because of language difficulties. Signing off for the night now. He may actually need a CIR block before I wake up. Bishonen | tålk 20:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    I wrote mostly everything I have to say on this matter at their talk page, but I'll summarize it here for everyone. I was watching recent changes myself earlier today, and found that BeamAlexander25 reverted the edits of 109.87.48.66 at European School (history). 109.87.48.66 removed a substantial amount of content without an edit summary, prompting a revert by BeamAlexander25 (starting with [47], but 109.87.48.66 later clarified [48][49] that it was part of splitting content into a new article on both the article's talk page and their user talk page. Despite my attempt to clear this misunderstanding, and that this is obviously not vandalism (also note that 109.87.48.66 has been previously working on the article), BeamAlexander25 both ignored my response on 109.87.48.66's talk page [50] and my edit summary (I reinstated their edits since their purpose and good faith was unambiguous) [51], and reverted my edit as if it were vandalism and left a template warning on my talk page [52][53]. Though they self-reverted on the article a minute later (apparently realizing this mistake), they did not respond to a personal note I subsequently left on their talk page [54] explaining exactly this misunderstanding. I did what I could to explain that these edits were not vandalism, other users raised similar concerns (hence this ANI discussion), and offered to discuss the matter with them, but like the attempts of previous users, was met with failure. Luckily this IP was not scared away, but not before they were reported at AIV [55] before reaching a level 4 warning for edits that were never vandalism to begin with.
    My bigger concern is that BeamAlexander25 has not been responsive to messages on their talk page, and continues the same questionable behavior thereafter. Hasty reverting (that is, not examining edits closely and thus incorrectly classifying them), while also a problem, is not uncommon for newer editors, but one should not dabble into recent changes patrol if they are unable or unwilling to communicate effectively with users (this also means not templating regulars) whose edits they revert or users who highlight mistakes. It's possible to learn the ins and outs of recent changes patrol over time, but not without open and effective communication. ComplexRational (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given their apparently poor English, I'm not sure they should convinced they should not be doing Recent Changes patrolling at all. (But I'm off to bed now, and I'll look back here tomorrow.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like a bad case of the law of the instrument. BA has WP:Twinkle & WP:RedWarn which can be used even without a firm mastery of English, and without revealing that deficiency. So long as BA has these tools enabled and uses them without a comprehension of what they're doing or why, they're a WP:CIR-on-steroids. Cabayi (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Communication is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I not happened again this incident, i am reading every policies in wikipedia, i promise that i could patroll carefully and i follow WP:CIR, WP:COMMUNICATE and more, but some reverts are being mistake. -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 16:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CIR is always a one that makes me feel bad, although probably a necessary evil sometimes. I think there are good intentions here, but likely a lack of knowledge and policy, combined with language barriers, may cause problems, despite their best intentions and statement above. My view is that blocks/bans shouldn't be punitive, and although they may be necessary, if we can avoid them and still resolve the issue I think it'd be a nice outcome. I think perhaps if BeamAlexander25 is willing to stick to obvious vandalism only (unexplained blanking of large sections, addition of derogatory content, and absolute nonsense) it's an area where there'd be less room to make mistakes and is a suitable resolution in the interim. In other words, the suggestion to take it slow may be helpful. I think the reason for his lack of response to some comments is not necessarily poor behaviour, but perhaps poor understanding (due to language barriers) of what was being said, though this doesn't change the fact that WP:communication is required. Failing that, I'd say a ban from anti-vandalism patrolling may be applicable, in case they wish to contribute in other areas. I don't think a site block should be contemplated unless such a ban wasn't followed. Finally, given BeamAlexander25 states on their profile that they are from Luzon, https://tl.wikipedia.org may be of interest to them as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I broadly very much agree with this ProcrastinatingReader, though at this stage (bearing in mind a few have raised concerns on their Talk page about their patrolling previously with seemingly little impact) I'd personally suggest a ban on the use of semi-automated reversion tools such as Twinkle and Redwarn at a minimum (and I could see the logic behind those who'd prefer a total ban on anti-vandalism patrolling, be it semi-automated or otherwise). OcarinaOfTime (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OcarinaOfTime, admittedly my judgement is somewhat weak when it comes to CIR. I find it difficult to support excluding someone (acting in good faith) from the community or from the area that they like, sometimes even if I know in my gut that this will happen again.
    Nevertheless, I see your view and the need for a ban at this stage, as this is going to turn away new editors. Anti-vandalism is clearly something that they're passionate about, though, so perhaps an acceptable option may be that limited anti-vandalism work / usage of tools is allowed should they join WP:CVUA and find a suitable trainer, and the ban ends should they graduate. I think that's a way for them to learn more about anti-vandalism and related policies, and hopefully in the future they can return to the area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    May I say thank you for a careful, measured response, but a response, after all, which is needed. Having been a victim of overeager editors who have few or any contributions and give the appearance to be in Wikipedia merely for the thrill of deleting, I know too well how something like that hurts, especially the noob. I'm glad y'all following up, while not getting all bunched up. Thank you! YamaPlos talk 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I'd support a topic-ban from recent changes and or from Twinkle and Redwarn too given the language issues here, Whilst everyone makes mistakes given the user's mother tongue isn't English I fear this would happen again IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 16:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again we see a brand new editor using semi-automated tools badly. Is there no way to stop this happening? We control user rights such as rollback, but seem to allow anyone to use more powerful tools. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      We do stop use of powerful and fast-paced tools, such as Huggle, by requiring rollback perms. RedWarn is like Twinkle, from my understanding, so it isn't particularly more fast paced or in need of rollback perms. There's definitely a big barrier to the level of mayhem possible between Huggle and RedWarn. Requiring someone to apply for rollback to use any sort of anti-vandalism tool, even if not advanced, is problematic, because this just results in either less anti-vandalism patrollers, or more inexperienced users gaining access to the actual powerful tools. Perhaps the developer of RedWarn could implement a RW block-list, though, and similar for Twinkle, but that's probably a slightly tangential discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You can do just as much damage, at the same speed, with the normal undo button. Twinkle and RedWarn help with warning users, but for just reverting the undo button is pretty fast.--Chuka Chief (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will enroll Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy to improve my anti-vandalism counter and when i graduated my session, i will use recent changes, twinkle and redwarn again -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 17:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Update, i am going to bed now - BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 19:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would strongly suggest you voluntarily withdraw from reviewing or any other semi-admin type tasks. Right now, your grasp of the English language isn't bad, but it isn't sufficient to do these things. I'm afraid you will end up getting topic banned if you continue using automated tools. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I released my statement in my userpage, please visit to BA25's Userpage, thanks -BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 03:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, and I feel compelled to remind you that "vandalism", as defined by policy, is ONLY those edits which are are designed to damage the encyclopedia and it's accuracy. Well intentioned but wrong edits, sloppy edits, unsourced but plausible edits, none of that is "vandalism". Calling those unhelpful but well intentioned edits "vandalism" is itself disruptive. If you aren't 100% sure about an edit, it is better to do nothing. You've been warned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, @Dennis Brown:, this sounds like a strategy that might keep BeamAlexander25 active, if he wants to, but avoid overstepping! YamaPlos talk 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    disruptive editing from Single Purpose Editor: Julie Passas

    (non-admin closure) Indefinite partial block. El C is willing to consider an unblock if the user can better explain herself and stop editing warring. Darkknight2149 08:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Julie Passas (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account and her only edits are continually removing content from Nick Adams (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). She has been blocked twice (once for edit warring, another for sockpuppetry). She has received 2 warnings today [56]. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Repeated unsourced edits

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

    Despite multiple warnings, reversion edit summaries (examples 1, 2 & 3) as well as personal pleas, Jeremykuhl refuses to acknowledge these issues on their talk page nor have they made any attempt at verifying their edits. Here, here and here are some examples of their most recent unsourced edits and I can happily provide more if needed. I'd greatly appreciate some admin intervention please. Robvanvee 08:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pointless, disruptive editing in math articles

    Was blocked by user EdJohnston.

    Was again reported at AIV for edit warring after block expiration. Declined by user Ad Orientem: [57]

    Was reported at AIV again for disruptive editing, edit warring, as another instance of 176.88.99.156. User Ad Orientem declined block but a page was protected: [58]

    Now IP continues to impose their view on mathematics formatting and ignores all undo's by various users Deacon Vorbis, D.Lazard, Joel B. Lewis, myself.

    Both IP's noticed on their talk pages. - DVdm (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I partially blocked the IP for a week so they are unable to edit articles. I left a message at their talk asking them to discuss the proposed changes on article talk. Let me know if further problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq: thanks, though it looks like you only did one of the two IP addresses, and in particular not the one they were using this morning? --JBL (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I should have changed the order—most recent first. User Johnuniq or someone else, can you please verify? Thx. - DVdm (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They're still at it, from the .248 address. --JBL (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fwiw, also reported now again at AIV: [59]. - DVdm (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The person behind these IPs seems likely to continue indefinitely.There are at least six different single IPs that show this pattern of edits. I think a 2-month block of Special:Contributions/176.88.96.0/22 will do the job, and there is little collateral, so I'm going ahead with that. Other admins can modify if they think there is a better way. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's hope that does the job. Thanks, EdJohnston. - DVdm (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, brain failure re the wrong IP. I intended to partially block the IP that edited most recently. Thanks to admins who fixed. If it resurfaces, I would be happy to look. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comprehensive additions to the Lawrence Kasdan article keep being undone, resulting in an undesired edit war

    I added a substantial amount of new material to the article for Lawrence Kasdan in February 2020 (all of it meticulously sourced), and one particular user, Revan646, has now three times deleted all of my work to revert back to the old (and very sparse) version of the article. The only reason given was that I "ruined it" by making it too long and "filling this page up with unnecessary information." (The user has also insulted me personally, calling me "stupid" and "a troll.") I've communicated with Revan646 directly on their Talk page (politely), but we appear to be at a standstill. The back and forth prompted another user, Timaaa, to warn both of us about the consequences of engaging in an edit war, which I certainly have no desire to do. I posted this dispute to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and user Xavexgoem closed it—advising me to instead post it here, since "Conduct issues abound." I would like to see this dispute resolved peacefully, and see the hours of hard work to improve Kasdan's article re-implemented while adhering to all of Wikipedia's standards and protocols. Tgreiving (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are the diffs wrt to this dispute (note edit summaries): [60][61][62][63]. Also see [64]; it would be their 8th contrib. Content DR usually has conduct issues associated with it, but I don't think my rejecting this case was unreasonable. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tgreiving, I notice that you and Reyan656 both only have a handful of edits, as in 17 and 25 when I looked. I'm lost as to how you can get in an edit war when you have less than 10 total edits to mainspace between the both of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also have closed that thread at DRN as primarily conduct. In some cases the length of the insult in the edit summary was as long as the disputed content. I don't like Uncivil Edit Summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I may be misunderstanding, but my contribution (edits) to the article amounted to nearly 10,000 words of new content. Revan646 deleted the entirety of it out of hand for no reason other than that it was now "too long." It's true I haven't contributed much to Wikipedia outside of this article, but I'm not sure why that would be relevant in this dispute. Tgreiving (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    প্রসেনজিৎ পাল

    প্রসেনজিৎ পাল (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Over at Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar there was a bit of edit warring over including labels in the lede and info box (to be precise "philosopher", " composer", and "author").

    The problem is the user is insisting they are right, and has resorted to some shabby sources (some of which do not even seem to back up the text). In addition (not a violation of policy to be sure) their English is not that good, and I think they may be saying things that do not mean what they think they mean (or they do mean it and are making some very odd whataboutsm arguments). They also seem to be (almost) an SPA and not here (as well as not listening (or maybe they just do not understand what is being said).Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever this editor may be doing at Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar this is certainly not an SPA or someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia. The editor started many articles on the works of Rabindranath Tagore, one of the world's foremost literary figures, which were shamefully nominated for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected there, but it has taken up a huge amount of his time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen, Phil Bridger. Anyway, I see that jps has volunteered a third opinion, so let's follow their lead. This incident may have been reported prematurely (WP:3O always an option). Someone who has earned good will elsewhere should be entitled to at least that, even if they're not entirely coherent (unless that incoherence forms a pattern leading to an intractable problem). El_C 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last few days, perhaps. But over the course of their history they've changed focus many times, and spent some days on a given article. This article hasn't really taken up so much of his time in comparison. Certainly not a SPA, and certainly looks like they are here to build an encyclopedia. I think this is a content dispute and that the dispute resolution process should be followed first. They are responsive and engaging in talk with you. Some of their arguments, in relation to policy, may not be great but that's something that can be improved. I think there's half a dozen other things that should be done about this before bringing it to ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JPS has been there only a few hours less then me, both brought there by a notice board notice (so we are both third eyes, this is the result of someone else trying the 3O route). But close this by all means.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP holding a personal grudge

    This IP seems to have a grudge against another IP known as 76.65.28.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and keeps changing their edits with the reason being that their grammar is poor. I do not know if these IPs know each other in real life, but it seems odd for a IP to target the edits of a specific IP. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 18:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I definitely don't know him in real life. What an absurd accusation; if anything, I would suspect you seem to have some sort of grudge against me. I have already said the reasoning behind my edits many, many times, and you've ignored me each time. The reason I am editing his edits are because they are disruptive. Among the things he does: changes the birthdays of living people to incorrect birthdays, change the episode counts of television shows to incorrect episode counts, switches the names of male and female characters in plot summaries, etc. I don't have time to sift through any more of his edits though, so hopefully a moderator of Wikipedia or somebody else can help revert all the other edits he made to birthdays of living people. 219.111.143.51 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved intervention required at white genocide conspiracy theory

    (non-admin closure) Indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Darkknight2149 08:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Requesting an outside admin to swiftly block the user above. They hijacked an edit request on this talk page to rant about, well, I'll let you guess. I rolled up their insistence that the white race really is dying out, in response to which they've spent the last 14 hours plastering the page with walls of text about the real meaning of the swastika and how we don't talk about how blue eyes are going extinct (????) and are now resorting to blanking the page, tinkering with the top-of-page FAQ and DS templates, and editing other users' comments. They need to be given something else to do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Redacted) Glahera476 20:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

    I read about four sentences of Glahera476's comments before getting a headache. Blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. I suspect we have a thrilling unblock request to look forward to. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've redacted the blocked user's comment's above because I am unwilling to give a platform to this kind of white supremacist crap - especially right now. The comments are available to read here, if you are so inclined. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 20:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Are administrators using discretion appropriately around the Killing of George Floyd?

    I'm going to assume Geo Swan gets the point, and just close this. No need to summarize what should be obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am concerned some administrators may be using discretion inappropriately around the Killing of George Floyd, and the constellation of related articles.

    In particular there is an individual associated with one of the officers who played a role in Floyd's killing whose lawyer issued a press release stating the individual related to the officer was going to change their name because they had received death threats. There are half a dozen administrators who are revdel'ing, blocking, and issuing block warnings to prevent both wikipedia article space, and our other namespaces, from providing any hint to that individual's name.

    I don't want this section of WPANI to be revdel'd, so I won't name the individual, or provide diffs to discussions that give hints to their identity.

    Maybe it seemed obvivous to those administrators who claimed authority under WP:BLP to suppress material that mentions this individual, that they qualify for WP:BLPNAME. In doing so they have described the individual as non-notable. But, in fact, this individual does not meet the criteria for BLP1E, having RS coverage of their own, in 2018. Nor do they measure up to the BLPNAME criteria that states it applies to individuals whose names were not already "widely disseminated".

    When I did a google search on this individual's name in early June I got 269,000 hits. I suggest anyone with this level of web search results has a "widely disseminated" name.

    I fully support applying BLPNAME to this individual's NEW NAME. The individual's NEW NAME would meet the not "widely disseminated" criteria of BLPNAME. The OLD NAME, on the other hand, has been so widely dessiminated that applying BLPNAME protection to it is completely pointless.

    I asked administrator David Eppstein to explain an instance where he revdel'd a comment I left on an article's talk page. Instead of answering he characterized my question as an instance of "spamming". The closest he got to an explanation was a comment that said "revdelled, although at least it only gave [the old] name."

    Yeah, but does the very widely disseminated old name meet the criteria for BLPNAME protection? I think only the barely disseminated new name merits protection. And I am not sure anyone could justify excising or revdeling an edit that referenced an RS article, merely because the RS mentioned the new name, if the new name was not included in article space.

    I started working on a draft of an article on the second most experienced officer who played a role in Floyd's death, User:Geo Swan/Tou Thao. That draft does not mention the individual who is changing their name. But some of the references that draft article would use do contain a single sentence with a passing mention to that individual's old name name. So I have the references saved, elsewhere.

    I do not think I should have to exercise this kind of caution over using perfectly respectable references, because the RS mentions a name an administrator thinks is subject to BLPNAME protection.

    I do my best to comply with all our project's explicit policies and guidelines. I think I do a pretty good job. I will do my best to comply with a consensus that followed a real discussion, that reaches a conclusion that is an interpretation of a wrinkle not explicitly stated in a policy or guideline.

    But I don't like being expected to comply with vague warnings that seem to be based on administrator's gut feelings, when they can't or won't back that gut feeling up with a link to a meaningful discussion.

    I'd like the opinions of contributors over:

    1. When, if ever, should BLPNAME be applied to widely disseminated names?
    2. Should BLPNAME be applied to very widely disseminated names, merely because the individual in question starts the legal process of changing their name?
    3. In this particular case, shouldn't BLPNAME protection be reserved for the barely disseminated NEW NAME?
    4. Can RS be used that contain passing mentions to a name we decided to protect as per BLPNAME, if we do not include that name in article space?
    5. Should I restore the references to User:Geo Swan/Tou Thao, even if they may contain a passing mention of a name that might be subject to BLPNAME protection?
    6. Should another adminstrator revert all the revdel's that inappropriately protected a name that wasn't really eligible for BLPNAME protection?

    Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. There have been at least half a dozen other administrators whose use of authority on articles and talk pages related to the killing struck me as based on gut feelings, not policy, which I didn't mention here, to keep this from growing any longer. Geo Swan (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    See earlier closed discussion of the same topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039 § Redirect links to <redacted>, which Geo Swan knows about because Geo Swan participated, and which was in agreement that removal of this information is appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Eppstein, the record does show you and I both weighed in, in a discussion, on June 14th. You may not believe me, but I did not remember this discussion, when I pinged you on June 21st. If I remembered it, I would have taken it into account in my initial comment here.

      I did a couple of searches of the WPANI archives, prior to leaving this comment, and that section did not come up, due to the redaction.

      Note: the June 14th discussion does not clarify whether you plan to continue to revdel edits where good faith contributors use RS when the RS contains a passing mention of someone you think merits protection. Geo Swan (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Generally speaking, if there's a question of whether or not the inclusion of personal information may lead to harm, and no firm consensus to include it anyway, then it is redactable. See WP:DONOHARM for guidance. That someone would argue otherwise (that we should publish everything and wait for it to be a problem) is a good indication that they should not edit BLPs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I recall, this content had been challenged and removed, requiring consensus to add back. As there were concerns about potential exposure to real life problems of someone not the subject of the article, revdeling seemed the best course. If consensus emerges to add it back then I will be happy to unrevdel. Or any other admin, as always, is free to revert my actions if they believe I've erred. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Please see the relevant discussion on my talk page at Special:permalink/963962842#Teachable moments. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are we creating articles on the officers involved which is pretty much against BLPCRIME? I don't care that they are getting additional scrutiny but these are not people that yet have the dozens of analyses of someone like Lee Harvey Oswald or Charles Mason in the annuls of history. This is why when it comes to these events the fewer articles on the actual crime (people involved) the better to avoid issues like if we have to worry about BLPNAME as much like this in the first place. As to that David Eppstein and others have done, I'm in full agreement to avoid naming any names when there have been known death threats made to these people as reported in RSes. Yes, we can't stop any reader from figuring it out themselves, but we should not be that vector for people to learn that bit of information. --Masem (t) 23:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're using a source for an a different matter, and it's a reliable source, and it happens to mention in the article's text the name of the individual, I don't think that's an issue, especially if it can't be avoided. As for including the name of the individual, looking at David Eppstein's link which has more information about this individual, and without further digging, I can hardly imagine an encyclopaedic purpose for inclusion of her name, but I can think of multiple for exclusion of her name. Wikipedia has greater responsibilities to BLPs than just trying to lawyer around specific wordings of policy pages (which, by the way, alone don't even necessarily reflect the intentions and consensus behind said policy). Unless there's an encyclopaedic purpose for inclusion I don't see why it should be included, especially if the individual has been receiving death threats due to their prior relationship with an involved officer. Even if such information is widely available, Wikipedia doesn't need to participate in, or aid in, encouraging that kind of conduct without good reason for content inclusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This complaint has no merit and approaches being disruptive. Part of GeoSwan’s argument relates to content, which does not get debated or decided at this board. As for his complaint against administrators and the actions they are taking, they are not acting arbitrarily or based on their own “gut feelings”; they are enforcing the result of an earlier discussion on this board and the consensus reached at the article's talk page. Which GeoSwan knows perfectly well, because as David Eppstein points out, GeoSwan took part in the ANI discussion, where he argued to include information about her even if we don’t name her. That viewpoint did not carry the day; as per that discussion we merely say that the officer’s wife has filed for divorce. There was also a talk page discussion a few weeks ago, see Talk:Derek Chauvin/Archive 1#Privacy issue, where GeoSwan again argued for inclusion of the name, again failed to win consensus, and was advised to drop it. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another more interesting question would be Should editors who use Wikipedia to right great wrongs by naming and shaming individual cogs in the wheel be indeffed?. Put me in the yes camp. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just last week in the thread DFO linked above on his talk page [65], EEng pointed out to Geo Swan that the "not widely disseminated" proviso of WP:BLPNAME reads in full "has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed". Despite acknowledging in the OP that the person change[d] their name because they had received death threats, i.e. "intentionally concealed", Geo Swan talks about the "widely disseminated" language but does not address at all the "intentionally concealed" language. To me, that's WP:IDHT and thus disruptive. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Plus, as I also pointed out back then, the new name may be one of this person's prior names, so noising the prior names about is damaging too. EEng 00:38, June 30, 2020
    • Jesus fuck, this again? I said all I need to say at Special:permalink/963962842#Teachable moments (that's a repeat of a link given by Deepfriedokra earlier in this thread). Geo Swan, at long last what's wrong with you? Stop wasting everyone's time with your preoccupation with this or you're going to end up like Neelix. EEng 00:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The person in question is trying to conceal their identity and their lawyers report that they and their family have been subjected to harassment and death threats. In my opinion, Geo Swan should receive an indefinite topic ban on any content relating to living people or recently deceased people if Geo Swan fails to drop the stick and continues to flog this hobby horse of theirs. In the spirit of full disclosure, I gave Geo Swan a somewhat narrower warning about this issue on June 16. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing of Empire AS

    Empire AS has been frequently violating WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO on articles such as Atif Aslam, Pachtaoge and probably others.

    Empire AS has competence issues for starters. He had enough warnings about copyvio[66][67][68] but he hasn't learned a thing. Having made 4 reverts in 24 hours (see WP:3RR) on Pachtaoge, he first edit warred to restore a blatant WP:LINKVIO[69][70][71] and now he is resorting to youtube and twitter trends for sourcing his WP:RGW-based statements.[72] शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    I added content to Atif Aslam, but you removed that due to unsourced. I reverted your edit and added references to that section. Similarly, Pachtaoge had a reliable source. Someone removed that and I reverted that edit. But again, you reverted my edit. I didn't want any edit-war. Therefore, I didn't revert your edit and added true informations again with reliable sources. But you reverted that again and even not saw the references. Everytime, you reverted my edits containing right informations from reliable citations. You have also been involved in edit-wars.[73] You have been warned from removing major content of articles.[74]. You have made 3 reverts on Pachtaoge in just 15 hours.[75][76][77]. You also made 2 reverts in Atif Aslam[78][79][80] and removed the entire portion of "Singing style, impact and recognition" from Atif Aslam that included reliable sources, which reveals that you don't use neutral point of view.[81] Same as, you removed a major content from Sonu Nigam.[82] Empire AS (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Not Following Policy with Results Box - War of 1812 article

    This is not an intractable incident. Please discuss on the article talk page or the respective policy page. Thank you. El_C 12:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A recent discussion and vote, proposed by Peacemaker67 and supported by myself and Ykraps was held to change the Results box of the War_of_1812. Because of the nature of the War of 1812, the results box had a list of various events and outcomes in it. The policy on the results box is clear, it says that you either have a statement like "American Victory" "British Victory" or "inconclusive". Otherwise, if there is disagreement, you link to the section in the article where the reader can read the detail, as opposed to including a list of items in the results box. That policy is here.

    • The wording of the policy is
    • "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note *can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The results box was changed to reflect the policy and to remove the list of statements and to link to the relevant section. It has now been reverted a number of times by User:Davide King, and once again, the results box includes a number of items, against suggested wikipedia policy. I've stopped reverting it not, in order to avoid an edit war. Could an admin please look at the page, and confirm this is policy? Thank you! Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't "policy", it is notes on the use of a template, and even within Milhist there are differences of opinion and ongoing discussion about the wording. The real issue here is failing to respect consensus and/or failing to use DR. This could be easily resolved with a neutrally-worded RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is that this is not consensus and that we should wait for this. Furthermore, I find it weird we are discussing this when the consensus is clear and thus Inconclusive should be the Result as that satisfies both the template's parameter policy and the consensus of historians (i.e. draw/stalemate). You want to push the view that there is a dispute among historians or no consensus when there indeed is consensus; and you want to give undue and unwarranted weight to the minority view that the result was anything other than a draw/stalemate.--Davide King (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, if you read the article, there are two viewpoints there. Not one. There is the majority viewpoint (mostly US Historians) that the war was a draw. There is the minority viewpoint (mostly Canadian and British historians) that the war was a win for Canada. If the article came to the conclusion it was a draw then the results box should reflect that. It doesn't. It says that there are different views on it. The results box can't just take one side, and ignore the other. That's why the parameter policy should be used and linked to the section. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondly, why wasn't peacemaker's proposal consensus? We discussed it for a month. Three of us agree, and there was one dissent. No one else commented. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is because there was a discussion about whether there even was a national bias in the first place and a request for comments is all Not support, so what are you even talking about? The whole thing you are basing it on for your proposal does not even have consensus in the first place! You were the only one to support that! Again, just because at the same no one else replied yet, it does not mean a mere 3–1 (which would be 3–2 with me) equals consensus, especially when it was not even "advertised" to get more users' participation.--Davide King (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, it’s a good thing this article has an infobox! —JBL (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Seriously, I can name you 22 US historians that say it was a draw. There's only three US authors that say it was a win for Canada. What is that? Coincidence?. Even look at the Wikipedia editors on here. The US editors argue for the draw theory, and the Canadians and non Americans tend to support the Canadian win theory. Of course there are different views, based on where you come from. Also,how can you justify excluding one viewpoint from the article, just because a lesser amount of people support it? Its still a valid viewpoint, supported by respected Historians. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    For the watchlist

    Per this report, Stefan Molyneux, Richard B. Spencer and David Duke have been banned from YouTube, and that typically leads to a flurry of non-neutral edits to a BLP. Guy (help!) 09:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I know this is WP:NOTFORUM, but I can't restrain myself. I must say, it's about time. Twitter, you're on notice when even YouTube bans someone. Get your act together. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 09:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All those articles are already sprotected (the first two by yours truly), so there's that. But I am prepared to temporarily upgrade to ECP, if the need arises. El_C 12:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, yup. And I just sprotected the talk page of Stefan Molyneux for a couple of days due to egregious trolling. Guy (help!) 20:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, I thought I had already indef sprotected Stefan Molyneux like I did with Richard B. Spencer. I suppose I can't invoke AP2 with him, though — his Canadian-ness compels me! El_C 21:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On closer look, it is under AP2 — Canadian-ness notwithstanding. I doubt that would fly if he was British, though. El_C 21:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SYNTH at River Vale, New Jersey

    A series of edits to the article for River Vale, New Jersey by User:201blm make a series of claims about the township's mayor. Previous versions were missing sources, but even with sources, the edits constitute clear violation of WP:SYNTH policy as an effort to claim that mayor Glen Jasionowski should have issued a statement about Black Lives Matter. The sourcing is predicated on the facts that 1) the community is largely white, 2) that he has taken a stance on a mascot issue at the local high school; and 3) that there were racist incidents at the high school several years ago, which are meant to show that the mayor should have made a statement about Black Lives Matter, but has not. All of these things may well be (and are) true and they all may have sources, but as I see it, the conclusion does not follow from the predicates and this makes all of this a rather blatant WP:SYNTH violation. See this edit, this second reinsertion and the latest version with some minor tweaks. Alansohn (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute, but I removed it. Someone not doing something isn't encyclopaedic. Plus the stuff about the schools should be on the school's article, of which there is one. Lastly it fails WP:LEAD. Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like pretty clear WP:SYNTH to me. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Marsha P Johnson vandalism

    Marsha P. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Escalating since this page is featured in a Google doodle today. Marsha P Johnson’s page is being repeatedly vandalised with NSFL images. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/965314802 Already semi protected. Sleeper vandal blocked. Do we want ECP? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Deepfriedokra, where's the fun in that? I love a game of whack-a-mole! Imagine, though, blowing an autoconfirmed sleeper on something that lame. Guy (help!) 17:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Two blown and now ECP by General Notability. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It set a personal best by no fewer than four individuals contacting me in RL to ask for its removal, and I still didn't get there in time Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse by IPs

    A group of similar IPs has posted messages in talk-pages of articles in which I have contributed or discussed (possible WP:HOUNDING), which included derogatory content and private information about me. Part of the messages have therefore been oversighted.--WEBDuB (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop lying nothing is written derogatory and private information. Just read it. Why are you lying to the administrators? They should ban you for lying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.73.127 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @WEBDuB: There are oversighted revisions, though there's no way now to tell why they were oversighted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Competence

    190.86.109.35 doesn't understand the material they're editing (changing a moderate earthquake to a very large earthquake). Materialscientist attempted to block this person several weeks ago, but I was blocked inadvertently for a month. Dawnseeker2000 18:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Spshu undoing my edits

    So Spshu has been reverting my edits on WLAJ, WILX-TV and WLNS-TV without explaining everything; they are disruptive, and even edit warred on other articles. Basically they should be blocked indefinitely for being not here to clear an encyclopedia. 107.77.189.39 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say the reversions generally did have justifications provided (where an identical reversion occurs to a prior one, and there was an initial reason provided, it can usually be assumed to have the same explanation). Their participation on WLAJ (and yours) appears to be a slow-speed edit war. In all three cases both of you should have taken it to the Talk Page to hash things out. They're inactive on WILX-TV in most of a month. I don't find either editors' behaviour formally sanctionable from the above but would normally suggest a trout to both (I see that has caused issue on Spshu's TP, however). Instead please both consider this a requirement to discuss each instance rather than recommence a slow-speed insert/revert. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it curious that the reporting IP had knowledge of conversations on the talk page of an indefinitely-blocked user (diff). A boomerang may be more useful here than a trout. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This feels a little bit like blocked user CentralTime301, who was active in the same areas and clashed with Spshu on more than one occasion. I tried to reach out to them back in January, to no avail. I'll be really dissapointed if they're still at this, six months on. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 19:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    CT301 is globally locked from editing. 107.77.189.39 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    IP addresses are editing user talk pages, giving false warnings, and edit warring

    IP addresses 107.77.189.13 and 107.77.189.39 has been removing "nonsense" from user talk pages that they are not allowed to edit – 107.77.189.39 even falsely warned me on my talk page for "deleting or editing legitimate comments". I also think that they may be related IPs as they share a similar editing pattern.

    107.77.189.39 was also engaged in an edit war with User:Spshu, which the IP address then reported Spshu for, as can be seen in these diffs. User:Thatoneweirdwikier | Conversations and Contributions 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Attacks and aggression

    WARNED
    I have issued a DS alert for BLP and warned Indrian that further edit-warring over deadnames will lead to a block and potentially a ban. Guy (help!) 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I would like to report issues with User:Indrian. I initially planned on creating this page after our Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rebecca_Heineman DRN case had finished; however, I've decided to post it now so that it doesn't appear to be retaliation in the event the DRN doesn't turn out in my favor.

    Indrian has been reverting edits regarding Rebecca Heineman's deadname for approximately six years now. While googling around, I noticed what I considered an excessive amount of deadnaming on her article, and decided to remove it. While looking at the article's history, I noticed several people had attempted to do the same over the years, with all of them quickly reverted by Indrian. Fearing an edit war, I left this message on the talk page, pinging Indrian, and attempting to explain my edit in a way they might understand. After posting, I reached out to several people in real life and online to get their thoughts, and ended up making this edit, in an attempt to avoid an "us vs. them" mentality, as advised by a fediverse user. Several hours later, Indrian left this response, and reverted my changes. This message by Indrian accuses me of censorship, and suggests Rebecca edit her page if she wishes, despite her being unable to do so because of a lack of NPOV. Additionally, Indrian references the book 1984 at the end of the response. These are running themes with this page and Indrian, as they have accused another user on the talk page of pushing personal agendas and censorship. In a somewhat blunt response to Indrian, I opened the previously-mentioned DRN, as it seemed clear to me we could not come to a resolution on our own.

    Throughout the rest of the posts on the talk page, Indrian has continued to claim I am pushing a personal agenda of censorship, and has ridiculed me for opening a DRN request, which I believe is in violation of WP:AGF. Later in the thread, I somewhat-jokingly refer to Indrian as "Mr. Ministry of Truth", calling back to their previous reference to 1984. Indrian's most recent response (as of right now) claims this is a personal attack, which I find quite ridiculous.

    I believe this behavior of aggression, accusations, ridicule, and attacks is awful, and should not be allowed on Wikipedia, especially as Indrian has been doing this for at least six years now, beginning with their response to User:Girlsimulation on Talk:Rebecca_Heineman. This is no longer about the deadnaming of Rebecca, but Indrian's behavior and aggression. I am tired, and I am frustrated. I attempted to enter this discussion with an open mind and assumption of good faith, and in return I have been bullied and attacked by someone who sees everything as a grand Orwellian conspiracy by trans people. 3nk1namshub (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, what a mean-spirited personal attack! We are having a productive discussion at DRN regarding the current situation. I stand my my talk page response to User:Girlsimulation, which merely lays out policy as I interpret it. I also stand by my assertion that attempting to erase historical context is Orwellian. I see no grand conspiracy therein. I do see individual members of a community with no grand design or larger intent being overzealous in stamping out a practice that they rightly see as hateful when applied to judgement on self-identification choices but on Wikipedia is merely reporting biographical data necessary for historical context in accordance with current Wikipedia policy on alternate names and pronoun usage. To assert a privilege to erase history is, sadly, an invitation to practice an ugly form of bigotry just as insidious as trying to deny a person the right to self-identify on the gender spectrum. I have been on Wikipedia since 2004 and been involved in dozens of heated discussions on articles in that time. This is the first time I have been dragged in here. How very interesting. Bullying and attempting to silence dissent indeed! Indrian (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is not about our disagreement, but about your aggression and attacks. Please do not attempt to spin this as anything else, thank you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh there is really no need to spin anything. You have done perfectly fine laying out the obvious connections here without my help! Indrian (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indrian, you acknowledge that the birth name/deadname is mentioned excessively in the article and yet you revert every effort by any editor to reduce this excessive use of that name. I see that an IP tried in January to eliminate only two of the excessive mentions, and you reverted. So, due to your zeal, the article has had an ugly problem for six years. I recommend that you back down. If you won't, perhaps we ought to consider a topic ban for you from transgender people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. The January edit was actually quite appropriate and I knee-jerked it due to years of frustration putting up with far more militant attempts. I am all for going back to that version of the article. Indrian (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indrian, I do not think that you can be trusted to exercise good judgment on that article since you haven't for six years, and are being extremely aggressive when criticized legitimately. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have returned the naming situation to the state it was in as of Janaury 2020. It appears to me that it now has a good balance between providing proper historical context and respecting the right of self-identification. Indrian (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was still excessive so I have reduced it further. You should have waited until this discussion ended. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a DRN related to the content dispute. It was closed without resolution. The ANI was about my alleged aggression, not the content. Indrian (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indrian, do not keep trying to ram those excessive mentions back into the article without consensus. In my opinion, you are skating on thin ice. Let's hear what other editors think. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am okay with hearing what other editors think. I think it would be a good idea, however, if I stop talking about the Ministry of Truth and you and others stop with the equally charged deadnaming accusations. Providing proper attribution for her early work is not the same thing as trying to call out a prior name in an attempt to dredge up painful memories or question the legitimacy of a self-identification choice. Indrian (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This case has been closed at DRN. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Retaliatory AFD nominations

    After arguing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamie Paul that my "interpretation" of WP:NPOL is incorrect, an editor tried to retaliate against my position by pointedly nominating several completely unrelated articles that I recently created about the annual iterations of a notable film award ceremony whose articles have actually been long overdue. Obviously film awards and political candidates have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and nominating stuff for deletion solely because you disagree with the creator of it on a completely unrelated matter is at the very least a WP:POINT violation and potentially even approaches harassment, but as a directly involved party it would be obviously inappropriate for me to either close the revenge nominations or sanction the editor myself.

    The discussions in question are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8th Jutra Awards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9th Jutra Awards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th Jutra Awards and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11th Jutra Awards — and both our article about the overall Prix Iris (name changed in 2016, so don't get confused by the Jutra-vs-Iris distinction) and the fact that every year's ceremony has an article on the French Wikipedia as well, plainly demonstrate their notability.

    Accordingly, I just wanted to ask if somebody could take a look at this situation, and potentially at least speedy close the revenge nominations if you consider that appropriate. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I stand by my comments and I will not recant them. Bearcat has been bludgeoning the AfD process on politician articles for years now, insisting that his interpretation of that guideline is the only correct one and that GNG is completely irrelevant, and filibustering anyone who disagrees. I apologize for the pointy nominations - that was petty and wrong. I accept the inevitable block - I recognize that I deserve it for my comments and pointy nominations. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I stand by everything I've said. I do not have any "personal interpretation" of NPOL that differs one iota from standing sitewide consensus about how NPOL works.
    As I've said before, every candidate in every election everywhere always gets some campaign coverage — so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would be meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to pass it at all anymore. Politicians are one of those groups of people who are highly prone to attempting to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform to try to promote their candidacies by posting campaign brochures here — but that's not our mandate or our role, so we have an established consensus that the key to getting a politician into Wikipedia on political grounds per se normally requires holding office and not just running for it. So political candidates don't just need to show the existence of some campaign coverage to exempt themselves from NPOL, precisely because every candidate would always be NPOL-exempt if NPOL worked that way — rather, candidates need to show that they escape WP:BLP1E by having coverage in more than just that context alone, and/or a reason why their candidacy would somehow pass the ten year test for enduring significance, before they get exempted from NPOL.
    And none of this is just my own personal opinion: all of it is established Wikipedia consensus, supported and upheld by literally thousands of past AFDs on politicians, many of which I did not even participate in at all. And, in fact, I used to also disagree with the established consensus, and supported articles about unelected candidates — I came around to agreeing with the consensus only after witnessing, with my own eyes, the effects that my former position actually had on the quality and reliability of Wikipedia, because articles about unelected candidates almost always devolve into advertorialized junk.
    But regardless of whether you agree with me on a politician or not, retaliatory nominations against topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with the notability standards for politicians is simply inappropriate. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the AfDs were inappropriate - I was wrong to do that, and I've attempted to speedy close them. However, since you're insisting on relitigating NPOL here, I'm going to post the same thing I just posted in the Madison Cawthorn AfD:
    Madison Cawthorn AfD comment
    • Comment - this is the full text of the WP:NPOL guideline:
      The following are presumed to be notable:
      * Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
      * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
      Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.
    • Nowhere in here does it say that political candidates are required to meet NPOL. Nowhere in here does it say there is some extra special notability requirement above and beyond the GNG when determining whether coverage is sufficient to establish notability. Nowhere in here does it say that "sustained international" coverage is required. Nowhere in here does it say that the subject must still be of sustained public interest in 10 years.[a] And certainly nowhere does it say that the candidates must achieve Christine O'Donnell levels of coverage. NPOL is about categories of politicians presumed to be notable even if they don't meet GNG. It's not some extra hurdle that's required; it's an extra route to notability for politicians who fail GNG. If an editor repeatedly insists that their position on NPOL is the "community consensus", even when the actual text of the SNG contradicts them repeatedly, the onus is on them to prove it, not just repeat it over and over and over again.

    Notes

    1. ^ Actually, they often are to those who study American politics - that's a reason in itself. The general public doesn't care about all the tens of thousands of species of insects - many are only of interest to specialists. That doesn't mean we delete those articles.
    You don't get to just insist that your interpretation is the "correct one" when the text of the guideline flatly contradicts it. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 02:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=965393405"